Who's in Charge of Adolescents, Parents or Teachers?

[Twilight Hue]

Sounds like BS to me. We changed our curriculum here a few years back and people were freaking out about the same crap. I read through every single page of that curriculum from Kindergarten to the 12th Grade and I couldn't find anything even close to the crap people were saying was in there.
This is just more culture wars nonsense.

The only thing on these kids minds is tying their shoelaces and learning how to use scissors and crayons.

These nutcases are just plain sick in the head thinking kindergarten childern need this kind of exposure.


Let them be just kids and leave the adult themes for later on. Significantly later on.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Facepalm! Because they alone are responsible for their childrens lives. Until you are officially an adult you are under your parents authority legally.

That's how the law is set up.

 

[jbg]

I voted pets. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Good vote! I just changed my vote to "pets."

 

[jbg]

I like things and systems that work. I am tired of experiments that cost lots of money and uproot lives. Now, for example the World Economic Forum wants people to give up private cars. See
World Economic Forum calls to reduce private vehicles by eliminating 'ownership.'

Off topic.

So I take it you no longer want to discuss what you mentioned in your opening post?

I'll be happy to discuss it and its relevance. It seems that some people want to experiment with massive societal changes. One of those changes is gender fluidity. Another is massive shifts away from private vehicle ownership. Both threaten to wreak havoc on society of they don't work out. I'll break it into topics:

Limits on private vehicle ownership. For the elimination of ICE's to succeed we need to drastically expand the power grid. And that expansion, to accomplish the objective, has to be with solar and wind power, since nuclear is a "no-no" to many. Even natural gas features much less in the way of emissions but that would again be too easy. So many things have to go right.

So the powers-that-be at Davos prescribe vehicle sharing, so that everyone could not have their own private vehicles. This in order to reduce the demand for lithium and/or cobalt. Again, if this is not what people want the results are potential catastrophe, and for what? Will we ever know if the mantras against "climate change" work? Of course not. This is more a desire to reduce consumption, at least for the plebes.

Gender fluidity - The dual-gender system imposed by the creator of life, whatever divine or evolution-based system has served the great majority of us well. The chaos that would result from atomizing a system that functions across almost all species is unimaginable. An example of this is woman's sports. Women have wanted to have competitive sports made available to them. Can biological women compete effectively against biological males? At best they would be at a serious disadvantage in non-contact sports as swimming, track and tennis. In boxing or football? Well, just imagine. The results could be lethal.

 

[F1fan]

I'll be happy to discuss it and its relevance. It seems that some people want to experiment with massive societal changes. One of those changes is gender fluidity.

You make it sound like gender fluidity is similar to trying weed for the first time. From the testimony I have heard from trans and gays it is more a case of them having a non-standard understanding of themselves, and society as a whole is becomong more oen minded and tolerant and accepting these people for who they are. For some reason this threatens conservatives, and they don;t explain why they feel threatened, they only work to limit the freedom of trans and gay people. Trans and gay people being who they are threatens no one, but conservatives feel something that is all about them, not trans or gays.

Your thoughts?

Another is massive shifts away from private vehicle ownership. Both threaten to wreak havoc on society of they don't work out.

I drive an Audi and have a few times needed to haul materials like gravel. I borrowed my cousins truck for this. As a bike racer we have events out of town and to share costs we travel with other racers. My best friend shares a lawn mower and other gardening tools with two other neighbors to save costs.

All pretty smart, what's the problem with sharing rsources and saving money?

I'll break it into topics:

Limits on private vehicle ownership. For the elimination of ICE's to succeed we need to drastically expand the power grid. And that expansion, to accomplish the objective, has to be with solar and wind power, since nuclear is a "no-no" to many. Even natural gas features much less in the way of emissions but that would again be too easy. So many things have to go right.

So the powers-that-be at Davos prescribe vehicle sharing, so that everyone could not have their own private vehicles. This in order to reduce the demand for lithium and/or cobalt. Again, if this is not what people want the results are potential catastrophe, and for what? Will we ever know if the mantras against "climate change" work? Of course not. This is more a desire to reduce consumption, at least for the plebes.

Oddly why would conservatives be opposed to conserving resources? This seems like fixable problems. Change is just naturally uncomfortable for some folks, but change always comes. It's their problem resisting change.

Gender fluidity - The dual-gender system imposed by the creator of life, whatever divine or evolution-based system has served the great majority of us well. The chaos that would result from atomizing a system that functions across almost all species is unimaginable. An example of this is woman's sports. Women have wanted to have competitive sports made available to them. Can biological women compete effectively against biological males? At best they would be at a serious disadvantage in non-contact sports as swimming, track and tennis. In boxing or football? Well, just imagine. The results could be lethal.

This is an issue is sports and thus far I see the vast majority of athletes support trans athletes. My own opion is that if female athletes are OK with trans athletes then it's OK by me. I think that state and national championships should be more geneder specific. There was a local male bike racer who transed a few years ago. He was a lower ability rider as a male and as a trans racer in the female events he never won or even placed to my knowledge. The women racers had no problem with Chris moving in this way, and our racing community supported the change. In USA bike racing women at a high level are allowed to race with the men. I've been beaten twice by women, once in cross and once in a criterium. That's impressive. Excellent athletes.

As more trans athletes are part of sport I would not be surprised if they get their own categories.

Conservatives have raised a few examples of trans female athletes exceeding natural born women athletes. A few athletes have gone on the record that they are upset. Fair enough. Thus far this is rare, and it is much ado about nothing. It seems just a cultural gripe conservatives have, and is an exercise in their intolerance and fear of a changing society.

 

[Curious George]

Facepalm! Because they alone are responsible for their childrens lives. Until you are officially an adult you are under your parents authority legally.

I can’t quite emphasize this enough, but even with your misunderstanding of the law, this does not grant parents some mysterious entitlement such that teachers are required to share information about disclosures of gender identity.

 

[Curious George]

That's how the law is set up.

No, it isn’t.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it isn’t.

It is in my area.

Maybe not yours though.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not sure why you believe a child’s disclosure of gender identity falls under the realm of information to which a parent is entitled.

It's because they're the parents. The end. It really is that simple. You need to give a good reason why you think they're not entitled to such important information.

 

[metis]

Gender issues are often quite complicated and confusing to so many because genetics are so often involved, thus I had to check the last box.

 

[Curious George]

It is in my area.

Maybe not yours though.

No, not your area either. But feel free to get the law that states that “parents alone are responsible” for their children and a minor is wholly under the authority of their parent.

 

[Curious George]

It's because they're the parents. The end. It really is that simple.

perhaps because they “said so!”?

You need to give a good reason why you think they're not entitled to such important information.

No, I don’t. One doesn’t need to establish a good reason a duty doesn’t exist. The burden is on those asserting the duty does exist.

But, among the list of reasons would be child safety, confidentiality, withholding such information doesn’t impose on a parent’s ability to make informed decisions as the educational rights holder, and requiring such a duty would be too encumbersome.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

perhaps because they “said so!”?


No, I don’t. One doesn’t need to establish a good reason a duty doesn’t exist. The burden is on those asserting the duty does exist.

But, among the list of reasons would be child safety, confidentiality, withholding such information doesn’t impose on a parent’s ability to make informed decisions as the educational rights holder, and requiring such a duty would be too encumbersome.

Children aren't seen as having confidentiality rights against their parents. The parents have legal rights over them, including medical decisions. You just can't come up with a reason why parents don't or shouldn't have such rights.

 

[Curious George]

Children aren't seen as having confidentiality rights against their parents. The parents have legal rights over them, including medical decisions. You just can't come up with a reason why parents don't or shouldn't have such rights.

You seem confused. I gave you 5 reasons. You made objection to one of those. Children are seen as having confidentiality against their parents. Parents may be entitled to some information, but some is not all.

Perhaps the issue here is not that I cannot come up with a reason, as I have provided multiple, but rather that you cannot come up with a reason that parents should be entitled to this information and why teachers owe that duty to parents. Except of course your powerful reason of “because they’re parents.”

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Children are seen as having confidentiality against their parents. Parents may be entitled to some information, but some is not all.

Where are you getting this from?

but rather that you cannot come up with a reason that parents should be entitled to this information and why teachers owe that duty to parents

I already told you, it's because the parents are the legal guardians of the student and the teachers are answerable to the parents and the rest of the community, as being entrusted with the education of their children. Parents have the right to medical and school records of their kids. I have no idea why you would think this isn't so.

 

[Curious George]

Where are you getting this from?

Talk to a priest ask them if they are required to share with parents what kids disclose in confession. Find a therapist, ask them if they are required to share with parents what children disclose in a session. Find an attorney ask them if they are required to share, with a parent, everything which a child client tells them. Find a police officer, ask them if they are required to share with a parent everything a child disclosed to them privately. Confidentiality does not just disappear because we are talking about the parent child relationship. If you believe it does, produce the statutes that say so.

I already told you, it's because the parents are the legal guardians of the student and the teachers are answerable to the parents and the rest of the community, as being entrusted with the education of their children. Parents have the right to medical and school records of their kids. I have no idea why you would think this isn't so.

And I already told you that this is insufficient to create a duty for teachers to owe a duty to the parents to share information of a child’s disclosure of their gender identity.

 

[Curious George]

Parents have the right to medical and school records of their kids.

I posted about doctors previously in my response to @lewisnotmiller . Parents can have access to medical and school records, but that doesn’t mean they will get access to whether their child has disclosed a specific gender identity unless that is documented in those records.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Talk to a priest ask them if they are required to share with parents what kids disclose in confession. Find a therapist, ask them if they are required to share with parents what children disclose in a session. Find an attorney ask them if they are required to share, with a parent, everything which a child client tells them. Find a police officer, ask them if they are required to share with a parent everything a child disclosed to them privately. Confidentiality does not just disappear because we are talking about the parent child relationship. If you believe it does, produce the statutes that say so.


And I already told you that this is insufficient to create a duty for teachers to owe a duty to the parents to share information of a child’s disclosure of their gender identity.

None of those situations are like school, which minors are legally required to attend. Usually when something is wrong, the parents are the first people they call. Now there are exceptions where there are cases or allegations of serious child abuse (which the school should report to authorities and then CPS/the police would step in), but the disclosure example would bar any parent from knowing, even if there is no abuse going on. Outside of such extraordinary situations, I see no reason why a parent wouldn't be entitled to know or why it should be withheld from them.

 

[Curious George]

None of those situations are like school, which minors are legally required to attend. Usually when something is wrong, the parents are the first people they call. Now there are exceptions where there are cases or allegations of serious child abuse (which the school should report to authorities and then CPS/the police would step in), but the disclosure example would bar any parent from knowing, even if there is no abuse going on. Outside of such extraordinary situations, I see no reason why a parent wouldn't be entitled to know or why it should be withheld from them.

Whether a parent is entitled or whether it should be shared are two separate discussions.

many parents are not accepting and caring, but many are. Asking the school to assess for safety is a pretty imposing task. Alternatively, teachers could contact CPS with every disclosure of gender identity that does not align with a child’s birth sex, but this isn’t a social workers job either. CPS could get involved if there was evidence of a parents lack of acceptance and a concern that this was causing unjustified mental suffering, but by the very nature of what we are discussing there would be no evidence of that. Educational professionals can exercise their professional judgement and that solves the issue. This is the parents child. This is personal information that no one is preventing or discouraging a child from sharing. Children are welcome to tell their parents and if the parent has facilitated an open and communicative relationship, then the child will likely do just that. If this happens, it is back to a non-issue.

Children have rights of their own; this is even more so true for adolescents. The entire reason parental rights exist in the first place is because we assume children are not mature enough to make certain decisions. As children age, this becomes less and less of an assumption. This is why, in some states, children are given both the ability to make some medical decisions as they age. This is why courts listen more to children as they age in matters of custody.

in some states medical providers cannot provide some medical records to parents without the child’s consent.

the purpose of teachers sharing with parents stems from the duty owed to the child. That is to protect the child’s health and safety and to allow the parent as the educational rights holder to make informed decisions. I do not see how disclosure of gender identity falls within that realm. You can make an argument based on preservation of health and safety, yet I am not convinced that the gender identity disclosure is required to address this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only thing on these kids minds is tying their shoelaces and learning how to use scissors and crayons.

These nutcases are just plain sick in the head thinking kindergarten childern need this kind of exposure.


Let them be just kids and leave the adult themes for later on. Significantly later on.

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. They don't appear to be doing what people such as yourself are claiming. That was the entire point of my comment.

I learned basic reproductive health in the Fifth grade. That was 35 years ago. The kids will be fine learning about how their bodies work.