As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do. (or why it's ok for parents to question)

[Black Dog]

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Not a teachers business to make that determination unless it is rather blatant, to where one needs intervention.

"Sorry kid, I know you said your dad would kill any child of his who was trans, but he's probably just joshin'."

Quote

So, not only they overstep their boundaries, but withhold info because Mahmoud is Muslim, so therefore unable to care for a child, even though they have until that point.

No, it's if the kid asked them not to tell.

Quote

 

Its not competence. Its simple boundaries. If I want medical care or advice, I seek it from a professional who specializes in such care.

 

You're not the one asking for anything in this scenario.

Quote

Just like my wife doesn't ask questions about her vagina to a librarian. 

Just because the librarian is eager to help because of some Google links she read, doesn't mean that the breach of protocol should take place.

Me asking her what was she thinking shouldn't be refuted by: "I asked her for help. I was feeling pain, and my doctor wasn't booking for 3 weeks".

Again with the completely irrelevant hypotheticals. Just address the scenario at hand where a kid goes to a teacher, says "I'm trans but my parents are really bigoted and i'm worried they'll kick me out or worse." Your solution is the teacher says "tough titty, I'm telling on you" or calls the cops/CPS (in both cases the kid gets outed against their will).

Quote

We will never see eye to eye. I like government officials staying out of my business as much as possible. 

You're literally calling for government employees to act as your personal snitches here, you know that right?

Edited February 15, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

"Sorry kid, I know you said your dad would kill any child of his who was trans, but he's probably just joshin'."

Cite one case where that actually happened. Where the kid literally said his dad has stated that he will be killed if he turns out to be trans

Quote

No, it's if the kid asked them not to tell

So if he asks them not to tell his grades that's ok? We just do what children ask now?.

Quote

Again with the completely irrelevant hypotheticals. Just address the scenario at hand where a kid goes to a teacher, says "I'm trans but my parents are really bigoted and i'm worried they'll kick me out or worse." Your solution is the teacher says "tough titty, I'm telling on you" or calls the cops/CPS (in both cases the kid gets outed against their will).

If you think the kid is serious then talk to the authorities, they will investigate with the kid.

Quote

You're literally calling for government employees to act as your personal snitches here, you know that right?

Oh my god -  so if the kid falls and breaks his leg and the parents are notified its  "Snitching"?  If the teacher tells the parents the kid is struggling in class and may have a learning challenge that's "Snitching"?  What are you, like 7 years old? You can always run around behind the teacher yelling 'tattletale tattletale!"   

Teachers have a fiduciary duty to disclose ANY and ALL information related to the child's health or well being. Period.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh my god -  so if the kid falls and breaks

Its only snitching if telling on a trans kid.

Parents must feel shame for wanting to know whats going on with their kids, otherwise they may demand draconian things, like their rights and authority as parents to be respected.

Trudeau's government feel you should have the right to end your life due to poor mental health, but scoffs at parents demanding to know what goes on in school with their kids.

"What if they kill themselves?!"

Give me a break.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

"What if they kill themselves?!"

Give me a break.

Another flagrant example of you not giving a s*h*t.  Oh well...

Edited February 16, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Another flagrant example of you not giving a s*h*t.  Oh well...

You take my posts out of context and tack on the narrative of your choosing to try playing this moral game you play to pat yourself on the shoulder as the lone great stand up citizen on repolitics.

I could mail you a medal and a cookie in the mail, but you're so greasy I may just send you popcorn.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Another flagrant example of you not giving a s*h*t.  Oh well...

The kids chances of suicide actually go up if the parents don't know according to the research.  Sooooo - who doesn't care about kids?

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Its only snitching if telling on a trans kid.

Are you guys really too dense to understand the difference between an acute health condition like a broken leg or even mental health condition like suicidal ideation and the desire to explore gender identity?

Quote

Parents must feel shame for wanting to know whats going on with their kids, otherwise they may demand draconian things, like their rights and authority as parents to be respected.

No but you should feel shame for wanting to out kids against their will.

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The kids chances of suicide actually go up if the parents don't know according to the research.  Sooooo - who doesn't care about kids?

What research.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Are you guys really too dense to understand the difference between an acute health condition like a broken leg or even mental health condition like suicidal ideation and the desire to explore gender identity?

The issue isn't the difference but rather the similarity.  Both are very serious and need treatment. Are you saying that a child committing suicide is not a serious issue?

Quote

No but you should feel shame for wanting to out kids against their will.

No, you shouldn't. Any more than you should feel shame for 'outing'  a kid for that broken leg, or if they're struggling in class etc.

The idea is !diotic.  They are a child - this isn't some sort of game.  You're acting like YOU"RE a child as well and this is some sort of recess play or something. This is serious and teachers have a duty to advise parents.

 

Quote

What research.

You mean you haven't read any? So - you have no idea what you're talking about.  Gotcha.

There's tonnes actually. Here's a starter

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578185/

Of course - with your comprehension skills you'll probably conclude it says that conservatives hate their kids or something.

But bottom line is having one or more supportive family members reduces thoughts of suicide.  In reality the actual number of trans kids who kill themselves isnt much different than the rest of the population but they think about it more and try more so that's bad.

The smartest thing that could be done is to go to the parents, tell them, advise them the kid needs support and let the parents do their jobs.  While many react poorly out of surprise initially most actually become supportive and that's critical.

 

So tell me something - how is it i've read dozens of reaserch papers on this and YOU, who claim to 'really really care', havne't read any?

SIgh,  bet i don't get an actual answer.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Its only snitching if telling on a trans kid.

Parents must feel shame for wanting to know whats going on with their kids, otherwise they may demand draconian things, like their rights and authority as parents to be respected.

Trudeau's government feel you should have the right to end your life due to poor mental health, but scoffs at parents demanding to know what goes on in school with their kids.

"What if they kill themselves?!"

Give me a break.

It comes down to, “Does the government trust the people?” That’s fundamental to a democracy.  The state that attempts to parent is the evil overbearing state: anti-individual, anti-family, anti-fertility, pro suicide and hard drug use….Seeing a pattern here?  We must restore the rights of the individual.  The sacredness of every individual is primary and beyond gender, beyond mere pleasure or some other cheap gain.

The culture war is about nothing less than the battle to save the human soul.

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

   We must restore the rights of the individual. 

This isn't so simple as you make it.

The child can be deemed mature enough to have their own individual rights.  The Province is taking them away.

Parents who are certain that their child is trans, and have medical advice that concurs are now unable to take action.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This isn't so simple as you make it.

The child can be deemed mature enough to have their own individual rights.  The Province is taking them away.

 

But parents don't have rights?

Sounds like a growing number of people are kind of sick of that twisted logic. If you can't have an honest discussion they won't bother discussing it with you at all. Which is pretty much what's happening,

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This isn't so simple as you make it.

The child can be deemed mature enough to have their own individual rights.  The Province is taking them away.

Parents who are certain that their child is trans, and have medical advice that concurs are now unable to take action.

You miss the point.  Medicine is the message.  What you allow/support as a society has critical implications.  Chemically and/or surgically altering the bodies of children is radical.  It’s not as simple as, “We can do this so we should.”

You always miss the moral dimension.  You don’t understand medical ethics because you don’t see the inherent risks in a healthcare system that takes such liberties with the bodies of children.  There are legal protections and requirements that have social engineering implications.

Wake up: Should a country that can only maintain itself through immigration continue to play with natural gender and fertility, especially for kids?

Why Canada’s population is committing mass suicide:

birth control 

abortion

hard drugs

porn

MAID

homosexuality

gender reassignment

environmental contaminants (chemicals, hormones in water and plastics, etc).

What do you think are the social engineering implications of throwing trans body changes and non-traditional relationship ideas at kids in terms of the country’s long term fertility prospects?

There are good reasons for longstanding social mores.

Until you start looking at the ideology at that scale, you don’t grasp the good reasons to keep such ideas out of early  childhood education. It matters.  Parents understand this.  The state doesn’t care because it seeks to assert authority over family and individuals.  That’s why people practice religion or have their spiritual beliefs, because the individual and family must always hold the power over the state in a healthy democracy. These fundamental Charter rights must be protected, or rather, if the Charter can’t protect these basic freedoms, it must be revised.

Edited February 16, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Guest]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is serious and teachers have a duty to advise parents.

Exactly. Keeping it a secret essentially, puts the health and safety of that child in that teacher's hands. 

You're essentially making medical decisions on their behalf.

I mentioned my wife's daughter who is very butch presenting. We love her the same, but she has struggled with her identity. She is supported and loved and as a result is very confident.

My wife reminds her she's still a girl, as she wants to behave like a male, regarding the more lax attitude to her personal safety.

Its not a teacher's decision to decide that this person is male, and to give them a "safe space" to further confuse themselves.

Shes now almost an adult, and kind of how I had warned my wife, is likely gay. She talked about falling in love with a girl, likely to test waters.

My wife would be disappointed, but doesn't love her any less.

This isn't remotely the realm a teacher should be venturing into.

Affirming a child's perceived gender without question, is potentially harming the child.

The mast majority of kids, wind up sorting themselves out on their own.

I was confused, I realized I was asexual. Had several friends realize they were gay.

Just the amount of control you put in a teachers hands to me, is disturbing.

We let her dress as she pleases, as she hates dresses and makeup, and would prefer a basketball jersey, a chain and jeans any day of the week. To us, this is just her being herself.

We never affirmed her confusion, but it also was never persistent.

Just because a kid tells you they are a boy (but born female), doesn't mean you should affirm it automatically. Even less  keep it from parents.

To me this crosses a line going from care, to activism under the guise of keeping a child safe.

Leave kids alone, and let parents do their job. If it is deemed that parent is unfit and dangerous, you have a point in using legal levers to report it.

Otherwise, mind your business.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You miss the point.  Medicine is the message.  What you allow/support as a society has critical implications.  Chemically and/or surgically altering the bodies of children is radical.  It’s not as simple as, “We can do this so we should.”

You always miss the moral dimension.   

It's your point I was replying to, and that WAS a moral point about medical decisions by an individual.  I played it back on exactly the terms you stated and now you're changing the argument.

You then tie it to some ideology (undefined) that groups together a long list of social changes that have unfolded over the last sixty years.

I do care about morality, but how we work through this in the public sphere is through honest dialogue.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's your point I was replying to, and that WAS a moral point about medical decisions by an individual.  I played it back on exactly the terms you stated and now you're changing the argument.

You then tie it to some ideology (undefined) that groups together a long list of social changes that have unfolded over the last sixty years.

I do care about morality, but how we work through this in the public sphere is through honest dialogue.

No.  These ideas are tied together because they represent a number of moves in the name of the state sanctioning of procedures, drugs, and production that alters outcomes for the wider society in ways that are so significant that they impact our birth rate and the status of the natural biological family.

Without a careful ethical framework guiding medical, educational, and other policies, we have the rapid normalization of behaviours that are literally slashing our reproductive numbers and chipping away at the most fundamental social unit, the family.

Do I think that our society will reverse course on any of these policies?  Nope.  I also know that these policies are the reason we have parents feeling under attack by their own governments and why we’re bringing in half a million people a year, which, like it or not, pushes the envelope of social cohesion, cost of living, quality of life, and government spending, no matter how much your progressive pride struggles to take off the rose coloured glasses and face reality.

Edited February 16, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. These ideas are tied together because they represent a number of moves in the name of the state sanctioning of procedures, drugs, and production that alters outcomes for the wider society in ways that are so significant that they impact our birth rate and the status of the natural biological family.

2. Without a careful ethical framework guiding medical, educational, and other policies, we have the rapid normalization of behaviours that are literally slashing our reproductive numbers and chipping away at the most fundamental social unit, the family.

3. Do I think that our society will reverse course on any of these policies?  Nope.  

4. I also know that these policies are the reason we have parents feeling under attack by their own governments and why we’re bringing in half a million people a year, which, like it or not, pushes the envelope of social cohesion, cost of living, quality of life, and government spending, no matter how much your progressive pride struggles to take off the rose coloured glasses and face reality.

1. State sanctioning, sure.  How else would you do it though ?  The state sanctions drugs and medical procedures for safety reasons, not for morality or social design reasons.   I agree that there are broad implications for all of these things.  I would also support more caution in adopting such things but I'm not sure how we'd convince the entire public to wait.  What if some miracle life-extending drug or process pushed life out an additional 20 years   Would the public be ok with the government saying "let's wait on this" while other jurisdictions like the states went ahead with it ?

2. The 'ethical framework' exists already but it wouldn't take into consideration impact on our population growth because... well.. that thing about individual choice you mentioned before.  People - especially women - don't want to have children at the rate that we did in the past.

3. Agreed.

4. I don't think parents feel particularly under attack because they're parents.  I think people in general feel under attack because "the" economy isn't making their lives better, it's making them worse.  Whether we bring in 500K people or 0 people, the situation with regards to working people has been declining.  This is especially true lately, and globally.  Blaming immigration seems to me as wrongheaded as believing immigration will fix it.

[Black Dog]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The issue isn't the difference but rather the similarity.  Both are very serious and need treatment. Are you saying that a child committing suicide is not a serious issue?

No, you shouldn't. Any more than you should feel shame for 'outing'  a kid for that broken leg, or if they're struggling in class etc.

Imagine outing a kid to unsupportive and potentially abusive parents and thinking you're doing them a favour. Psycho shit.

Quote

You mean you haven't read any? So - you have no idea what you're talking about.  Gotcha.

There's tonnes actually. Here's a starter

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578185/

Of course - with your comprehension skills you'll probably conclude it says that conservatives hate their kids or something.

Thanks for the link that buttresses my argument that outing kids to unsupportive families is bad for them.

Quote

In a sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) young adults, for example, higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were associated with higher odds of attempted suicide, while in a sample of LGBT young adults higher levels of family acceptance were protective. In a sample of transgender youth, one study found that parental support was associated with higher life satisfaction and lower depressive symptoms. A study of transgender youth in Canada found that family connectedness was associated with lower rates of mental health problems.

It's funny you people think teachers should stick to teaching but also believe teachers are capable of assessing internal family dynamics to figure out which parents will be accepting or not. Mnay parents will eventually get over it, but is that a risk teachers should take? i don't think so.

Quote

The smartest thing that could be done is to go to the parents, tell them, advise them the kid needs support and let the parents do their jobs.  While many react poorly out of surprise initially most actually become supportive and that's critical.

That's irrelevant in the moment. The decision to come out should be up to the individual, not made for them by a third party, especially if it involves violating their express request not to inform their parents. The only exception I can think of is if the kid is clearly suffering socially or academically as a result of keeping that secret, but that's a conversation that should be had with the kid and teacher.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. State sanctioning, sure.  How else would you do it though ?  The state sanctions drugs and medical procedures for safety reasons, not for morality or social design reasons.   I agree that there are broad implications for all of these things.  I would also support more caution in adopting such things but I'm not sure how we'd convince the entire public to wait.  What if some miracle life-extending drug or process pushed life out an additional 20 years   Would the public be ok with the government saying "let's wait on this" while other jurisdictions like the states went ahead with it ?

2. The 'ethical framework' exists already but it wouldn't take into consideration impact on our population growth because... well.. that thing about individual choice you mentioned before.  People - especially women - don't want to have children at the rate that we did in the past.

3. Agreed.

4. I don't think parents feel particularly under attack because they're parents.  I think people in general feel under attack because "the" economy isn't making their lives better, it's making them worse.  Whether we bring in 500K people or 0 people, the situation with regards to working people has been declining.  This is especially true lately, and globally.  Blaming immigration seems to me as wrongheaded as believing immigration will fix it.

It’s not about “blaming immigration”.   Canada is a country about 95% based on immigration, 100% if you understand that everyone comes from somewhere.  The question we should all ask is, What is the purpose of adding to our population in a country that is already developed and cannot keep up with demand for housing, transportation, healthcare, and goods, driving up the cost of living and lowering the quality of life for all?  How does what we set as immigration policy (or any other policy) serve Canadians?  What kind of society and economy do we want?  How do we preserve cultural identity in a country that scorns its roots and relies on being a clearinghouse for population and economic pressures in other countries?  

I don’t think there’s enough careful thinking about this. Government reacts to the loudest special interests and brings n record numbers of immigrants to juice the GDP numbers as our individual GDP and purchasing power decline.  It’s an irresponsible shell game played for political expediency at the public’s expense.

Edited February 16, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  The question we should all ask is, What is the purpose of adding to our population in a country that is already developed and cannot keep up with demand for housing, transportation, healthcare, and goods, driving up the cost of living and lowering the quality of life for all?   How does what we set as immigration policy (or any other policy) serve Canadians?  

2. What kind of society and economy do we want?  How do we preserve cultural identity in a country that scorns its roots and relies on being a clearinghouse for population and economic pressures in other countries?  

3. I don’t think there’s enough careful thinking about this.

4. Government reacts to the loudest special interests and brings n record numbers of immigrants to juice the GDP numbers as our individual GDP and purchasing power decline.  It’s an irresponsible shell game played for political expediency at the public’s expense.

1. Ok, that's all good too but now you're shifting the discussion past the whole "social design" approach you had before.  Ok.  What is the purpose of adding to our population ?  Because the economic braintrust want to increase GDP and this is perceived as a good way to do it.  The immigration questions were present long before the current housing cost spike.

It's also not clear that immigration is increasing cost of living, even for housing as discussed elsewhere.  That said, I do think reducing immigration could pop the speculation bubble and decrease prices.

2. The first question strikes me as an NDP approach, and the second a nationalist one.

3. Careful thinking and deep thinking needs to be led by people who are trusted by the public, I would say.  We don't have that.

4.  Valid points all.

 

[Zeitgeist]

33 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Imagine outing a kid to unsupportive and potentially abusive parents and thinking you're doing them a favour. Psycho shit.

Thanks for the link that buttresses my argument that outing kids to unsupportive families is bad for them.

It's funny you people think teachers should stick to teaching but also believe teachers are capable of assessing internal family dynamics to figure out which parents will be accepting or not. Mnay parents will eventually get over it, but is that a risk teachers should take? i don't think so.

That's irrelevant in the moment. The decision to come out should be up to the individual, not made for them by a third party, especially if it involves violating their express request not to inform their parents. The only exception I can think of is if the kid is clearly suffering socially or academically as a result of keeping that secret, but that's a conversation that should be had with the kid and teacher.

Why do you generally trust an institutional worker, the teacher, to take better care of a child than the child’s parents?  What are you trying to get past the parents unnoticed?  Most of our Indigenous “inter-generational trauma” is ascribed to institutionalization and getting in between kids and their families.  What you advocate, except in cases of a confirmed history of child abuse, is for the state to raise kids.  That will always be a big fail, and the examples to prove it are legion.

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why do you generally trust an institutional worker, the teacher, to take better care of a child than the child’s parents?  What are you trying to get past the parents unnoticed?  Most of our Indigenous “inter-generational trauma” is ascribed to institutionalization and getting in between kids and their families.  What you advocate, except in cases of a confirmed history of child abuse, is for the state to raise kids.  That will always be a big fail, and the examples to prove it are legion.

I'm not sure how you jump from respecting a kid's wishes not to inform unsupportive parents about their gender identity to "you want the state to raise kids."

[Zeitgeist]

50 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'm not sure how you jump from respecting a kid's wishes not to inform unsupportive parents about their gender identity to "you want the state to raise kids."

Why do you assume that parents are unsupportive of their own children but teachers are?

[Black Dog]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why do you assume that parents are unsupportive of their own children but teachers are?

I'm not assuming anything about parents. I'm talking specifically about instances where a kid tells someone "my parents won't be supportive."

[CdnFox]

Just now, Black Dog said:

Imagine outing a kid to unsupportive and potentially abusive parents and thinking you're doing them a favour. Psycho shit.

Imagine encouraging a kid to avoid their parents and lie and having the kid commit suicide thinking you're doing them a favor.  Criminal Psycho shit.  Parents need to know.

Quote

Thanks for the link that buttresses my argument that outing kids to unsupportive families is bad for them.

Ummm- you're welcome?  I mean it's not like YOU ever post anything to support your argument so i can see why you'd be happy but nobody disupted that  

Nobody ever argued that unsupportive familes are bad for kids. Heer's a clue- They are whether the kid is trans or not.   But the VAST Majoirty of familes are supportive.  Do you have any links that prove otherwise?

And denying kids help from a supportive family puts them at risk.

Quote

That's irrelevant in the moment.

Its' the whole point period.

Who is responsible for providing the necessaries of life to a child? The parents.  The parents make the decision. Not the children. That's the end of it.

We don't let children make their own medical decisions without parental guidance. We just don't. They're children, they're not mature enough to do that.

And at the end of the day if you think the parents might react badly to finding out their kid is trans  - how do you think they'll act when they find out later that their kid is trans and has been lying to them while telling everyone else?

 

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

I'm not assuming anything about parents. I'm talking specifically about instances where a kid tells someone "my parents won't be supportive."

And they're usually wrong. Kids fear their parents will be angry but that's often not the case.

It's not the kids decision, it's not the teacher's decision. It's the parents.

[Guest]

On 2/15/2024 at 9:33 PM, Black Dog said:

Are you guys really too dense

Your mirror states otherwise.