Reid Email

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

I see your point. However, the current policy already forces school staff, as well as the rest of the student population and community to support the student’s gender identity exploration. In fact through the 2023-2024 SRR, it even disciplines those who don’t support such identity exploration.

Additionally, FCPS already has put in writing a formal record about such exploration that is shared with staff at the school and it has a provision to exclude the parents. Therefore, how can we consider that fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

I see your point. However, the current policy already forces school staff, as well as the rest of the student population and community to support the student’s gender identity exploration. In fact through the 2023-2024 SRR, it even disciplines those who don’t support such identity exploration.

Additionally, FCPS already has put in writing a formal record about such exploration that is shared with staff at the school and it has a provision to exclude the parents. Therefore, how can we consider that fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children?

In my view, basic respect is calling someone how you asked to be called. Would you refuse to call someone Muhammed or Jesus if they are named after a prophet you don't believe in? Would saying their name be going against your faith? No,. you wouldn't think it had anything to do with you--you would call them the name they tell you. So why is it a problem to call someone the name they tell you they want to be called--it has nothing to do at all with your views on transgender issues. It's just not your business at all.
I agree that since parents do have some rights over their own children they can decide that THEIR child should not be called a different name, but if a parent says they opt out of this policy and instead want instead the basic right given to their child to be called whatever name they choose to be called regardless of whether they are transgender, gender exploring or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

You mean it was confusing to you. Plenty of boys have long hair, it’s been a thing for thousands of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

You mean it was confusing to you. Plenty of boys have long hair, it’s been a thing for thousands of years.

As long as a girl’s hair? No, not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

Hey if a girl wants to compete with boys I have no problem with that. But vice versa, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

Parents feel differently. Their opinion matters more than childless activists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

Parents feel differently. Their opinion matters more than childless activists.

+1 I absolutely love that Youngkin is following through and having parents’ voices being heard in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

Parents feel differently. Their opinion matters more than childless activists.

Not all parents are supportive of their children's wishes, and the lack of support can do irreparable harm to the child.

My child's friend has a given name that, when pronounced in English, sounds quite vulgar. That child's parents DO NOT support the child using an alternative name because they want their child to identify with their culture, and when the child has even discussed going by a different name, there has been harsh punishment, merely for trying to explain how embarrassing the given name is and how its use is quite upsetting.
At school, this child has been using an alternative name for several years, obviously without the parents' knowledge or support. Why should these parents' opinions usurp the desires of the child? The child should be able to use the preferred alternative name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

What is a 'boy name'?

Unless you did a genitalia check, there is no way you would know the biological sex of the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

You mean it was confusing to you. Plenty of boys have long hair, it’s been a thing for thousands of years.

As long as a girl’s hair? No, not really.

I'm sorry, what?

The head hair of people with XX and XY chromosomes grows at the same rate. Therefore, boys' hair can certainly be as long or longer than girls' hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

I see your point. However, the current policy already forces school staff, as well as the rest of the student population and community to support the student’s gender identity exploration. In fact through the 2023-2024 SRR, it even disciplines those who don’t support such identity exploration.

Additionally, FCPS already has put in writing a formal record about such exploration that is shared with staff at the school and it has a provision to exclude the parents. Therefore, how can we consider that fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children?

In my view, basic respect is calling someone how you asked to be called. Would you refuse to call someone Muhammed or Jesus if they are named after a prophet you don't believe in? Would saying their name be going against your faith? No,. you wouldn't think it had anything to do with you--you would call them the name they tell you. So why is it a problem to call someone the name they tell you they want to be called--it has nothing to do at all with your views on transgender issues. It's just not your business at all.
I agree that since parents do have some rights over their own children they can decide that THEIR child should not be called a different name, but if a parent says they opt out of this policy and instead want instead the basic right given to their child to be called whatever name they choose to be called regardless of whether they are transgender, gender exploring or not.

If I understand your assertion correctly, if anyone’s LEGAL name is Jesus, Mohamed, Satan, Lee, Bragg, Benning, Stalin, Hitler, etc., should we refuse to call them by any of those names? Of course not! By all means, everyone should call him that. We don’t get to have a say because it is in everyone’s legal right to have an official name of their choosing. That why it’s called a legal name. That is also the reason why the new model policies under the Youngkin administration are following the law and in so doing, are providing protection for a student who chooses to change their name. This document explains how the process needs to be done:
https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/id/NameChangesforMinors/NCTE%20Minor%20Name%20Change%20Virginia.pdf

For residents of Fairfax County, see page 3 of 12 of PDF:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/name-change-brochure.pdf

Following Federal Law, the law in Virginia and in the county of Fairfax, the policy says that public schools should use the names and pronouns that are on their official record, which can only be changed by parents. It defers to the “rights of parents to determine how their children will be raised and educated.”

Likewise, in the new model policy, students who are 18 years or older, or emancipated, have the power to choose their own names, pronouns and gender identities at school. Parental involvement is not required.

Your child has the right to identify however he/she pleases. However, it is not other children’s job to constantly having to validate or affirm this identity because in so doing, other children are being asked to deny their right to their beliefs and their own conception of what reality is, to which they are entitled to.

According to the new model introduced by the Youngkin administration,
“The First Amendment forbids government actors to require individuals to adhere to or adopt any particular ideological beliefs,” the new guidance reads. “Practices such as compelling others to use preferred pronouns is premised on the ideological belief that gender is a matter of personal choice or subjective experience, not sex. Many Virginians reject this belief.” Furthermore, the policy continues, “the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and prohibits compelling others to affirm ideas that may be contrary to their personal religious beliefs.” 

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

I see your point. However, the current policy already forces school staff, as well as the rest of the student population and community to support the student’s gender identity exploration. In fact through the 2023-2024 SRR, it even disciplines those who don’t support such identity exploration.

Additionally, FCPS already has put in writing a formal record about such exploration that is shared with staff at the school and it has a provision to exclude the parents. Therefore, how can we consider that fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children?

In my view, basic respect is calling someone how you asked to be called. Would you refuse to call someone Muhammed or Jesus if they are named after a prophet you don't believe in? Would saying their name be going against your faith? No,. you wouldn't think it had anything to do with you--you would call them the name they tell you. So why is it a problem to call someone the name they tell you they want to be called--it has nothing to do at all with your views on transgender issues. It's just not your business at all.
I agree that since parents do have some rights over their own children they can decide that THEIR child should not be called a different name, but if a parent says they opt out of this policy and instead want instead the basic right given to their child to be called whatever name they choose to be called regardless of whether they are transgender, gender exploring or not.

If I understand your assertion correctly, if anyone’s LEGAL name is Jesus, Mohamed, Satan, Lee, Bragg, Benning, Stalin, Hitler, etc., should we refuse to call them by any of those names? Of course not! By all means, everyone should call him that. We don’t get to have a say because it is in everyone’s legal right to have an official name of their choosing. That why it’s called a legal name. That is also the reason why the new model policies under the Youngkin administration are following the law and in so doing, are providing protection for a student who chooses to change their name. This document explains how the process needs to be done:
https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/id/NameChangesforMinors/NCTE%20Minor%20Name%20Change%20Virginia.pdf

For residents of Fairfax County, see page 3 of 12 of PDF:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/name-change-brochure.pdf

Following Federal Law, the law in Virginia and in the county of Fairfax, the policy says that public schools should use the names and pronouns that are on their official record, which can only be changed by parents. It defers to the “rights of parents to determine how their children will be raised and educated.”

Likewise, in the new model policy, students who are 18 years or older, or emancipated, have the power to choose their own names, pronouns and gender identities at school. Parental involvement is not required.

Your child has the right to identify however he/she pleases. However, it is not other children’s job to constantly having to validate or affirm this identity because in so doing, other children are being asked to deny their right to their beliefs and their own conception of what reality is, to which they are entitled to.

According to the new model introduced by the Youngkin administration,
“The First Amendment forbids government actors to require individuals to adhere to or adopt any particular ideological beliefs,” the new guidance reads. “Practices such as compelling others to use preferred pronouns is premised on the ideological belief that gender is a matter of personal choice or subjective experience, not sex. Many Virginians reject this belief.” Furthermore, the policy continues, “the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and prohibits compelling others to affirm ideas that may be contrary to their personal religious beliefs.” 

So if my kid identifies as female, which matches her biological sex, but your kid doesn't want to affirm that identity because he believes males are superior and should be the only sex, he shouldn't have to affirm my daughter's identity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.

What does this even mean? Just try to be a boy but not fully commit?

In a swim meet, there was a biological girl swimming with boys with a boy name. But still looked clearly like a girl with hair so it was confusing.

You mean it was confusing to you. Plenty of boys have long hair, it’s been a thing for thousands of years.

As long as a girl’s hair? No, not really.

I'm sorry, what?

The head hair of people with XX and XY chromosomes grows at the same rate. Therefore, boys' hair can certainly be as long or longer than girls' hair.

Is this poster also upset about girls with short hair (or boys’ haircuts)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is FCPS going to fight the new models like they tried to fight Youngkin’s lifting of the mask mandates last year? PS - the new models say parents know best when it comes to their kids’ names and pronouns. I’m all for this.

You probably suck as a parent. I'm a teacher I won't out anyone. I've seen some nasty parents. Nope not doing it to kids.