Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 51 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Full quote was in the original reply liar. So yes - that was YOUR contention. Nobody else suggested it. Nobody else even hinted that would be ok. You were the only one. I get why you might be trying to back peddle now seeing as it was so stupid. But yeah - that was all you kiddo. But i love you pretending you don't understand English now There's no way anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English syntax would interpret this the way you did. Quote So it's ok for a kid to tell a teacher that they're being abused without it getting back to their parents but information that might lead to a kid being abused must be shared with the parents? "If X then why not Y?" is not a statement that can be interpreted as "X is bad" unless you've stuck your head under a drill press. Edited February 8 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Well, I didn't hear that before but I'm interested. Do you have a cite You ask for sites a lot, but rarely have I seen you give any. Maybe you should. In any case you are able to look for information yourself. But for this specific case I troubled myself to do it for you. Here is a google search link that I used, you can peruse the results yourself. https://www.google.com/search?q=canada+parents+upset+school+distributed+inappropriate+material+to+students 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: This is why bottom surgery is not allowed until long after puberty... Do you have a cite for this claim showing there is actual legislation to that effect? Or is it simply understood as 'medical ethics'? Because this is legislation being proposed, where medical ethics can be a slippery slope that may change based on opinion. 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Legislation that bans things that are already illegal: what is the point of that ? You make it sound like there is nothing being changed here. If that were the case, why the backlash and outcry from the federally bought media and lgbtx activists? Obviously that must be false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 8 Author Report Share Posted February 8 17 minutes ago, Black Dog said: There's no way anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English syntax would interpret this the way you did. Literally everyone reads it that way. But like i said - considering how stupid a thing to say it was i can understand you trying to backpeddal Quote "If X then why not Y?" is not a statement that can be interpreted as "X is bad" unless you've stuck your head under a drill press. That's literally not what you did - and 'if X then why not Y" is in fact a statement that Y should be valid in every English speaking nation in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: You literally cropped out the question mark in my original quote to make it look like a statement, did you think I was gonna miss that? What a dishonest piece of shit you are. On the off chance you weren't playing silly buggers, I still have no idea how you would read that and come away thinking "this guy doesn't want teachers to report abuse" Yes but if a kid goes to a teacher and says "I think I'm trans, but I can't tell my parents because my dad will kick the shit out of me" you think the law should require the teacher say "lol too bad, I'm calling the old man right now". If there was ever a reason to assume that a child would be at risk of abuse, that requires follow up with CAS, but that’s pretty uncommon. I think there are many parents who would worry and not like the news that Johnny wants to be Sheila, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be mean or abusive. Almost all parents would want to make sure their kids are okay, getting thoughtful support, and are carefully assessing the implications to avoid moves that they might regret. They love their kids. If after talking it out and careful consideration, Johnny still wants to be called Sheila, that can be made to happen. A sex change can also happen, but we’re not deciding which shoes to buy here. This is life altering. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 13 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Literally everyone reads it that way. But like i said - considering how stupid a thing to say it was i can understand you trying to backpeddal No one else has interpreted this way, you are on an island of your own mental incapacity here. Quote That's literally not what you did - and 'if X then why not Y" is in fact a statement that Y should be valid in every English speaking nation in the world. Gibberish. I'm sitting here genuinely shocked anyone would be stupid enough to interpret it the way you and you alone have. Like there's no part of this sentence that states or implies "teachers shouldn't inform authorities when abuse happens." Quote So it's ok for a kid to tell a teacher that they're being abused without it getting back to their parents but information that might lead to a kid being abused must be shared with the parents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said: You really don't know how this works. Each case is stringently assessed before a candidate can have surgery. Blockers also require assessment. A kid can't just walk into a pharmacy and buy some puberty blockers. Well a recent Free Press article by a trans doctor talked about how she was directed to affirm requests without much consideration at a US clinic. England closed its Tavistock clinic over lawsuits. It’s not as copacetic as you make it sound. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 8 Author Report Share Posted February 8 5 minutes ago, Black Dog said: No one else has interpreted this way, you are on an island of your own mental incapacity here. Everyone does. Quote Gibberish. I'm sitting here genuinely shocked anyone would be stupid enough to interpret it the way you and you alone have. Like there's no part of this sentence that states or implies "teachers shouldn't inform authorities when abuse happens." "WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH I GOT CALLED OUT FOR SOMETHING STUPID AND I"M GOING TO GO ON LIKE A P*SSY ABOUT IT!!!!" Yeah kid - you continue to impress. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: If there was ever a reason to assume that a child would be at risk of abuse, that requires follow up with CAS, but that’s pretty uncommon. I think there are many parents who would worry and not like the news that Johnny wants to be Sheila, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to be mean or abusive. Almost all parents would want to make sure their kids are okay, getting thoughtful support, and are carefully assessing the implications to avoid moves that they might regret. They love their kids. If after talking it out and careful consideration, Johnny still wants to be called Sheila, that can be made to happen. You're kinda glossing over the fact that legally requiring teachers inform parents of any changes to the student's gender identity/presentation regardless of the kid's wishes will result in a non-zero number of kids getting abused or kicked out of their homes. So I'm asking how you square your support for requiring parental notification in the event of name/pronoun changes with your desire to safeguard children from abuse. Quote A sex change can also happen, but we’re not deciding which shoes to buy here. This is life altering. We're talking specifically about things like name changes or pronouns here. If John wants to be Jane and called she at school but doesn't want their parents to know, I would trust they have a good reason for not wanting that information to get out and no one, least of all Danielle Smith, should force teachers to reveal that information to parents without the kid's consent. Edited February 8 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 5 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Everyone does. Funny how the person I replied to and with whom i'm having a very civil exchange with seems to have understood the question when you did not. Quote "WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH I GOT CALLED OUT FOR SOMETHING STUPID AND I"M GOING TO GO ON LIKE A P*SSY ABOUT IT!!!!" Yeah kid - you continue to impress. I'm legitimately embarrassed for you here. Edited February 8 by Black Dog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Yes... but that isn't the age as far as I know. It's variable, from what I have read. 2.Yes, but you have to trust a doctor to be objective to a point. There are limits on that, but the system assumes that medical professionals look at these things objectively. 3. Hmmmm... I agree with the first part, but I think the ethics come under the oath that doctors take in order to practice. 4. I like that you are erring on the side of caution. This is why medical consultation is needed in the first place. This is why bottom surgery is not allowed until long after puberty... There are ethical positions on this for sure, much as a Catholic doctor has a position on abortion. You can’t take morality out of the equation as though there’s a single established consensus. Something can be technically feasible yet raise all sorts of questions about whether it’s a good idea to do. There’s too many stories of de-transitioning and regret, and there are strong compelling perspectives with science behind them about the significance of biological sex and the dangers of denying or suppressing it. You can’t dismiss such variances as not a big deal or make it discernible by an expert or a committee. It’s simply not that solid. You need damn good guardrails to protect people, and even then you will see much debate and question. Some people choose paths that others won’t support. Nevertheless we need rules and guidelines to prevent the worst excesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: 1. You ask for sites a lot, but rarely have I seen you give any. Maybe you should. 2. In any case you are able to look for information yourself. But for this specific case I troubled myself to do it for you. Here is a google search link that I used, you can peruse the results yourself. https://www.google.com/search?q=canada+parents+upset+school+distributed+inappropriate+material+to+students 3. Do you have a cite for this claim showing there is actual legislation to that effect? 4. You make it sound like there is nothing being changed here. If that were the case, why the backlash and outcry from the federally bought media and lgbtx activists? Obviously that must be false. 1. I always have one ready if asked. Well, almost always. Also I don't really post my ideas much, mostly because I used to years, probably decades ago. Looooong posts that would get zero interests. So I just help others now. 2. No - you have it wrong way around. In fact, that used to be an enforced offense here - people refusing to back up claims. That wasn't a cite, anyway, it was a google search with most results not even relevant. So ... back to the point that took us here was my post: "I can't believe that this wasn't the case before... don't they approve curriculum materials for health ? No idea. Let's Google this... Yes, sure looks like it. https://education.alberta.ca/healthy-schools/program-supports/everyone/comprehensive-school-health-program-supports/" And - none of the results of the Google search that I could see refer to Alberta where - as my original point said - it's already covered. So let's recap: Me "This is useless it's already covered" You:"There have been examples where material is brought in..." then You:"Google results"... but we're back where we were from POV. If it's already covered then the policiy does nothing. For the record you did waste my time here. 3. Ok... I guess you can check one of my "rare" cites provided on page 3 of this thread. 4. I would hate to overstate my case, as that is what I criticize others of doing. Yes there are changes in this but there are also things being talked about here that are redundant and not effective. Back to my main point - legislation like this is bad for the public sphere. Poor politics. Why is there backlash ? Poor politics. And my original post on the thread about the NY Times editorial. Acitivists and anti-activists would rather fight than solve problems. You can't complain about one without complaining about the other. I seem to be the only one complaining about both. Poor politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Black Dog said: You're kinda glossing over the fact that legally requiring teachers inform parents of any changes to the student's gender identity/presentation regardless of the kid's wishes will result in a non-zero number of kids getting abused or kicked out of their homes. So I'm asking how you square your support for requiring parental notification in the event of name/pronoun changes with your desire to safeguard children from abuse. We're talking specifically about things like name changes or pronouns here. If John wants to be Jane and called she at school but doesn't want their parents to know, I would trust they have a good reason for not wanting that information to get out and no one, least of all Danielle Smith, should force teachers to reveal that information to parents without the kid's consent. The risks of not including parents are far greater, and in the end the parents are the primary caregivers, not the social worker, thankfully. Life goes on if the parents don’t want the name or pronoun changes and Johnny will be okay. He can in the meantime plan his future identity, but my guess is that after some adjustment through puberty, Johnny might not want to become Sheila at age 16. If he does, at least he thought it through and has more maturity and knowledge. Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 Just now, Zeitgeist said: The risks of not including parents are far greater, and in the end the parents are the primary caregivers, not the social worker, thankfully. What are the risks that are greater than physical or mental abuse and homelessness, specifically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 17 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Funny how the person I replied to and with whom i'm having a very civil exchange with seems to have understood the question when you did not. I wouldn't count on Zeitgeist to set dinglenuts straight. LMAO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 2 minutes ago, eyeball said: I wouldn't count on Zeitgeist to set dinglenuts straight. LMAO! Probably not but I'm still genuinely baffled by that guy's interpretation, like what on earth. Edited February 8 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Black Dog said: What are the risks that are greater than physical or mental abuse and homelessness, specifically? The risks of children making bad decisions without parent involvement are greater than with parent involvement, including to mental health, because children do a lot of things that they shouldn’t do without parent involvement. This should be obvious. It looks like you don’t trust parents to care for their kids.. Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 1 minute ago, Black Dog said: Probably not but I'm still genuinely baffled by that guy's interpretation, like what on earth. It's how he rolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: The risks of children making bad decisions without parent involvement are greater than with parent involvement, including to mental health, because children do a lot of things that they shouldn’t do without parent involvement. This should be obvious. You're ducking the question. What are the specific risks of not telling parents about their kids' gender identity when the kids don't want them to know? We know there's a non-zero risk of physical, mental or even sexual abuse, homelessness or worse. So what could be worse? Quote It looks like you don’t trust parents to care for their kids.. Not all, maybe not even most, but definitely some. 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: It's how he rolls. The most advanced and severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect i've ever seen, his brainpan should be studied by scientists. Edited February 8 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Black Dog said: You're ducking the question. What are the specific risks of not telling parents about their kids' gender identity when the kids don't want them to know? We know there's a non-zero risk of physical, mental or even sexual abuse, homelessness or worse. So what could be worse? Not all, maybe not even most, but definitely some. The most advanced and severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect i've ever seen, his brainpan should be studied by scientists. The risks of not knowing what’s going on in their lives, especially around such confusing issues, and especially given the mental health concerns associated with dysphoria, are too great. It would be absurd for a school not to report a child’s academic progress. To not relay social and emotional concerns to primary caregivers is irresponsible. Who makes sure a child is cared for more than a parent? Leaving parents out, except in cases of suspected abuse, is irresponsible and itself a form of neglect. It raises questions of nefarious motives. Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 Just now, Zeitgeist said: The risks of not knowing what’s going on in their lives, especially around such confusing issues, and especially given the mental health concerns associated with dysphoria, are too great. I've named some very specific things that can and do happen to kids when their parents find out they're queer or trans, it's wild you can't actually name a specific harm that could come from withholding information on gender and/or sexuality from a potentially abusive parent. Quote It would be absurd for a school not to report a child’s academic progress. To not relay social and emotional concerns to primary caregivers is irresponsible. Who makes sure a child is cared for more than a parent? Leaving parents out, except in cases of suspected abuse, is irresponsible and itself a form of neglect. But what about potential abuse? I don't know why you can't address the fact that some kids might have legitimate reasons for not wanting their parents to know about this stuff but you would require teachers to tell parents regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Black Dog said: I've named some very specific things that can and do happen to kids when their parents find out they're queer or trans, it's wild you can't actually name a specific harm that could come from withholding information on gender and/or sexuality from a potentially abusive parent. But what about potential abuse? I don't know why you can't address the fact that some kids might have legitimate reasons for not wanting their parents to know about this stuff but you would require teachers to tell parents regardless. I trust parents over institutions. You haven’t learned anything from the Residential School debacle or the Sixties Scoop? How about the sterilization of the mentally ill or developmentally delayed? Parents are the primary caregivers for their kids. They make the medical decisions and decisions around names, dress, diet, housing, and much more. Assuming that parents don’t have their kids’ best interests at heart and that the state or institution knows better how to raise them is a recipe for disaster. I don’t trust some of the people involved in these institutions because of their beliefs and ideologies, nor should I have to adopt their beliefs or let these beliefs be taught to my kids. If you want to challenge the primacy of parents in raising kids, I can promise it will get ugly, and rightfully so. In a democracy the citizens must be trusted and the parents must be trusted to parent. Where abuse is suspected, exceptions are made. Edited February 8 by Zeitgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 8 Author Report Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: Funny how the person I replied to and with whom i'm having a very civil exchange with seems to have understood the question when you did not. I'm legitimately embarrassed for you here. Sounds like projection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: I trust parents over institutions. You haven’t learned anything from the Residential School debacle or the Sixties Scoop? How about the sterilization of the mentally ill or developmentally delayed? Parents are the primary caregivers for their kids. They make the medical decisions and decisions around names, dress, diet, housing, and much more. Assuming that parents don’t have their kids’ best interests at heart and that the state or institution knows better how to raise them is a recipe for disaster. I don’t trust some of the people involved in these institutions because of their beliefs and ideologies, nor should I have to adopt their beliefs or let these beliefs be taught to my kids. If you want to challenge the primacy of parents in raising kids, I can promise it will get ugly, and rightfully so. In a democracy the citizens must be trusted and the parents must be trusted to parent. Where abuse is suspected, exceptions are made. I'm not assuming any of that. I'm stating that there are numerous specific cases where a kid may not want their parents to know things about their gender or sexual identity because of the potential for abuse. The fact you can't address this specific scenario with anything but vague pronouncements about unnamed greater harms and slippery slopes tells me you don't really have an answer for what to do in such a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Assuming that parents don’t have their kids’ best interests at heart and that the state or institution knows better how to raise them is a recipe for disaster. Assuming the opposite - also a bad tack. Checks and balances are what works best. There have been some articles about Homeschooling in the academic literature lately. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/05/law-school-professor-says-there-may-be-a-dark-side-of-homeschooling/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted February 8 Report Share Posted February 8 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Assuming the opposite - also a bad tack. Checks and balances are what works best. There have been some articles about Homeschooling in the academic literature lately. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/05/law-school-professor-says-there-may-be-a-dark-side-of-homeschooling/ I support public education with safeguards and parental permission requirements around certain topics and practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.