This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How do you ensure that a piece of information is simultaneously public and secret? I have no idea, but I hope that someone can explain a reliable strategy because this story makes no sense in its absence.
EDIT: link to the policy in question.
TL;DR: The government of Saskatchewan just enacted a new policy that affects "preferred names" and pronouns for younger students (along with some other changes, which I'll skip over). It requires that teachers obtain parental consent before using new names/pronouns for students under 16 years old. The criticism is focused on two claims: First, being "out" is important. Second, it can be unsafe if a parent learns that their child is transgender.
The first claim has already been argued to death, and there's nothing new in this story.
The second claim is just bizarre in this context. What do they expect would happen in the absence of the new policy? Everybody starts using the child's new names/pronouns in everything from casual conversations to official reports...and the parents don't notice for >2 years?
If I knew that a child had information that could be dangerous if it got into the wrong hands, I wouldn't encourage them to spread it far and wide. In fact, I'd direct them to a professional that would help them to develop a strategy that minimized the damage from its release, or else cope with maintaining the burden of secrecy.
But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll repeat my question: how do you ensure that a piece of information is simultaneously public and secret?
A lot of heat in this discussion, so I will just go ahead and throw in a cut-the-Gordian-knot style solution here: complete separation of education and state. Negotiations as to who has a right and duty to what are held between the parents and the school before enrolling. Minute details like whether it's completely privatized or funded by the government in a roundabout way like charters don't matter here, so insert your preferred arrangement.
More options
Context Copy link
I would wager that more children are beaten for bringing home bad grades than for telling their parents they're transgender.
Should schools not share grades with parents?
Schools don't even share grades with the students any more; some of them have abandoned percentages and letter grades entirely and just go with a more nebulous "Exceeds/Meets/Improving/Unsatisfactory" for all courses below grade 10 (translation: "we don't give actual grades until universities require us to").
Exceeding/Meets/Improving/Unsatisfactory isn't nebulous at all. Do you think the average person (or a random teacher with a degree in Gym Class who lives in Moose Jaw Saskatchewan) can explain to me the nuance between a 78% and an 84, or why the average should be 75 vs 50 and if it should follow a bell curve or be splined with respect to year over year outcomes? Great/Good/Not Good/Bad are perfectly fine and not obfuscatory
Easy: it's math, science, or (to a lesser extent) language/history class, and you got questions wrong on the test.
While I'm fine with the courses that
don't matter in the grand scheme of thingsdepend a lot more on subjective judgments having this system, it's not appropriate for ones whose questions have verifiable you-knew-it-or-didn't answers.You may not remember grade school, but they don't give euphemistic grades for tests, if you got 9/10 right that's 90%, nobody is pretending to hide that percentage and say you 'Exceeded'. The majority of the curriculum is like painting a diorama or collecting bugs on a hike or whatever the fuck. Most classwork a 9 year old does will not translate meaningfully to a percent or number grade
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The unsafe part makes little sense to me, because the argument is that the parents are inclined to be abusive, so if the child comes out as transgender this would trigger abuse. But then what about the rest of the time? Is the child not at risk of abuse for other reasons (parents are neglectful, parents put too much pressure on to achieve academic or sporting success, parents are emotionally cruel)?
It only makes sense in the context of "the parents are fine except that they will be upset to learn this and will deny that the child is transgender and will use the deadname and try and force the child to conform to natal gender", and that "not affirming that Johnny is now Susie" is abuse of a serious kind.
Then you're asking the child and everybody else to hide this for however many years (from the age of 12 to 18 until Susie is legally an adult? that will never have any slip-up about it or it won't come out some other way) and I don't think that's workable.
It's difficult because yeah, probably are some genuinely transgender kids out there and yeah, parents who would lose it and try and force the kid to be Johnny not Susie, so you have to do what is in the best interests of the child. But on the other hand - the school committing to lie to the parents that 'Johnny' is doing okay in 'his' maths class, while at school they refer to Susie as 'she' and 'her' and help her change into her girl clothes and use the girls' bathroom - like I said, some kid is going to mention this to their parents and then the cat is out of the bag and now the parents can't trust a word from the school ever again because what else were they doing? Were they going to hook Susie up with a doctor to prescribe puberty blockers without parental knowledge or consent? What?
There is the obligation on teachers to be mandatory reporters if they suspect child abuse; I don't think you can manage to have "I think the parents would be abusive so we'll keep it all hush-hush but we won't report to the authorities as we are supposed to do, either" as a workable solution.
Yeah, this dichotomy makes no sense. If teachers genuinely suspect that a parent is abusive, whatever info used to establish this suspicion (hunger, neglect, sexual abuse, etc etc) should be of much higher urgency than the kid's preferred pronouns.
The only explanation that makes sense to me here is that the education institutions are aware that the 'trans kids' issue is an unpopular political hot potato and know that parents are most prone to have the knowledge, motivation, and legal authority to intervene in their kid's lives. And so the school's solution is to keep the parents in the dark in order to avoid any potential interference or vexing questions.
More options
Context Copy link
I strenuously deny this assertion. There are gender non-conforming children, gay children, those who struggle to develop a gendered identity in a social world, and ultimately those who struggle with body or gender dysphoria but there is no evidence that there are 'trans-children'.
The blind acceptance of this frame by both sides is something we need to challenge if we want medical professionals to start caring about child-safeguarding.
The idea of a trans child was unknown 20 years ago when trans(sexual) identification was the domain of adult males with autogynephilia
Who is providing the language and ideas for these children to use?
I'm confused by this. Would you mind elaborating a bit?
Are you saying trans adults exist? If so, when does the transition from non-trans child to trans adult occur?
Even if you argue that being transexual is a mental illness - why would only adults have this illness?
You can argue that the trans status only materialises when puberty finishes and the feelings of dysphoria haven't desisted -- since the majority of children expressing that they feel dysphoria successfully desist by going through puberty, only those who endure can be said to be truly transgender, and this cannot happen before adulthood.
Again, why use the term 'truly transgender', and not trans identified due to body dysphoria, or autogynephilic if they fulfil that criteria. They can be known as trans people but why the metaphysical backstory of 'truly trans'?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, happy to. I think 'trans' is an umbrella term that covers a lot of interrelated issues, so I also don't believe in the 'trans' adult as a distinct thing either. I think the best frame is that of a culture bound syndrome (Helen Joyce's position), as I've outlined previously.
https://www.themotte.org/post/587/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/120789?context=8#context
To inquires into trans means we need to differentiate the different component parts - applying a label trans child/trans adult is already question begging. It locks us into a particular metaphysical frame where it's very easy to assume, 'people are born like that'.
I don't preclude biological or genetic aspects or some mechanism like hormones in natal development on the brain for some portion of trans identification, but even then I don't jump to 'trans person' as a response but 'person who may find difficulties with the assumed gender roles and presentation that is normative for their sex', ie gender dysphoria and gender non-conforming. Mental illness is a broad, unhelpful term but there a host of psychological conditions that could impact someones social identity formation and self-concept that don't have any need for the creation of a 'trans person'. OCD, autism, body dysmorphia.
For children the assumption (by adults on the child's behalf) is even more egregious. Part of gender is obviously socially constructed and we learn in development language, customs around gender. To answer my earlier question, this means it is adults supplying the children with concepts and language to talk about gender. The current iteration of ideas in my view is clearly a social contagion drawing from all sorts of problematic and contingent elements such as queer theory and an ideological fervour from progressives.
While children learn early about sex categories our awareness of our sexed nature's and social identity doesn't really take off until early adolescence and in particular puberty. Society, through child development, is shaping ideas around gender expression and what it is to be a self. Why are we shaping it in such a way that we are allowing some children to take drugs with serious side-effects and surgeries as well as foregoing puberty without a strong evidence base, is shocking. For many children we are foreclosing the rite of passage to adulthood, surely limiting their integration as a social being.
It's because of activists, and a big blob of people that aren't treating this as a public health issue, so are complicit in unethical medical harms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think they would see it as either that, or avoiding providing ammunition to already abusive parents. But from that point of view they might as well keep grades secret because abusive parents can be triggered by those too.
I think that mode lines up more with the common cultural meme which is to basically assume abuse until proven otherwise along certain power differentials. The "raised by narcissists" worldview that looks at this on the parent-child angle hasn't really gone mainstream but I think is guiding a lot of the left-wing agenda around kids under the surface.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, yes, children are at risk of those things all the time, and that's why we have an entire government agency (child protective services) dedicated to finding those cases and protecting kids from them, as well as training and vigilance from all other government agents and many types of professionals that interact with kids.
It is 100% true that we as a society know that some parents are abusive to their kids and those kids sometimes need unusual interventions to protect them form their parents. Not revealing gender exploration when a kid says they don't think they would be safe if the parents knew is an example of that type of action, though not one that currently goes through the normal CPS pipeline.
If your question is 'isn't being dangerous for a trans kid highly correlated with being dangerous for any other kid', then I would think the answer is just no? It's generally an ideological commitment rather than a personality trait that would generalize to all those other cases.
I mean the current situation is just 'this isn't something I'm required to report on, any more than I'm required to report if I see two teens kissing each other or reading the communist manifesto or anything else that some parents might object to'. There's no conspiracy to conceal information, there's just no duty to report on any of this stuff generally.
The law is intended to change that.
The law does no such thing. What this law actually does, and in fact the only thing it changes, is prevent either student or teacher from unilaterally invoking/imposing transgender status.
The major implications of this change will be:
Suggested transitions aren't unilaterally the domain of the school. A progressive early elementary school teacher or guidance counselor is not allowed to just up and change little Timmy's name or gender because he keeps playing female roles when it's center time, and if she keeps doing it it's punishable. They're still allowed to suggest it to the parents, or even confidentially to the student, but they can't start doing it until they get parental sign-off.
Transitions aren't unilaterally the domain of the student. A student who just wants to use the girls' bathroom or to get some of that sweet, sweet social clout (instant attention, just add water) is no longer allowed to do that without parental consent. This doesn't stop students with progressive parents who would rubber-stamp any request (good faith or otherwise), and the policy makes this explicitly clear- but it does provide a higher activation energy for non-progressive parents who would (probably rightfully) tell their kid "no, because you're attention-whoring, and that's not fair to others". Again, the school isn't allowed to just decide the parents are wrong, do it anyway, and start punishing other students who refuse to tell/accept the lie (which, from the the non-progressive perspective, it is). Parents of students that get punished in this way now have official recourse.
Students may still request the use of preferred identification from their peer groups or special accommodation from teachers (for general discomfort with dressing rooms). This is, in essence, a nickname; the name peers use for a student and the name teachers use for a student need not be the same thing. Students may request individual teachers not disclose this nickname or accommodation, and teachers may or may not honor that request.
Parents who refuse to use the student's preferred identification at home are a bit less in conflict with the State. The fact that this form and process even exists in the first place signals the SK government's position is "refusal to give consent is not child abuse"- while this might still contradict with other official Provincial policies on the matter, it locks down this front at the very least.
The compromise made was:
Progressive parents get some of what they want- if they think their kid is trans at 6 the district will still honor and enforce it (and must punish other students who fail to use the student's preferred identification)- but they (and progressive students) lose when it comes to the power grab that is "students of non-progressive parents should be allowed to exercise the social power we believe claiming to be trans deserves and everyone else can suck it".
Progressive teachers get some of what they want- they can still suggest the student talk to a guidance counselor as desired and they're not mandated to say anything about GNC behavior at school at all- but they lose when it comes to the power grab that is "we know your kid better than you do, so we'll do what we/your kid wants, and if you try to resist we'll take them out of your house at gunpoint like we did to those backwards Indian savages".
Non-progressive parents get some of what they want- they don't have to worry the school is transitioning their kid behind their back- but they still lose when it comes to the power to stop progressive faculty from ever talking about a speculative diagnosis of transgenderism, discussing what the other students call their kid, or forcing other students to call their kid by their preferred identification (the "neutral" in "neutral vs. conservative").
Non-progressive teachers get some of what they want- unless a students' parents are on board they're actually mandated to refuse the student's request (which, naturally, they'll have no problem doing)- but they lose and still have to [enforce the] lie should the parents agree the lie be treated as if it were true.
Non-progressive students suffer the same loss, but may refuse similarly refuse their peers' request for them to lie and the school can't punish them for it (because, naturally, that's the name the teachers [have to] call them).
Trans students, be they in good faith or bad, get some of what they want- there are no constraints on their individual social power to get other students to treat them certain ways and there's no mandate for sympathetic teachers to mention anything about unusual gender behavior at school- but they lose by being completely and utterly unable to wield the powers of transgenderism if their parents and/or teachers aren't on board with it and they don't get power over their peers for the crime of not agreeing with the progressive program.
Or... maybe I'm not reading the same pages? I'd really like to know what the law you're reading says, because as far as I can tell this law doesn't do even half of what you claim it does.
I was reading the top-level comment in this thread, which did not have a link to the actual policy at the time I responded to it. My responses so far have only been related to how OP described the situation.
If I have time after work, I'll look at the actual policy and see if that changes any of my positions. Until then, consider my position to be in response to the hypothetical scenario suggested in the original post, which may or may not actually exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I had to get my parents' permission to watch a couple of movies, go on any field trip, or add/drop classes. In addition, they were informed about any disciplinary actions, some course content, and general impressions of my time at school.
Even if that wasn't true wherever you grew up, teachers having a duty to inform parents about the goings on in the classroom is nothing new here.
There's a line in the West Wing, talking about the State of teh Union address by the president:
Sure, part of the job of being a teacher is to give parents information about how their kids are doing in school and what's happening there, and there are specific pieces of information that they're required to disclose.
That doesn't actually mean they are required to disclose everything that happens, or that they have zero discretion in what to talk about.
Those are in fact two hugely different things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My impression is that the idea of being "out" to some groups of people and not others is pretty common in the LGBT community. For example, you might be "out" to your friends (or some subset of friends) that you are trans but not "out" at work (maybe because you're afraid of some kind of discrimination). The way this works in practice is that people who know you are trans use your preferred name and pronouns only if you all are in mutual company that's aware you're trans. If you're with people who don't know that you're trans, the people who do know are supposed to treat you as if you weren't.
Applied to this situation I'm thinking the idea is that teachers and other students would use a trans students preferred name and pronouns in interpersonal interactions (which are largely invisible to parents) but not in official reports and communications. The students in question are "out" to their teachers and peers, but not their parents.
I'll also add that I don't think has to be a specifically trans thing (though obviously it is in the OP). I can imagine some student named "Robert" who prefers to go by "Bob" for whatever reason. Said student prefers to be addressed as Bob but is aware their parents hate the nickname "Bob" so they'd prefer teachers and reports use their given name so as to avoid parental ire.
Yes; the whole problem is that the teachers will punish the peers of that student based on how seriously they take being "out". This is the "I'm forced to tell a lie" problem non-progressives have with trans folks except (from the peers' point of view) they're literally forced to tell the lie (children don't have the experience to simply disregard teachers' punishments, and parents' jobs generally get more difficult when they start telling their own children to use their own judgment when dealing with authority figures, so reinforcing a child's tendency to obey teachers is completely defensible).
Just avoiding interacting with the problem or moving away from it is simply not possible in kid jail; it's even policy that the teacher is forced to punish the peer that won't tell the lie! (regardless of that teacher's personal politics).
By ensuring that students can't invoke that power unilaterally, and have to get their parents to let them do it, it doesn't stop the student from actually being able to be trans (and it's still backed up with force of law- the conservatives are just driving the speed limit here, and progressive parents are still free to grant their child access to the State power their faction currently enjoys).
But it does prevent 2 things: first, it makes sure a 7 year old boy does not need to insist that My Name Is Not Odessa Yarker if he displays some GNC behaviors and a progressive teacher overfits that into "clearly, trans with stupid parents", and second, prevents a student in a conservative household from tasting the trappings of progressive power if their parents also think the only reason their kid wants to do that is to have an excuse to bully others (and since conservatives think, not unfairly, that 'excuse to bully others' and 'out as transgender' are synonyms...)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You should listen to stories from educators who deal with these issues in reality.
Yes absolutely kids ask teachers to use different names/pronouns in class and the parents never find out.
Yes absolutely kids ask if they can use the gender-neutral single-stall bathroom next to the teacher's lounge, or change in bathroom stall instead of in front of the other kids, and parents never find out.
You can't 'ensure' that the parents never find out, but you can maximize your odds.
And even if they find out eventually, buying 6 months or a year or three years of time can be very important for a kid trying to build a secondary support network.
I should! Do you have any links handy? Preferably about the exact scenario I outlined (Attempting to keep it public+secret was positive over the long term, regardless of whether or not it succeeded), but I'd take anything short of a human-interest fluff piece. The ones I've seen have been mostly split between "I was scared for nothing, I should've come out to my parents sooner" and "I was not ready for what happened. I should've had a better plan before coming out in public."
Coming back to the policy rather than abstract questions, do you think that 15-year-olds are mature enough to decide to cut ties with their home (even if the plan would culminate at 18ish)? Granted, they might be correct. In that case, the appropriate response is a call to CPS and/or the police to deal with the serious situation.
To go to the ad absurdum, if a 15 year old were being raped and beaten by their parents every night, I think most could correctly identify that this is a bad situation they should leave.
And at the other end, many 15 year olds incorrectly believe that not being allowed to go to a party with drugs and alcohol is a major injustice and that they should run away form home over it.
Like every other human in every other situation in the world, some 15 year olds are smart or are in obvious cases and will make the correct call, and some 15 year olds will be stupid or in ambiguous cases and make the wrong call.
This is an inconvenient fact about the human condition, and is why blanket statements of the type you're trying to inquire about here basically never work, and we have to actually look at the specific situation and apply our best judgement instead.
However, that's not what we're talking about here.
Deciding not to tell your parents that you're trans - or gay, or atheist, or dating outside your race, or any of a million other things that might upset them - is not breaking ties with them. It is in fact the opposite, trying to maintain the family bond in the face of awkward information that you fear might strain or break it.
Should kids keep secrets like that from their parents? Ideally they're in a good situation where they don't have to, but for those who think they're in a bad situation I wouldn't want the government to override their judgement and force them to disclose. Especially since the consequences of keeping the secret are very minor - they remain a stable family unit, nothing changes - while the worst potential consequences of disclosure are very bad (why are so many trans teens prostitutes? Because they were kicked out of their homes and forced to live on the streets!).
Which also gets to your CPS point - if they don't disclose and therefore aren't being abused over it, there's nothing to report to CPS and everything is fine. I don't think 'there is a potential situation under which this loving family would instead abuse their child, we should try to ring that circumstance about so that they will abuse them, so that CPS can take them away' is in any way a sane approach to take to such situations?
And, importantly, the current situation is not just on the recognizance of the student, the school can decide to tell the parents if they want to. Right now the parents don't learn about it only if both the student and the school think they'd be in danger. I trust that combination of judgement a fairly high amount, again especially given the asymmetric dangers involved here.
I was vehemently agreeing with this comment, until the unfortunate conclusion:
This idealized view of educational personnel doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's mired in the present conflict and lacks perspective: institutions have a long history of abusing the trust of children and do not deserve this level of confidence or deference.
It's tawdry to quote myself, but I don't think I can put it better than I did before:
I had a lot of great teachers, people that encouraged and supported me, but I also had egomaniacs and narcissists who took great pleasure in driving a wedge between kids and their parents (with no long-term concern for the children). I saw more than a handful of teachers happy to sexually exploit their students*. And I saw a substantial minority of lazy, time-serving clock-punchers.
* And a few relationships that I wouldn't call exploitative, but imagine most would.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Six months or three years can also be exceptionally damaging to a kid who is confused or being taking advantage of by others, be they teachers, peers, or otherwise. The idea that government employees would conceal information from parents about children is so horrifying to me. To talk casually about "buying" time for children to deceive their parents strikes me as deeply misguided.
There is good reason why people sometimes call this "grooming": because the most common kind of adult who keeps secrets about a child from that child's parents is someone who is taking advantage of that child for their own purposes, "grooming" them to some role. If I ever had a child whose teacher presumed to know better than me what was best for my child, that would not be a problem to lightly overlook. If this involved core aspects of my child's identity, I would seek that teacher's dismissal. If it involved my child's sex and sexuality, I would be willing to burn through substantial personal resources to impose serious and lasting costs beyond mere dismissal. I cannot imagine a reasonable and loving parent feeling otherwise. There is nothing so special about transsexual activism as to exempt it from these feelings, and that is why transsexual activism continues to be a catastrophically losing issue for Democrats who swing at that particular tar baby.
I understand that some parents are wrong about what is best for their children, and that some parents are abusive, and so on. But this does not meaningfully distinguish them from teachers, who are also often wrong, abusive, and so on--and teachers have less reason to love children and see to their best interests. As Aristotle notes in the Politics--"how much better it is to be the real cousin of somebody than to be a son after Plato's fashion!"
I have seen enough cases of ROGD, as well as the results of decisive parental action against ongoing ROGD, to believe that the evidence of my own eyes is that schools should absolutely never conceal relevant facts from parents. Not for six months; not for six days. Better that a few children face harsh discipline at home, than many be subjected, with the aid of government actors, to the (often, lifelong) suffering brought on by politically popular social contagions.
You seem to just be imagining teachers to be some type of demonic criminal bent on destroying children's lives, and the children (re: teenagers old enough to be considered adults in most human cultures throughout society) to be these entirely non-agentic dolls with no sense of their own life and no knowledge about what is actually best for themselves. This seems entirely alien to me and it's unlikely we will be able to agree on much when our priors about how the world works are this far apart.
In particular:
That is not what we are talking about. Teachers are not assigning children new pronouns against their will.
We are talking about children (again, primarily teens) knowing what is best for themselves, including what is best for their own safety.
It's an open question whether children do know better than their parents in any particular case, but the teacher isn't making any decisions here.
What is the difference between 'concealing information about' and 'not informing on'? Because it's not like we're talking about a law preventing teachers from giving parents information, even when the teacher wants to; we're talking about a law forcing teachers to give parents information, even when they don't want to.
So what is the line about which information teachers should be forced to notify parents about? Is it horrifying for teachers not to notify parents if they find out a student is gay? Is it horrifying for teachers not to inform parents if a teen starts dating someone? Is it horrifying for teachers not to inform parents if a teen is flirting with someone? Is it horrifying for teachers not to inform parents if a teen gets an erection in class?
My feeling is that their is no line, it is not a teacher's duty to be informants on the personal lives of their students. It is a teacher's duty to teach them, and being an informant for the state to their parents makes that harder to do. If a parent cares about their child's life then it is their job to find out about it, and if they've scared their child into thinking it is literally not physically safe to tell them something then that is the parent's fuck-up and they're not entitled to state-sponsored spy operations.
This is the policy in my district, with a narrow exception for FERPA-compelled production of student records.
More options
Context Copy link
I feel that a part of the disconnect you specifically are having is when you call teachers teachers instead of government agents. Maybe you've never thought about them in that manner, or maybe you think that's silly, or possibly even unhinged. But the poster you're responding to calls then government agents in this context for a reason.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think they’re automatons, but children are orders of magnitude more short-sighted and naive about the world.
Most kids, at least until puberty, are largely working from the assumption that adults don’t have agendas, and that any adults offering advice or help are doing so only to help them. They don’t think about an adult pushing them to believe in or act in a certain way because it benefits the adult at the expense of the child. In a lot of ways I think this is based in evolutionary psychology— children are born relatively helpless compared to other animals, and couldn’t survive long without accepting the advice and help of adults in the tribe.
The naïveté comes from a simple lack of life experiences. To a ten year old, the idea of someday being 20, let alone 40 is simply incomprehensible. They’ve never thought about it, and really can’t understand being an adult. And because in most cases, the choices kids make are either trivial or temporary, they can’t really understand the idea that a decision they make today will have implications for their lives forever. The biggest decision a kid under 12 makes is likely what kinds of after-school activities they would like to participate in. Except that these choices are temporary (baseball season is just a summer) and easily reversed (you can just quit and not play baseball anymore if you don’t like it). At ten, l liked tennis. I don’t anymore, but it was fun as a kid. But if you somehow reorganized society such that everyone picks a sport or activity or career at that age (I wanted to be a paleontologist, which I don’t do now and don’t even remember having an interest in), most people would be miserable.
The thing about this hiding things and having parents kept out of the loop is that these decisions are pretty permanent, and children do not understand permanency. They cannot really understand that once they “transition” they can never ever go back. They cannot understand the urges to procreate and have children, or that their lives will change drastically between 14-16 and 40. And because of that, kids need parents in the loop to keep them from making decisions they don’t understand without serious guidance.
I still feel like you're equivocating between 'teachers pushing transition onto kids' and 'teachers supporting kids in their own decisions more strongly than a kid's decisions deserve'. Which is a dangerous equivocation because it spans the motte and bailey between 'being careful to help kids make good decisions' and 'all democrats are groomers', so it's the type of thing I wish we were more careful about.
But whatever, let's focus on the latter question, kids making good decisions.
Kids cannot get irreversible medical treatments without their parent being made aware. They cannot get them without their parent's approval and very active participation, so long as they are in their parent's custody. That is never on the table with regards to the types of situations covered by this law.
What's on the table is social transitioning, ie people calling you a different name/pronouns and not beating you up for wearing nonconforming clothes. Maybe at most being allowed to use a gender neutral bathroom and being allowed to change in a bathroom stall or locked classroom instead of the locker room.
Nothing about this is irreversible. Nothing about this is permanent.
But there is a cascade from social transition that makes it much more likely they get puberty blockers and progress on to cross-sex hormones. Social transition is a powerful psychological intervention.
Except for all the stories (ironically popular among the anti-trans side) of gender psychologists of the past trying to assign children different genders and raise them that way and the children rebelling and reasserting their 'natural' gender.
All the evidence I'm aware of is that this is how things actually work. People who ask to socially transition and then medically transition later do both because they are actually trans. People who are not trans are very very resistant to both measures and will not go along with it of their own will forever.
You are making a separate prediction, which is that you can convince someone that they're trans for their entire life, strongly enough that they'll fight for years to get long-term life-altering medical interventions and surgeries, just by calling them a different name and pronouns when they're in middle school/highschool.
That seems shockingly unlikely to me given everything else I know about human psychology, and I wonder whether you really think that human gender is that mutable (which would put you a million miles closer to the trans activist side on how gender works than most people), or if this is just a convenient argument for your bottom line.
I think you might be some distance from what I meant but I can't parse what you've said to know where we departed shared understanding. I don't understand what your saying and am not making any of the claims you are stating as far as I can tell.
I was referencing this research:
https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know how you could possibly take that from what I wrote. All I said was that there's no reason to think that teachers, as a class, are in a better position to decide what is good for children than are their parents.
I never suggested as much. Teachers and administrators are deciding to hide information about children from parents, selectively and based on politically popular but empirically dubious notions of sex and gender. When my children were young, I was in communication with teachers about basically every aspect of my child's schooling--if they got a nosebleed, if they were struggling in math, who their friends were, basically anything that dealt either with my child's welfare, the quality of their education, or even just things it seemed like I might want to know.
In the Saskatchewan case from the OP, yes, but trans activists make policies, too.
It is absurd to suggest that open communication between parents and teachers constitutes "spying" just so long as a child wishes to keep something from his or her parents. Many people entertain irrational fears. But even if those fears are rational, I can't imagine a child confiding their sexuality or gender confusion in a teacher, and then not confiding abuse to that teacher, at which point mandatory reporting laws kick in (there are many things teachers must tell the government; why wouldn't there be many things teachers must tell parents?). It is not always the case, but in my experience it is almost always the case that teenagers who keep things from their parents tend to endanger themselves as a result, even if only in the sense that they expose themselves to manipulation and exploitation. Google "sextortion suicide" if you want to read more about the effects of teens "confiding" in people who aren't their parents.
'Groomers' colloquially refers to offending pedophiles. Bringing up the term is the same type of blood libel as calling your opponents nazis, except with a more dangerous edge since offending pedophiles still exist today.
If I misunderstood you and you were just bringing up groomers in some much broader sense, in that way that a priest 'grooms' a child to be a good catholic or whatever, then to me that's a surprising implementation of the term but I apologize for misrepresenting you. Much of my response would then be based on this misunderstanding of your position and can be ignored.
What age was this? A common disagreement in these conversations about trans stuff is, I think, that one side is thinking about 7 year olds and the other is thinking about 16 year olds.
I'm surprised if you got this level of information for kids in highschool, if so maybe it a rural/urban thing or something because it's not been my experience.
But either way, I still think there's importantly a difference between what teachers choose to volunteer and what they don't. I don't think teachers can do their job effectively if they don't have some discretion there, they need to be figures of at least some trust for kids. I think making all teachers into forced informants with no discretion about what they inform on would make highschool even more of a nightmarish prison sentence than it already is for a lot of kids.
I agree that trans activists can also propose bad policies, absolutely.
That said, this seems to be talking about unofficial policies (which are 'not always written down') and offering very little evidence about what they actually are or entail or that they even exist. They claim that Biden wants to make them law under Title IX, but they don't link to anything from the administration saying that and I haven't been able to find anything even remotely like that with google. Let me know if you have a source on that claim, but overall, none of this feels comparable to an actual law being passed.
Yes, but getting abused and then placed into the foster care system by CPS is much much worse than just... not getting abused and living a normal happy life with your family?
I completely agree with you, I just think that the 'almost' is important here, and want to give kids and teachers some lattitude in deciding whether they're in one of those cases.
Again, I'm not, like, saying parents should never know whether their kid is trans. No one is arguing that, you need a parent's participation to get any form of gender affirming care so obviously the goal is for parents to know whenever that's safe. We're already talking about the rare cases where kids think they are in danger and the school agrees.
Also, I'd like to point out that yes, if a kid goes to a single adult for advice and keeps it secret from everyone else, they are often at danger for manipulation and exploitation. But what we're talking about is a case where a kid wants to use different name/pronouns in school, meaning that every teacher and administrator that interacts with them and every kid in any of their classes will know what is going on; there's much less room for manipulation with that many eyes on the situation, and any one of those dozen/hundreds of people has the authority and power to tell the parents at any time if they think something hinky is going on.
That's what the term actually means, though, so you shouldn't be surprised at all. Setting aside the suspicion people might naturally develop when high-profile people belonging to such a tiny minority of the population keep getting outed as offending pedophiles (since for all I know this could be a Chinese Cardiologist problem), many people regard the inundation of children with confusing gender revisionism as per se abusive. The overwhelming weight of evidence available to me currently suggests that, at least for young girls, becoming transgendered is far more often than not a social contagion which, if indulged by peers and educational authorities, can do substantial lasting harm.
In other words, it's not about accusing anyone of being an offending pedophile, it's about accusing people of per se harming children (or "grooming" them to receive such harm) by deliberately exposing them to memetic hazards--functionally, grooming them into becoming front line culture warriors for gender revisionists. No one would be confused if I complained that 4chan was "grooming" my child to become a Nazi, and yet the moment someone says "don't groom my child to advance your gender ideology" suddenly it's "blood libel?" I just can't take that objection seriously. I don't strongly mind tabooing "groomer" when it gets in the way of clear communication, but I do have concerns about the way certain ideologies insist on obfuscating their manifest faults by forcing me onto the euphemism treadmill. If your ideology leads to mucking about in a child's sexual development--whether through hormones or surgeries or psychology or whatever--for no medical reason, but for purely gender-political or dubious "psychological" reasons, then please tell me what word I should use instead to summarize my perception that your ideology gives cover to child abuse (and of an inescapably sexual nature!).
Now, I assume that no one who thinks transsexuality is not in any way worth worrying about on any level is going to find any of that persuasive, of course. But neither do I think it's even remotely crazy to worry, based on the sweeping comorbidity of psychiatric malfunction that attends transgenderism, that this is not a healthy ideology and that kids should not be exposed to it.
First, the idea that this is somehow the information teachers need to be empowered to keep from parents to win student trust seems very suspicious to me. Second, the problems with public education are far too vast for me to respond to adequately here, but I just don't see any plausible way for teacher transparency on potentially serious psychiatric developments to be the straw that breaks the hellscape's back. It seems, rather, transparently political--treating a single tiny issue as so important it demands federal governance in a tug-of-war over who really has children's best interests in hand. Parents saying "it's us" are being shouted down by politicians and teacher's unions and trans activists saying "it's us," and there's just no question in my mind that in all but the edgiest of edge cases, it's definitely actually the parents.
What--like, this?
Is that "remotely like" what you're thinking?
As with public education, I can't exactly solve all the problems with CPS in response here. But children who spend their school days pretending to be a different sex and then go home and pretend they aren't spending their days pretending are not, in my experience, living a life that anyone could reasonably call either normal or happy.
I am actually quite sympathetic to the idea of giving people latitude, but I don't think that's a politically realistic outcome. Because the issue is a culture war issue and the poles have been set at "require disclosure" and "forbid disclosure," even in those places where teachers do technically have "latitude" they are already under tremendous social pressure to behave in ways that are not actually so nuanced. Speaking of which:
Much of the concern, though, is that children are not just being manipulated and exploited by individual abusers, as in the case of offending pedophiles, but that children are being actively enlisted into ideological warfare not of their own choosing, at substantial personal cost. This appears to be how FtM detransitioners (basically, the poster children for ROGD) come to perceive themselves. When every teacher and administrator subscribes to the Successor Ideology, when every kid is inundated with it, when otherwise responsible adults are cowed into silence through emotional blackmail, "everyone knows it's happening" is an incredibly weak response.
For all that: it's entirely possible that there is, actually, nothing at all harmful about gender revisionism. As an armchair transhumanist I think that at some point in our species' future, we're overwhemlingly likely to transcend sex and gender entirely--but by the time we are actually able to do that, we will be unquestionably transhuman--and not, I think, human. If that day ever comes at all, I expect it will be long, long after I'm gone. But in the meantime, I have seen no evidence at all that allowing teachers to conceal presumably important psychological information from their students' parents is meaningfully beneficial, and much evidence that allowing such concealment is in fact actively harmful to children and families, so--how could I conclude anything but that such concealment should be forbidden?
Again I think we just massively disagree about the empirical state of the world here.
Maybe there are a few schools in the Bay area like this, but by and large Republicans still exist and become teachers/administrators and send their kids to school with their values, kids still pick out anyone who is different or awkward in any way and torment them for it, and having one blue-haired art teacher that pushes for awareness and flags sometimes does not make an entire school active culture war zealots.
I'm sure you can find lots of anecdotes for your belief here, and I can find lots of anecdotes for mine, and I don't know how we could actually settle it statistically.
But I do think the fact that you're proposing what feels like a grand unified movement where everyone is on the same page with a specific interpretation of the culture war and zealously pushing for it by manipulating kids in ways that end up being harmful to them, and I'm saying that the world is just pretty normal place where different people believe different things and everyone follows their personal incentives and are mostly lazy and noncommital about doing praxis in their own lives, argues in favor of my interpretation just in terms of priors.
I think an organization like a church is capable of being as ideologically motivated and consistent as what you describe here.
I think maybe a school is capable of doing that for a few years, if the top-level administrators are super duper committed to it and are willing to put their career on the line by firing people over it and are in a super duper progressive city where they won't be immediately fired when conservative parents find out and raise a fuss.
I really don't think something as large and complex as a school district could do that, not for long anyway. And certainly not that most schools would do that, when only a few tiny areas of the country are super duper progressive bastions.
More options
Context Copy link
This remains an empirical disagreement for us, I just don't think is as true as you do, am not very convinced by the source you provided on it, and still believe that if we all just stop meddling we can maintain the ideal situation where teachers have latitude and generally use it well.
If I am wrong about that empirical claim, then I am wrong about some of my arguments here.
But, keep in mind that even in the world where schools are blanket 'prohibited' from telling parents, that doesn't mean that no parents ever find out, it means that the only parents who don't find out are the ones where teh students don't feel safe telling them, and the school cannot persuade the student to tell their parents (which they're still welcome to do and would certainly prefer for liability reasons), and no other students or parents of other students ho heard about it or etc. ever tell them.
So even if the world where telling parents is prohibited, I still expect parents would know 95+% of the time, and the cases where they don't know would still be very highly correlated with the cases where they shouldn't know.
This is a general point to several parts of your response: 'Teachers aren't forced to tell parents' is not at all the same as 'parent's don't know'. Parents can still learn from dozens of other sources, hopefully just their child trusting and telling them, also (in the situation I'm arguing for) just a teacher choosing to tell them without being forced, and many others.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, but it's probably better than being taken away by CPS.
Obviously the ideal situation is that parents find out and do not become abusive. I think that is currently what already happens 95% of the time, or maybe 99%.
We're just talking about what to do in the tiny fraction of cases (which is already from a tiny fraction of students) where the students fear it would not go this well and the school agrees.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, unless I am missing something, that story - like all the stories I could find making this claim - does not actually link to the text of the Title IX guidance that is being interpreted to say this, or any Biden officials saying they intend for it to be used this way, or anything other than people on their side claiming or speculating that this is happening.
What I really want to see is just the plain text of the part of Title IX that says this, or statements from the administration saying they are doing this. Those would all be part of the public record and I haven;t been able to find any evidence of them, but let me know if you do.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, informing parents of things that will help them raise their child is a part of teacher's jobs, but they are not currently and have not in the past been obligated to tell parents everything and have been allowed to use their discretion for most things. I again state that in the case we're talking about here, it's your side suspiciously focused on this one tiny issue and trying to change things for ideological reasons.
And I agree that in the reverse case, if my side tries to pass laws prohibiting teachers from telling this to parents, then I'm also suspicious of that.
For instance, if a student of strictly devout LDS parents is questioning the existence of God, I think they should be able to talk to a trusted teacher about this without the teacher having to tell the parents and potentially get the student excommunicated.
For instance, if a student has traditional parents (lets say muslim or indian or something) who would not let them date outside their race or religion and they are doing so but feel conflicted about it and want to get advice from a trusted teacher on what to do, the teacher should not be forced to immediately tell the parents so they can end the relationship and maybe pull the child out of school and restrict their ability to leave the house unsupervised so it can't happen again.
For instance, if a student is worried that a friend is being pressured into sex by their boyfriend, I think they should be able to ask a teacher for advice on what to tell them without the teacher immediately calling the other student's parents so they can end that relationship or call the cops.
Etc. etc. etc. All of these cases and a million more are the same as the one we're talking about here.
There are just some times when it's actually not a good idea for parents to be immediately informed of something going on in a student life.
And there are many many more times than that where it would be good for the parents to know, but the student doesn't want the parent to know, and so if there is a blanket law require the teacher to disclose then the student will never come forward for advice at all, and it will remain a secret until something explodes, to everyone's detriment.
And there are many many more cases than that where teachers need to build rapport with students and make the students feel like they are on the same side and can cooperate with each other in order to be an effective educator and mentor, and if kids know that they are basically paid informants who will tell all their secrets to their parents immediately, they will instead view them as hostile antagonists who must be eluded and resisted at all turns. Even for the kids with zero real secrets, I think this is likely to happen and worsen their educational experience.
That's my model of how schools work, anyway (lets specify highschool for sake of argument, though I think it applies largely to middle school too).
Leaving aside the question of trans anything, just talking about how students relate to teachers and what is important about that relationship: do you think that is wrong? In what ways?
Or do you think that's broadly right, and the trans thing is just dangerous enough that we should pass a blanket disclosure requirement anyway?
It would certainly break it for trans students, who would end up being even more closeted and receiving even less adult supervision over what they're going through, if they are not safe to talk to teachers about it.
Which feels like it should matter to you, right - the options here are not really just between students talking to teachers and then teachers telling the parents vs students talking to teachers and teachers not telling the parents.
In many many cases where students don't want parents to find out yet, it would be students talking to teachers and teachers not telling their parents vs students not talking to teachers because that's not safe and continuing to deal with the issue on their own with zero supervision.
And yes, I do think that it makes the camel groan and buckle a bit more for all students. Every time there's a political fight or news story about teachers informing to parents about something against the student's wishes, it reinforces the overall suspicion that tachers are not on their side and cannot be trusted, no matter what the issue is talking about.
For example, certainly the fact that teachers are obligated to report suspicions of abuse and assault means that there are many cases where students do not come to teachers for advice or help when they don't want to be separated from their family or don't want their uncle to go to jail or etc. We make them mandatory reporters anyway because we expect that on balance that still helps more kids than it hurts. But it would be wrong to imagine there are no downsides to that policy, policy debates should not appear one-sided.
More options
Context Copy link
Going to break this into separate responses to hopefully aid legibility.
'Mistaken'.
You think my side is harming children, I think your side is harming children. You can call me a groomer and I can call you a crazy fundy or an evil terf or whatever, and the discussion can be about whose motives are secretly more sinister and how much innuendo we can pile into our descriptions of each other. We can do that all day if you want.
But we won't help any children that way.
I absolutely think you are well intentioned and want to help kids and are empirically mistaken about how to do that.
I think if you acknowledged the same thing about the teachers in these situations, that would do a lot more to help children than calling them groomers does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, he isn’t. He’s arguing that teachers are no less likely to be wrong/abusive than parents. And they aren’t.
Read the rest of the comment though. Teachers aren't doing anything or making any decisions here, the children decide what they want and some teachers humor them to some degree if they are particularly indulgent or supportive.
The only question is whether the state should force teachers to inform on their kids to parents.
Sure, but early teens are idiots. The question is whether the teacher should decide whether to believe them or have to involve the parents, and the argument for the former rests on teachers being less likely to be wrong/abusive than parents.
I can buy that teachers in inner city schools catering to lowest common denominators are in that situation, but it just does not pass the smell test that this is the case for the average teacher vs average parent. And you’ll notice trans kids is not a phenomenon among the LCD’s, it’s an upper middle class contagion.
This seems like an odd equivocation.
There's no discussion of whether the parents or teachers are more likely to be abusive. If a teacher is abusive in the classroom they get fired, and besides the only teacher we're talking about here are the supportive ones who want to be good allies. The only abuse that is at question here is from the parents.
Similarly, we're not talking about who is more likely to be wrong here. The only concern is about abusive parents, not incorrect parents. We're trying to prevent abuse.
yes, in teh average case the student has already told their parents everything long before coming to the school with it.
In the average case, the parents are the ones making the request, because their child asked them to and convinced them it was the right thing to do.
We're not talking about the average case, we're talking about the case where a child is begging their school not to tell their parents because they think they'll be abused, and the school finds this plausible enough to go along with them.
Do you think that in those rare cases, it's still more likely that the student is wrong and the best thing for the student is for their parent to know?
'Among the demographic where parents are most likely to abuse their kids for coming out as trans, very few kids come out as trans' is maybe not the ringing endorsement of your position that you think it is.
No, you aren't. Even granting your premise that transgenderism is real, 99.9999999% of adolescent cases are just psychosomatic angst best treated with a stern "honey, you're wrong about this. Go look at yourself naked in the bathroom mirror to check your gender" and the goal is to prevent that approach.
Yes. Kids are stupid, transgenderism is made up, and the definition of 'abuse' in this case is just "calling mentally ill teens on their bullshit instead of letting them seriously harm themselves".
Few among demographics that have real problems come out as trans, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m sure that’s what the educators say and believe but it doesn’t follow that is good for the kids. The whole debate is who is in the best position to make an intelligent decision: the kid, the educator, or the parent.
The kid is young, dumb and subject to peer pressure with limited long term thinking.
The educator has little skin in the game.
The parent has a ton of skin in the game and likely can be a bit more long term thinking.
The question is not whether parents should ever be informed that a child is experiencing gender dysphoria; ideally, the child should tell them immediately.
The question is what happens in the rare cases where the child feels that it would not be safe to do this.
Child protective services does exist; some parents are bad parents, and the state is aware of this and has policies that acknowledge it.
Acknowledging that some parents are bad and need to be treated differently from other parents is in no way at odds with saying parents should generally be trusted to make good decisions for their children. It's just that every rule has exceptions.
The question here is what to do about exceptions. So far it has been up to the student and teacher's best judgement about what to do in each case, based on their local precise knowledge of the situation.
The proposal here is for the state to override that local judgement and regulate that all parents be treated the same no matter what, ignoring the possibility of legitimately dangerous exceptions.
This is big government overreach into people's private lives, in a way that's legitimately dangerous as well as onerous. And it's being done for clear culture war reasons, there's a reason we have 50 high-profile bills about trans kids in school and few to none about school funding or other things with much bigger impact.
And how do we decide if the parents are bad in any given case? On this issue, the progressive answer seems to be "if the child says so". That is pretty close to just letting the child make the decisions in the first place. You cant really claim to agree that "parents should make the decisions in most cases", if you support overriding this default at the childs asking.
In the vast majority of cases, everyone involved agrees what to do. Saying "well in those cases we let the parents decide" does not count as parents deciding most of the time.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps the teacher is simply rescuing the innocent child from an evil GSM-bashing family. (Perhaps the teacher is simply rescuing five innocent children from five evil GSM-bashing families.)
And perhaps the shoplifter is simply a Jean Valjean, stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. (And that he's stealing cigarettes could perhaps be explained by his family having tastes like Fat Tony's.)
And perhaps the pet in the no-pets-allowed zone is simply a seeing-eye guide dog for a poor blind man. (Perhaps that the guide dog is actually two "American Bully XLs" is just because his problems are really tough and need special treatment.)
And perhaps the maniac tearing down the highway at thrice the speed limit is simply hurrying a medical emergency to the hospital and can't afford the ambulance fees. (Perhaps the several other cars who seem to be racing him just don't want to miss a moment by their loved one's bedside.)
And perhaps the email in the spam filter really did come from a Nigerian prince who needs your help moving his money. And perhaps the candidate really does mean to keep his campaign promises. Perhaps perhaps perhaps.
Of course, all of these are theoretically possible (maybe not the cigarettes one, though.
Or the campaign promises.) but living on edge cases is not a safe or sustainable way to live. (For every one with a Legitimate Excuse, there are x who are taking advantage of the grace afforded, where x is proportional to the ease of faking and the magnitude of the benefit divided by the costs and probability of getting caught - something like that.) So one has to think each case through, if one really does want to be careful.Because breaks from plain-sense like these are typically justified on utilitarian grounds. I mean, the deontological way would seem to be against them: stealing is wrong, breaking rules because one pleases is wrong, driving unsafely is wrong - but even the utilitarian argument often fails. Tolerating theft probably pushes more families towards poverty than it saves Valjeans. Tolerating reckless driving probably causes more medical emergencies than it saves.
In my experience, the argument at this point tends towards demands for perfection, I suppose: "in order to save both the center and the edge cases, we must make this massive change, and nothing less will do." No traffic safety without universal healthcare, I suppose. No punishment of theft before ending poverty. No trust in parents before total acceptance of everything LGBTQ+, perhaps. Often this feels to me like an attempt to hold a problem hostage until something much bigger and more ambitious can be granted instead. Usually it doesn't happen; often the bigger goal is utopic and can't happen.
But erring on the side of saving the edge cases, heedless of false positives, can ultimately be bad for those edge cases, too, come the next turn of the cultural wheel. Soft-on-crime light-handedness get followed by tough-on-crime crackdowns, and, well, pardonnez-nous, Monsieur Valjean. And perhaps here's where we're headed in this case.
I agree with you that no major change is needed. People can use their common sense to navigate their individual situations and do better than any massive externally imposed rule could hope to do.
Again, that is already how it works. What we are discussing here is a proposed law to force teachers to report.
The thing you're against in the abstract is also the thing I'm against in the specific. Because it turns out that in this specific case, the side you seem to be on is the one doing the thing you seem to be against.
Your speaking of "big government overreach" in the context of public schools seems to me like "get your government hands off my Medicare." Unless this is a situation where, in Canada, the meaning of "public school" is reversed from America, as in Britain (I think.) - it seems to me like that Rubicon has been crossed already. I'm reminded of objections (though not applicable north of the border) to state curriculum mandates on the grounds of teachers' First Amendment rights. Truly so, if their ability to speak as private citizens to private citizens was what was being curtailed - but as agents of the state to their captive audience? Not so much.
And particularly in Canada, one might suppose that a takeaway from the latest hullabaloo involving the legacy of residential schools would be that having schools usurp parental authority, no matter how backwards those parents are considered, should be something they might want to be more shy about. But maybe that's not the lesson they want to learn.
I disagree about 'crossing the Rubicon', if I'm understanding what you mean. Just because the government has overreached some, does not mean the seal is broken and they may as well overreach more. Every additional violation still causes additional damage and should be avoided.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and so forth.
As far as 'they are acting as government agents, not expressing their freedom of speech', I totally agree with that. We're not talking about what teachers should have the right to do as citizens, we're talking about how they should be instructed to behave as government agents.
In this case, I am arguing that our instructions to them as government agents should be to use their discretion to do what they think is best for the safety and wellbeing of the child.
This is a fairly normal thing to tell government agents to do, it's not like they're automatons where every word spoken and every movement taken is precisely and deterministically proscribed by strict policy. They're not Chinese Rooms. Working for the government ussually entails having a goal, and working at your discretion within broad guidelines to achieve it.
In this case, I think more children would be harmed if we took away the school's ability to exercise their own discretion as to what is best for the individual students in their care, and instead laid out a centralized blanket policy of universal disclosure. Yes, a government agent is involved either way; I'm talking about which set of rules for that government agent would lead to better outcomes.
And, yes, I do think that you can fairly describe leaving it to their discretion as 'less government overreach' than mandated disclosure. In the same way that 'CPS must take all children away from their parents if there is a report of suspected abuse' would be more government overreach than ' CPS must investigate all reports of suspected abuse and have the discretion to take the child away if they think they are in danger'.
I might be misunderstanding something, but it seems to me like this does not, in fact, mandate disclosure. It mandates disclosure iff social transition is to happen. There is an out here of "the kid withdraws the request for social transition upon realising this is going to involve disclosure to parents" (note the requirement for the school to "work with" the kid to plan the disclosure, so the kid will know this). Thus, this is not equivalent to "CPS must take the kids", because "do nothing" is still in fact an option. The only option closed off is "a government organisation socially transitions the kid without the parent's knowledge or consent".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Just disagree. Yes there are bad parents. There are of course bad teachers as well. The question is who gets to decide who is a bad teacher or a bad parent. I don’t think it should be within the teacher’s discretion to make that decision because well teachers can be both bad and they lack skin in the game (despite wanting to do good they may have ideological motivations that cause them to do bad).
That is, allowing teachers to keep secrets is also “dangerous.”
Also it is bad form to complain that there aren’t high profile bills about funding schools but are about the trans issue. Funding schools is a relative normal issue for the last hundred years. Trans issuers are new. Of course there will be high profile bills there when there won’t be for discussing a 1% increase in funding etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't that sound suspiciously like grooming?
No?
This feels like you are verging into 'Hitler was a vegetarian so all vegetarians hate Jews' territory here.
It seems closer to "scientologists secretly setting up a 'secondary support network' for children of 'suppressive persons' is deeply suspicious" territory.
Not to me.
If you have an argument, you'll have to make it. I don't share enough of your cultural signifiers for innuendo alone to carry the message.
I don't think it's about cultural signifiers, the analogy is pretty 1:1. Both scientologists, and gender affirming teachers are secretly making an end run around the parents. This behavior is wrong, both inherently, and because it puts children at risk.
It only sounds suspicious because you chose a group that you expect everyone here to be suspicious of, scientologists. This is what I was talking about with the 'Hitler was a vegetarian' thing. You are carrying the suspicion based on the person you chose to include in the example, not the actual structure of the situation which the analogy is to.
For instance, if I said 'a student whose parents are LDS is questioning the existence of god, and the LDS church would require the parents to kick them out of the house and stop all contact with them if they came out as atheist, and when the student talks to a teacher about this for support the teacher decides to not immediately tell the parents but instead help the student find other resources they could make use of if they do end up kicked out of the house', then the atheist portion of our audience here would probably think that is not a hugely suspicious and monstrous thing for the teacher to do.
Again, you are choosing objectionable examples for you analogies to make it seem bad, I can use sympathetic analogies to make it seem good. Both of these tactics are misleading and prey on cognitive biases around affect.
Quite the opposite. I don't find their actions suspicious because they're committed by scientologists, I find scientologists suspicious because of their actions.
It might work if you stayed within the parameters of the original hypothetical. Not immediately telling the parents might be defensible in certain situations, but we were talking about "6 months or a year or three years".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Add me as a person who is creeped out by the words "secondary support network". How many of us, at age 30, are still in touch with teachers from high school? The idea that they could, or should, replace parents is farcical.
Absolutely, teachers should provide support where appropriate, but never as a replacement to parents, only in addition to.
This is where allegations of grooming come from. Why are these teachers so interested in my child's sexuality? Why are they using my child to fight their culture wars? And who will bear the cost for the consequences?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some parents won't. But, once everyone is using it and the identity is set, the parent that objects in any way can immediately be considered abusive or "unsafe". What good parent would?
I guess you can see it as a tripwire, if you're really charitable.
More options
Context Copy link
Secrets can be open, like that one kid in class that everyone knows has an eating disorder/is gay/is cutting themselves, but no good would come from formally acknowledging that fact for sociopolitical climate reasons. It's a local version of "someone calls it out intentionally -> outs themselves as not being able to read the room" and "mocking the classmate with suicidal ideation is not actually going to improve their life", which are both things most people understand.
Factions prefer canned responses and buzzphrases when they have no other valid arguments. The first claim is similarly invalid.
Not necessarily official reports. The student knows their situation better than everyone else, naturally, and will take countermeasures if their nickname would show in a report to hostile parents- but really, this isn't really the issue here. In fact, all else being equal, this policy actually (some might say ironically) means a better ability for the student to keep this secret whether it be open or closed because they don't have to worry a particularly progressive faculty member will proactively change their name or gender in the reports.
Transgender names are, at their core, nicknames. Thus, lacking any formal policy, we should expect them to act like nicknames do- maybe some local social sanction follows for not using it, but that sanction does not extend to what the faculty/government is allowed to do. Every public-school-educated person knows at least one classmate that went by such a middle name/nickname, but you'd never be sent to detention by a teacher for not using it, and the student would be maximally free to not use the nickname if they felt it ceased to suit them.
Under the earlier environment, faction-adhering teachers were able to unilaterally sanction students for refusing to use nicknames like these, and while personnel remains policy they're not officially allowed to do that any more (so motivated traditionalist parents have a codified leg to stand on). With this policy in place, [traditionalist/liberal] students are more protected from [progressive] teachers, and attacking the official use of nicknames means arguments that students who choose cross-gender nicknames should have special accommodations/protections because of that will have a bit more difficulty finding traction in the future.
It's worth noting that this still gives progressive parents significant latitude; if they approve the use of the nickname/nick-pronoun then it still has force of law in the classroom even if the student happens to be 7 or 8 (so this doesn't fix the "he wore a dress today so he can add '-ina' to his name and gets to change with the girls" problem). At the same time, however, it also means that traditionalist parents regain control over nickname use, is a public repudiation of "not using your child's nickname is abuse and unsafe", and means a student isn't allowed to use the existing progressive power structure as their own personal army Cartman-style so it will damage progressive prestige among students many years down the line.
The first rule of nicknames is you don't get to choose your own nickname.
Kobe chose his own nickname
Kobe "bean" bryant
More options
Context Copy link
His real nickname apparently is "Showboat".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ahhh the Schrödinger parents - always knows what's best for their child if they decide to transition it, have absolutely no clue what's best for their child if there is any chance to oppose transition ...
Are you aware that psychologists and doctors are involved in this process?
The #1 institution in the world for convincing people not to transition is gender care clinics. Only a tiny fraction of people who come in for an initial consultation end up medically transitioning; most are dissuaded after talking to psychologists and doctors about whether it's actually the best path for them.
I love that you have a different opinion from most folks here. HOWEVER....
On just the basic face of it, why would a clinic whose entire existence revolves around providing medical procedures emphasize not doing those procedures?
There's culture war examples that are obvious. Planned Parenthood isn't going to tell you to have the baby. In a more pedestrian context, a "pain management" clinic isn't going to call you a pussy and push you out the door, and a laser eye specialist isn't going to say your eyesight is fine unless it's extremely good.
As others have mentioned I've personally seen zero evidence that gender clinics are operating with any reasonableness or rigor, and plenty that they aren't. With some exceptions for Nordic countries who have already swung around the horeshoe bend of going through aggressive pro-trans social changes a few years ago.
All of these organizations do all of these things all the time, though.
All medical providers have intake interviews where they see whether you are a good candidate for a given treatment. All of them turn people away when appropriate. Most of them have long batteries of screening institutions and specialists that make sure you're likely to be a good candidate before you ever get a referral to the actual care provider, which is precisely what the years of working with psychologists at gender care clinics before transitioning are for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The parents can only bring the kid to the gender care clinic if they know what is going on; the school conspiring to keep this all a secret from them means they don't know.
How long do we expect this to be true? The obvious continuation of the logic is for schools to provide
sex changesgender care behind parents’ backs. They already do it with abortion.How's this now?
I guess it’s not technically the school providing it. But if a pregnant student walks into the school counselor‘s office, what do you think happens next?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right, and the kid should certainly tell their parents if they think it's reasonably safe to do so.
Teachers should certainly talk to kids about telling their parents and help them determine whether it's safe and encourage them to do so if it is.
But having the state step in front of that individual judgement and make a blanket policy for everyone will cause a lot of problems. As per usual for state overreach into personal lives.
Then again, teaching kids postmodernist theories of identity in compulsory schools is an even bigger overreach into personal lives. Arguably compulsory schooling itself is. Given that we already live in a world where both of these things happen as a matter of course, what is the argument for stopping the overreach at informing the parents about their children's behavior in school?
First of all, no, teaching ideas is not a hostile act. If it is then we would need to have a serious conversation about teaching religion, and everything else.
Second, what exactly is it that you imagine is happening in schools? I'm sure schools in California have library books that talk about gender, and maybe as many as some kids have ever read them, but it's not going to be in the curriculum or on a test or anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right, I guess?
Doing a bad thing doesn't become good just because you're also doing a second bad thing. I'm not sure what argument you're really trying to make here.
If this is actually your position, would you object to courses teaching about the importance of white identity, the countless benefits ADOS received from being brought to America as opposed to kept in Africa, the science behind HBD theories and the pivotal role played by the republican party in ending slavery?
Teaching certain ideas is, in my opinion at least, absolutely a hostile act.
There's a big difference between 'I might object to this as stupid' and 'This is not literally worse than child abuse.'
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My district uses FLASH to teach sex ed. Here's a sample lesson plan: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/dph/documents/health-safety/health-programs-services/sexual-health-education/elementary/es02-family.pdf
Here's a relevant snippet:
This lesson is something that 41% of Americans, including 18% of Democrats, think shouldn't be taught in public schools: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/
More options
Context Copy link
I, too, remember the popular political refrain of "it's like ramming your dick down my kid's throat" of 2010.
Of course, the same thing applies to other newly-protected characteristics like, well, sexuality; said dick-ramming happens to be a bit more literal these days.
A government that protects characteristics is, by the reasoning behind protective characteristics, not to then start "affirming" some characteristics over others. The Progress flag and the Christian cross belong in equal measure in government: completely absent.
Oh being cis and straight is absolutely affirmed by schools every minute of every day.
Like a fish in water, it's so common that you don't notice it until it's absent for a moment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It absolutely can be a hostile act. To go with your religion example, teaching the idea "Jesus Christ is Lord" to Jewish or Muslim students would be a hostile act. By contrast teaching "there are people who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord" would not be, or at least most parents would agree that their kids are going to run into Christians sooner or later, and learning what they believe might help them navigate these interactions. On the other hand sometimes even teaching about an idea would be considered a hostile act. For example, I'm pretty sure many parents would be against having their children be told about the relationship between genetics, race, and IQ (myself included, funnily enough).
I imagine there are many schools draped in the progress flag, with walls covered in progressive slogans. I imagine that even if it's not officially in the curriculum, many teachers take the time to teach that we all have gender identity, and that it's possible for it to not fit your body, and combine that with lessons on privilege. And I imagine, like we discussed in the other thread, that some schools hide from the parents the fact that their children want to transition.
I think they can. Chemotherapy sans cancer is wrong, but is right when you do have it. The point I'm trying to make is that regulations forcing teachers to inform parents about their children's behavior in school is likely making the best of a bad situation, and there's no way to oppose them on "overreach" grounds.
More options
Context Copy link
Some ideas are sufficiently terrible that teaching them to impressionable children is a hostile act. For a nonpartisan example, let’s imagine that schools were teaching time cube(it does, after all, have about the same evidence as modern gender theory, albeit more poorly written). This would be recognized as a hostile act worth getting upset about even though as far as I know the only person who ever ruined his life over believing in time cube was Dr Gene Ray, the cubic and wisest human himself.
Trans is like that, except true believers have a strong tendency to mutilate themselves instead of just declaring themselves the wisest human and naming their personal website ‘abovegod.com’.
Yes, if a primary school curriculum ever has a unit test on the contents of abovegod.org, you will indeed have a valid point.
Until then, I still think you're crying wolf.
Partially by equivocating between very banal and anodyne discussion of what some people believe about gender being social and sex being biological vs the most extreme weird views of niche online trans content providers, and partially by massively overstating how common and central even that banal anodyne discussion is in schools.
And, again: if schools were teaching timecube, that would certainly be very stupid and something we'd want to fix. But it wouldn't be the same type of aggressive and dangerous action as creating a situation where your expected outcome is for a child to be abused by their parents. Violence is worse than speech even if the speech is bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have a citation to back this up? I haven't found any direct numbers, but there are some damning quotes from seemingly-reasonable sources. For example, the Interim Cass Review of the Tavistock clinic includes:
Honestly, I can't even find anecdotes of anyone and their doctor deciding that no treatment was the right course of action. I'm sure it's happened, but I'm having trouble believing "most" here.
Admittedly, this assertion is based on stuff I was reading at least a year ago and don't remember the exact providence of, and the SEO around anything trans related is so incredibly fucked by the culture war that now I can't find those sources in 3 minutes of google.
I did find numbers saying that over a 5 year period, 120k minors were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and 17k were put on puberty blockers or pills, suggesting that even among those who get a dysphoria diagnosis, the rates for going on to medical transition are very low, around 1/8th. But my claim is more that most people who go for a first consultation never get any diagnosis at all, so it's not exactly the same thing.
I remain confident that my claim is correct, but won't expect others to take my word for it if they have different intuitions. Based on my knowledge of how the diagnostic pipeline works in general it would seem very surprising to me if it weren't true just on priors, but meh.
A null hypothesis for this is that puberty blockers are generally dangerous drugs and that many doctors do not want to deal with the liability.
Sure, that doesn't conflict with my central claim here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What evidence do you have for this, and can you give specific examples about the manner in which they are being convinced to not transition? Even the "gender exploratory" approach is currently demonized as transphobic.
I'd be interested in the data you have on this, but even if correct, that doesn't imply this is thanks to, rather than despite, the efforts of the clinics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link