Progressives in Virginia In Position to Overrule Parental Objections to Invasive Child Gender Dysphoria Treatment
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
87 responses to “Progressives in Virginia In Position to Overrule Parental Objections to Invasive Child Gender Dysphoria Treatment”
-
The factor that you keep skipping over is that a large majority of parents will already know about their trans children before the school does. It is likely the rare instance that a parent is not aware and in those cases, there are very likely good reasons (that involves very real risk to the child’s welfare). I have no problem with a school being very judicious about what it shares with those particular parents…. I certainly don’t think legislators in Richmond or the Governor should be making that call unilaterally.
-
I certainly don’t think legislators in Richmond or the Governor should be making that call unilaterally.
Is a governor of a state empowered to enforce state laws?
Code of Virginia, § 1-240.1. Rights of parents. A parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child.
-
I certainly don’t think legislators in Richmond or the Governor should be making that call unilaterally.
Is a governor of a state empowered to enforce state laws? Of course he is:
Virginia State Constitution, Article V- Executive, Section 7 – Executive and Administrative Powers. “The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
And here is the law:
Code of Virginia, § 1-240.1. Rights of parents. A parent has a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child.
Also, by definition, the General Assembly does act “unilaterally” when it passes legislation.
-
That seems pretty clear to me. The law requires that parents have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to make decisions concerning the … care of the parent’s child.
Bypassing notification of the parents while providing care for gender dysphoria seems to be an agent of the state (teacher or other school employee) preventing the parental exercise of a fundamental right.
-
Sorry, but in the case where a parent does not even know their child’s sexual identity, the school should have the ability to make a judgement call. If you can’t understand that, there is really nothing else to discuss.
-
Your right about one thing you have nothing to offer to a sane conversation.
-
“A parent does not even know their child’s sexual identity”.
That is a wild and utterly self-serving progressive assumption. How the hell do you know? I really don’t care what you assume. It is completely irrelevant.
The problem is with governance – the state.
Schools have been directed by two consecutive progressive administrations to make the same assumption and act, or in this case not act, on it. To not tell the child’s parents what is going on with their child in school – at the child’s request – because they assume tha the parents are abusive. How the hell do they know?
Seriously – at the child’s request? An 8 year old girl?
I would take it seriously were I her counselor, but I would immediately call CPS to investigate.
Your fellow believers want them to skip the philosophically and strategically inconvenient step of having CPS investigate whether there is actually abuse in play.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. So should all of your progressive true believers.
You assume what you want to get the outcome you desire.
Removing parents, who are likely to be more conservative than you when it comes to their kids, from the process of raising them is a strategic progressive goal.
Mao had the same goal. He beat you to it. Millions died in pursuit of that goal.
The current Chinese dictator has taken up the cause.
He has taken the children of the Muslim Uighurs away from their parents and is having the state raise them. So they won’t hold Muslim beliefs when they get older.
Tell me, and be specific, how this is different. Take all of the time you need.
Then don’t answer the question. Which is the norm.
-
“Your fellow believers want them to skip the philosophically and strategically inconvenient step of having CPS investigate whether there is actually abuse in play.”
That is not true. It is the Conservatives who wish to force the teacher to not only return the child to the parents but also place the child at greater risk by informing the parents of the child’s trans orientation.
-
So, I see you did not answer my question. Which, as I said, is the norm. Thanks for conforming.
-
What this question?:
““A parent does not even know their child’s sexual identity”.
That is a wild and utterly self-serving progressive assumption. How the hell do you know?”
If the parent already know about their child’s sexual identity, why the Conservative demand that they be informed if the child informs the school? They already know. So there is no need to tell them what they already know and if they don’t there is probably good reason.
-
-
No Conservative I know wants to see children returned to abusive parents.
But please remember that choosing not to rear a child in exact accordance with “progressive” beliefs is not the same thing as child abuse.
-
Recap: Sherlock contends that teachers and schools do not want to call CPS if they suspect abuse (something he said would be justified in his mind if the child is keeping their sexual identity a secret from their parents (I quote):
“To not tell the child’s parents what is going on with their child in school – at the child’s request – because they assume tha the parents are abusive. How the hell do they know?
Seriously – at the child’s request? An 8 year old girl?
I would take it seriously were I her counselor, but I would immediately call CPS to investigate.”
So here is the issue in a nutshell. Sherlock would deem this child to be at such risk of abuse that he would immediately call CPS. I pointed out that what Conservatives (including Youngkin) want is to inform the parents of the child’s sexual identity secret and hand the child back to the parents. I have seen no Conservative (aside from Sherlock) call for bringing in CPS in this scenario… have you…? I honestly have no problem with that solution for teachers… call CPS and let them deal with it… seems a bit cold but seeing as how Conservatives have vilified teachers and school counselors over this issue, it may be the only path forward… but that is moot because this is not the “solution” Conservatives seek.
-
Teachers do not make the call to Child Protective Services. A teacher who observes abuse or suspects abuse will usually go to a guidance director or counselor. A statement is taken. Guidance director and principal make that call to CPS.
-
OK. Again, fully appropriate. You are saying , I believe, that Youngkin should require that the school must turn any case of child not informing parents of their sexual identity (or orientation?) over to CPS and they have then met their responsibility?
-
Here is what I am saying:
1. The school should inform parents of minors struggling with sexual identity. Guidance counselors should disclose this immediately. Let the parents know. The kid is a minor and the parent is the major.
2. The school should inform parents if a minor is attempting to legally and surgically alter their sexual orientation.
3. Upon reaching the age of 18 the power to make these decisions is assumed by the former minor. No interference from school or parents.
4. If school staff members suspect or have evidence of abuse of a minor who is abused by their parents/guardians should report this to guidance counselors, guidance director, principal or law enforcement. Including the subject matter we are speaking on. -
According to Sherlock, just the fact that the child has not communicated their sexual identity to their parents (or guardian) is enough just cause for him to immediately call CPS. It looks like you may disagree with him but if that is the case, then there is no onus for the school to notify the parents because it should be turned over to CPS. I have been told that no Conservative believes that a child who the school suspects is at risk of abuse (which is why CPS is being called) should be turned over to those parents. Do you still believe there is an onus on the school to inform those parents of the child’s sexual identity or should that decision be left to others (like CPS or a licensed professional)?
-
Yes the schools should inform parents about a child’s sexual identity status if the child is attempting to initiate some form of change.
Should the school become aware that sexual identity status changes are posing a risk such as suicide or abuse from parents then CPS should be notified as well.
-
That is pretty amazing that Conservatives believe that CPS is warranted because of risk of child abuse but still you feel the school should out the child to those same guardians thereby increasing the risk of abuse. You care so much about so-called parental rights to know about a child’s sexual identity that you would increase the risk of domestic child abuse to fulfill it. Really amazing.
-
No Eric. If a child as at risk CPS should be notified. You ask too much of schools. It is a burden that schools are not built for.
Glad you were amazed. I can do the pull my finger trick too.
-
If Johnny is wearing a dress to school, they should just let them wear a dress, maintain discipline (i.e., make sure they aren’t bullied for it) and move on to teaching math. If Johnny asks that they not tell their parents about their dress , then a red flag should go up and it should be escalated in the district to counselors and administrators. They should then decide the best course of action. I have no doubt the first suggestion would be to bring their parents to the table to discuss the issue (or it should be). Based on Johnny’s reaction, the call to refer to CPS would be made. In any case, it should not be “well, we have to notify your parents first… our hands are tied”. This is clearly an at risk student (which is probably why Sherlock said he would call CPS immediately).
Counseling beyond what I outlined above should be left to medical professionals (who are also trained to spot abuse risks and are better equipped to manage parental involvement issues).
As to the burden to the school, the percentage of students who identify as trans is really very small and the percentage whose parents are not aware of that identity is smaller still. What I outlined above (and which is consistent with the current recommended guidance) would not be a burden to the schools.
As to your finger trick, when you misfire do you just smile and say, “SBD…😏”…?
-
I would be frosted blue if I found out the school had not provided me with this kind of crucial information first before anyone else. Your line of thinking confirms why I am completely divorced from public education.
-
So, again, the risk of abuse is so that Sherlock would call in CPS and your thing is to first notify the potential abusers. Maybe the divorce is for the best.
-
-
-
-
That is pretty amazing that Conservatives believe that CPS is warranted because of risk of child abuse but still you feel the school should out the child to those same guardians thereby increasing the risk of abuse. You care so much about so-called parental rights to know about a child’s sexual identity that you would increase the risk of domestic child abuse to fulfill it. Really amazing.
-
Thank you for that clarification.
-
I have seen no Conservative (aside from Sherlock) call for bringing in CPS in this scenario… have you…?
Yes. This morning when I looked in the mirror, for instance. I am quite conservative when it comes to parental rights. But it is also a “conservative” tenet that child abuse not be tolerated. I suspect that is a near-universal tenet regardless of one’s political persuasion.
We already have legal procedures in place for school officials to follow when they suspect a parent is abusive. And, if Youngkin’s new policy does not include separate/additional procedures to be followed when child abuse is suspected, it needs to.
-
So, what you are saying is that Youngkin’s policy should state that if the child asks that their sexual orientation be kept confidential that the case should be turned over to CPS. That is what Sherlock said. I would prefer the issue of parental notification or CPS involvement be left to the school or it’s administration to decide but if the legislature must make this call for schools, assuming the worse and handing it over to CPS is the second best solution, imo. I have not seen any other Conservative make that suggestion – certainly not publicly.
-
No, that is not precisely what I am saying. Only cases in which abuse is suspected should be turned over to CPS. Otherwise, parents have a fundamental right to be involved in what is going on with their children – whether in or out of school.
-
Sherlock stated that the simple fact that the child has not told their parents of the sexual identity is just cause for involving CPS. In fact, he chastised Liberals for supposedly not doing so in that case. Now if I am not getting my BR contributors confused, I believe he has some experience in this area. Which one of you is right and if you guys can’t come to an agreement, what makes you think the legislature is better equipped to dictate a “one-size fits all” solution? (remember when “one-size fits all” was a Conservative anathema here on BR)… 🤷♂️
-
No, that is not precisely what I am saying. Only cases in which abuse is suspected should be turned over to CPS. Otherwise, parents have a fundamental right to be involved in what is going on with their children – whether in or out of school.
-
The ONLY person who should be able to provide counseling to a child without the parents’ detailed understanding is a licensed child psychologist / psychiatrist. That counseling should be done with the parents’ understanding that the only information provided to the parents from the counseling session is in cases where the child wants to hurt themselves or others.
So, if the school refers the child to a licensed clinical psychologist (with the parents’ approval) and the clinical psychologist sets the ground rules that only in cases of self-harm or harm to others will the parents be notified of what is discussed in the counseling session – fine.
-
So not what Sherlock said should happen in the case of the child not informing their parents of their sexual identity – he said call CPS.
But, notice, you want the parents or guardians to be informed first, approve of a referral to a licensed professional and then information can be kept in confidence – like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. In my opinion, the school really should not be actively “counselling” trans students on sexual identity issues but should be referring the student as necessary. Any doctor can then decide the best method for parental or guardian involvement and can trump the school as appropriate. CPS involvement can come from the licensed professional as well if appropriate. They are way more experienced at identifying and managing risks to their patients than anyone else (including abuse risks), imo.
-
So, what you are saying is that Youngkin’s policy should state that if the child asks that their sexual orientation be kept confidential that the case should be turned over to CPS. That is what Sherlock said. I would prefer the issue of parental notification or CPS involvement be left to the school or it’s administration to decide but if the legislature must make this call for schools, assuming the worse and handing it over to CPS is the second best solution, imo. I have not seen any other Conservative make that suggestion – certainly not publicly.
-
I concur with your assessment that child abuse is not tolerated regardless of your political persuasion.
I recently listened to a book where the author participated with foundations to foil human trafficking. His axiom was that if you’re okay with selling drugs, you’re probably okay with gun running, and if you’re okay with gun running, you’re probably okay with selling human’s into sexual slavery child and older. At that point you’ll do anything that can turn you a substantial profit.
The point being that people who contributed to that foundation and it’s work were from all political persuasions.
-
I concur with your assessment that child abuse is not tolerated regardless of your political persuasion.
I recently listened to a book where the author participated with foundations to foil human trafficking. His axiom was that if you’re okay with selling drugs, you’re probably okay with gun running, and if you’re okay with gun running, you’re probably okay with selling human’s into sexual slavery child and older. At that point you’ll do anything that can turn you a substantial profit.
The point being that people who contributed to that foundation and it’s work were from all political persuasions.
-
” …. but also place the child at greater risk by informing the parents of the child’s trans orientation.”
And there we have it – the child is not at risk when confiding in the government but is at risk if the parents know.
Government > parents.
It’s the Marxist way.
-
So, to the Conservative mind, the school has no role in protecting students from domestic abuse… the Neo-fascist way…
-
What is CPS looking for? It is very common for parents that behave perfectly normal right up until their kid comes out, and that’s when the abuse starts in reaction. Hell, even parents who are just abusive in general can clean up their acts to fool CPS. Are you okay with random check-ins? The child getting therapy that will help them, and not some conversion therapy garbage? Routine interviews with the child? Or are you going to bemoan parental rights some more?
You’re the calling the risks “playing the suicide card” with a sneer. You’re acting like this proposal wouldn’t guarantee abuse. And, gutless coward that you are, still won’t answer me when I ask what we do with transgender adults who needed medical intervention as teens and are now stuck in bodies they didn’t desire. I told you what we should do with kids who need to detransition (medical treatment where possible, therapy, and ensure it is covered by insurance/medicare), but you can’t do the same because we know this isn’t about helping kids.
-
That is the first time I have ever been called a gutless coward. I’ll consider the source and let it pass.
Detransition – ensure what is covered by insurance? Getting their lives back? They are sterile. The doctors don’t get a do over. Is that your version of thoughts and prayers?
You ask “what we do with transgender adults who needed medical intervention as teens and are now stuck in bodies they didn’t desire.” Interesting question. Never heard that one before.
It is a hypothetical that does not stand up to medical reality. You should ask Kaitlin Jenner and any of the tens of thousands of adults who transitioned as adults.
Get a new question.
Here is one. Would you gladly turn your own child over to the state if it wanted to sterilize him or her and you didn’t?
-
1. Surgery can undo some of medical transition. In trans women, mastectomy, for example. I think insurance providers should cover for these surgeries, and failing that medicare as a fallback.
Cute feigning of ignorance. But hey, you finally answered. Puberty does things that require surgery to rectify, and some things that are limited. Broad/narrow shoulders, height, changes to voice, all are more easily handled by skipping the wrong puberty. Especially important in light of sporting organizations setting up rules around trans competition. If a trans girl goes through tanner stage 2 of male puberty, they cannot compete.
Your question is a fun trick, but no dice. Context is critical. Is the state plucking my kid off the street to sterilize them Tuskegee-style? Or is it the result of a process that only came after some time of discussion and thought by the child with a trained professional? Because personally I’d opt to be open with my child so they feel comfortable sharing that with me. No state involved!
-
So no, you would not want the state to intervene. Thank you.
-
Rosie, you’re relatively new to the blog, so I’ll cut you some slack. The rule here is: no ad hominem attacks. Commenters continually test the limits of my tolerance, but calling a contributor a “gutless coward” is unacceptable.
-
He literally compared us to Mao. Tit for tat.
-
You implied that he compared you to Mao as he was explaining how Mao took parents out of the picture in China. You need to thicken up your skin and read carefully.
-
she inferred, he implied.
-
“The rule here is: no ad hominem attacks.”
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂. My lord that is rich, JAB…!!
-
I missed a few of your incisive points. Article was about invasive therapy, not mental health care. Go read it again.
Parents can fool CPS? That’s an argument now? Are you getting near the end of your list? Routine interviews with the child? But you just told us parents can fool CPS.
Mock suicide -prevention? I think I -praised the Trevor Project’s Model District Policy on Suicide Prevention and recommended it to School Divisions for consideration. I’ll go back and check.
If there are any other questions I can help you with, let me know.
P.s. Calling a man you have met a coward is quite a leap for a man who hides behind the screen name “Rosie”.
.
-
Bemoan (v) -(1) to express deep grief or distress over, (2) to regard with displeasure, disapproval, or regret.
It is you and your cohorts who are bemoaning parental rights.
-
Bemoan (v) -(1) to express deep grief or distress over, (2) to regard with displeasure, disapproval, or regret.
It is you and your cohorts who are bemoaning parental rights. Mr. Sherlock supports parental rights.
They’re just upset that corporal punishment was made illegal.
If the parents can hide from the school then the school can hide from the parents. Turnabout is fair play among equal caregivers.
-
Turnabout is fair play among equal caregivers.
No, it is not. In fact, parents and the schools are not even equal caregivers.
Legally, parents have far more rights than the schools. The schools are the state. I have seen you argue that the state should have no say in a person’s medical decisions. Are you now saying they should be involved?
No. I don’t ‘understand’ that, and I am fundamentally opposed to school officials being given the power to make such judgements. As others have pointed out, if school officials think a child is in danger from their parent(s), it is their legal obligation to notify Social Services. Social Services is the correct agency to investigate and determine whether the perceived danger is real.
Apart from that notification, no school official should ever be granted the power to unilaterally make such judgements. Until a child’s parent is determined to be a danger, and that parent has, after due process, had his/her parental rights legally revoked, the code section I referenced in my initial response to you applies.
-
Maybe I should have been clearer so as to not let you spin this to something I did not say. The school in these scenarios (i.e., where a student has opted to not share their sexual orientation with their parent or guardian) should be able to make a judgement call on wether the parents need to be informed of the student’s orientation. I am saying nothing more. Sherlock says he would call CPS immediately in this scenario… I have stated that I am OK with that if the legislature must make this call for them (even though it might not be the best outcome for the student) but most Conservatives have not suggested this… instead they say schools must tell the parents… period…
I’ll go into a larger breakdown later, but the premise that parents are not to be told by default is wrong and you’ve been told this ad nauseam and are ignoring it.
School staff disclose the student’s status to whomever the child permits them to.
-
“School staff disclose the student’s status to whomever the child permits them to.”
I know that. That is a problem. We are taking about minors. The majors (parents) rights are upheld by state law. Model Policies is yet again not in compliance.
-
You write “whomever the child permits them to” in bold. Congratulations. You and I agree wholeheartedly on a key point.
-
Great! Glad we agree that parents can only be notified if the child grants permission.
So, expected that to take a bit more time. Hmmm, know any good BBQ recipes for labor day?
-
No, Rosie, I totally disagree with the philosophy, but agree that is state policy.
-
It may be the philosophy of the state’s educrats but is not state policy as defined by state law.
-
-
-
-
In your “larger breakdown later”, I encourage you to respond to my extended reply to Eric above. The world awaits.
At a ceremony on Tuesday, Gov. Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) signed a revolutionary school voucher legislation into law. The bill, HB 2853, gives all Arizona families access to a universal voucher system — the first in the country.
It specifically empowers parents by giving them the ability to reroute public education revenue and use it for private school tuition and other education costs.
Above is the solution to the public school problem
-
I hope it works. I will follow this story.
-
It will not be perfect. It will take time to implement. There will be some failures along with successes. However, it is certainly an obvious attempt at a viable solution. Let’s get back to public education not public schools.
-
-
Have you ever read any of Captain Sherlock’s pieces on what happens at nursing homes when private equity firms buy them?
Private schools are not immune.
-
Nothing involving man is perfect, and thus the possibility of corruption and perversion cannot be ruled out.
-
That’s obvious. Mar-a-Lago is proof.
-
as is Hunter’s notebook.
-
-
-
So a kid who is 6 can decide it wants to take all kinds of hormone altering drugs because schools say so. But can’t buy cigarettes or beer. Yup all this sure makes sense to dumbocrats.
-
I heard the surgeries are an excuse to harvest their organs to McDonald’s for McRib meat! Just take my word for it.
-
In all seriousness, do you think a six-year-old child should be permitted to decide for him/herself to start taking puberty-blocking drugs?
And, if not six years old, at what age do you think a minor should have full personal control over such a decision?
-
How many 6 year olds have you heard on going through transitions without any parental involvement? I know of no cases but I must admit I am not as obsessed as Conservatives over the transexual student topic.
-
No one that I know of. But then again, I did not bring up the subject of six-year-olds. I asked someone a question.
-
You did not bring it up but you certainly jumped into the fray to argue the point.
-
-
-
Children do not start puberty-blockers until around eight…for precocious puberty. Which nobody bats at an eye at and Sherlock isn’t even aware of since he thinks these drugs aren’t approved for anything. Hormone Replacement Therapy doesn’t occur until they are teenagers. Surgery is typically reserved until 18 or in rare, urgent cases where the dysphoria is greatly impacting the student or otherwise putting them at risk.
No, I don’t think a child should making the decision alone. I have gone on the record many times that trans children should see professional help to sort out their issues. Maybe they are transgender and need social transition. Maybe they need medical transition. Maybe they aren’t transgender. The goal is to produce happy children who grow up to be happy, functional adults. If your goal is to prevent children from being transgender, then you are not interested in the welfare of the child and just trying to play gatekeeper in the hopes of reducing the number of icky trans people who make you uncomfortable.
-
And for the record, Iwant parents to be involved. But if the parents have a goal of “my kid is not transgender no matter what anyone says, even my own child” then they still have to sign off on medical transition, but they shouldn’t be surprised when they’re out of the loop for social transition.
-
Do they start them at 8 years old without parental consent?
By the way, I have my personal opinions regarding “trans people” (as you call them), but I am libertarian enough to not concern myself with other people’s beliefs and actions unless they infringe on some else’s rights. I don’t care how many people are, or consider themselves, “trans”. They are people first and I treat them as such unless they go out of their way to indicate I should not.
However, I am adamant where minor children are concerned, that no kind of medical treatment or surgery should be performed without parental consent – with my aforementioned caveat regarding abusive parents who have had their parental right legally limited or revoked following due process.
Also, for certain personal decisions, I think 16 is a reasonable age for not requiring parental consent. Elective surgery, however, is not one of those things.
-
How do you feel about faith healer parents who refuse medical treatment for their sick children. What is the Libertarian mindset there…??
-
-
-
Where’s he going to get ’em? Using his AMEX Platinum card on Amazon?
If the kid has hormone replacement drugs, then I’d say a doctor has usurped the teacher’s responsibility to say anything to anyone.
What’s the difference between a vitamin and a hormone? You can make a vitamin.
You jump to the conclusion that “They’d rather go to court. And cut out both parents and guardians.” . You then proceed on a pejorative judgemental rant repeatedly asserting that will inevitably happen. You do it all without citing anyone who actually has advocated that course.
Congrats Admiral, you have once again jumped the shark. Galileo would recognize your MO from the inquisition.
-
I extend you a personal invitation to reply to my response to Eric above. I am tingly with anticipation.
-
Sorry, you’ll have to go take care of your tingles yourself.
You started with a proposition on parental rights that most would agree with then launched off into la la land as I noted above.
Congrats Admiral on screwing up a reasonable position.
-
-
You want to call that jumping the shark? There are individuals on this very thread that are saying just as much.
Your “dislike” of Sherlock is clouding your judgement to even see what is going on right here.
-
I appreciate your point of view. I do not dislike Sherlock, I dislike what he is doing. He makes unsupported judgements and jumps to unsupported conclusions to generate arguments. He does it repeatedly in post after post. That is his MO.
For example, in this post, Sherlock has indeed stirred up a big wrangle. He did it not by presenting facts and quoting people directly on his topic, but by making unsupported judgements and jumping to conclusions.
First he asserted that there are a bunch of people who want to bypass both parents and CPS to go directly to court to get gender changes ordered.
Second he slanders our judicial system by asserting that there are a bunch of judges in Virginia who would leap at the opportunity to do that.
Is it possible both those things are true? Maybe, but he has presented not the first piece of supporting documentation or evidence that either is.
Over about the last month after getting wound up in several of his made up issues the light bulb came on for me. I started looking at how he was operating rather than getting sucked into the judgemental arguments he was precipitating. That has led me to comment on that rather than getting down in the muck wrangling.
If the objective of BR is to precipitate people yelling at each other then Sherlock has succeeded spectacularly, this thread is a prime example. If on the other hand the objective of BR is to explore issues and to have rational discussions among people whose views vary then Sherlock’s behavior has debased the platform.
There’s an old caution about wrestling with a pig in the slop of his pen. The pig likes it. Sherlock clearly likes it. Me, not so much.
I value many of the posts on BR and have enjoyed becoming acquainted with most of the folks who hang out here. It is generally a pretty bright crowd. That keeps me coming back. I care enough about BR that I have taken the time to discuss and to possibly raise awareness about a segment that seems needlessly and repeatedly destructive.
-
“First he asserted that there are a bunch of people who want to bypass both parents and CPS to go directly to court to get gender changes ordered.”
Again, that is ferreted out in the comments by two posters who want exactly that by their own admissions.
“I value many of the posts on BR and have enjoyed becoming acquainted with most of the folks who hang out here. It is generally a pretty bright crowd. That keeps me coming back. I care enough about BR that I have taken the time to discuss a segment that seems needlessly and intentionally disruptive.”
I think there are other authors & commentators. who are far more egregious violators of the behavior you outline.
-
I think there are other authors & commentators. who are far more egregious violators of the behavior you outline.
Perhaps, but Sherlock’s behavior is by far the most prolific and consistent.
I confess I have had limited interest in staying current on the postings in this thread, but I have just scrolled through it (ugh). There are lots of postings I do not agree with, but that is to be expected. Perhaps I missed them, but I did not see advocates of going directly to court, not passing go, not involving either parents or CPS other than Sherlock’s judgemental inflammatory initial jumps to conclusions.
-
“Perhaps, but Sherlock’s behavior is by far the most prolific and consistent.”
I would say the only difference between Sherlock and eric/larry/nancy/rosie (of note, I have blocked two of those three and the third blocked me for calling him on his bs) is the he publishes articles.
Even the venerable McSmarmy and DHS follow the same pattern, they just publishes less articles.
As for the comment about individuals. The notion that you should go directly to CPS is jumping straight to the courts. Unless there is documented reasons to why CPS should be involved they shouldn’t and in reality they will just muck things up as they always do.
-
-
-
Let’s at least be sane. A school kid, presumably under the age of 18, taking hormone replacement or undergoing transgender surgery has already alleviated the teacher of ANY responsibility to adress the issue. A higher authority is clearly in charge — a doctor. They outrank teachers, principals, counselors, and even the superintendent. And, except for pregnancy, doctors outrank governors.
Realistically, something beyond Conservatives, what we are speaking of when we are considering things unknown to the parents is one thing, and one thing only — confidences. Even active x-dressing will find it way to parents through the coconut telegraph faster than a guidance counselor can say, “Ferris Bueller”!
So, let’s get back to brass tacks! What responsibility does a teacher have if a child confides in them that they are feeling “gender challenged”?
Maybe instead of a “hotline” to report teachers, da gub’na can set up an LBGTQ+ Crisis hotline for students and THEN he can be responsible to tell the parents since micromanaging seems to be his thing.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.