Remind your kids to go Protest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why walking out in the middle of class to protest is ok (and will be excused by the school) but walking out in the middle of class to use the restroom is not (at least not at my kid's school?)

Where is the proof schools are excusing it? Has anyone gotten communication about it from their school and shared here? I have yet to see it.

DD's school is doing it during times when the kids don't have class, and the school is essentially supporting it.

My opinion is that I don't think it's necessarily good for the schools to excuse it. I think that if you are going to protest and resist, some sacrifice comes along with it and if that's an unexcused absence, so be it. On the other hand it would really suck if there were teachers who wouldn't let you take a test or something if that's when the protest was.

They aren't protesting the school. They are protesting the bigoted governor, Youngkin.

Why should the school punish them for supporting vulnerable people?

Then why do it at/during school? Do it on a Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Of course they won't, because the only thing that would disrupt is their social life.

They are doing it at school because Youngkin’s policy affects the school environment. It’s a state decision that impacts at the local level. Don’t be so dense.

No, that's not why they're doing it at school. THey have walkouts frequently for things that aren't school-specific, like the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe.

I look forward to your genuine concern about students being absent and missing class during the March for Life.

Or, similarly, KKK rallies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why walking out in the middle of class to protest is ok (and will be excused by the school) but walking out in the middle of class to use the restroom is not (at least not at my kid's school?)

Where is the proof schools are excusing it? Has anyone gotten communication about it from their school and shared here? I have yet to see it.

DD's school is doing it during times when the kids don't have class, and the school is essentially supporting it.

My opinion is that I don't think it's necessarily good for the schools to excuse it. I think that if you are going to protest and resist, some sacrifice comes along with it and if that's an unexcused absence, so be it. On the other hand it would really suck if there were teachers who wouldn't let you take a test or something if that's when the protest was.

They aren't protesting the school. They are protesting the bigoted governor, Youngkin.

Why should the school punish them for supporting vulnerable people?

Then why do it at/during school? Do it on a Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Of course they won't, because the only thing that would disrupt is their social life.

They are doing it at school because Youngkin’s policy affects the school environment. It’s a state decision that impacts at the local level. Don’t be so dense.

Exactly.

Youngkin is going to hurt kids at these schools.

Having parents excluded from such an important decisions in a minor's lives hurts minors even more.

As Thomas Harrell said: "There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs."

So in the one hand parents want to be in the know, and on the other hand certain trans kids want to be able to called their chosen name at school without fear of their abusive parents finding out.

Tough choice.

So this is just about "chosen names?" if my son, Charles, wants teachers and administrators to call him "Your Royal Highness" or "Supreme Lord" instead of Charles/Chuck/Charlie---that should be obliged? Or is it only if my son Charles wants to be called "Sheila?"

Its about the right for any child to feel safe when they change/go to the bathroom. Unfortunately children of bigots are rampant in VA bully trans kids in schools - they bully then move on with their day. Meanwhile trans kids (and non-binary and gender nonconforming kids) are anxious all day about what will happen in the bathroom/locker room. That is not a safe environment to learn in.

I don't disagree with you. But feeling safe goes in both directions and girls who feel uncomfortable with a trans girl in the restroom or lockeroom with them need to be considered, too. Same with the boys' restrooms and locker rooms situations. It isn't right to give consideration and full accommodation to one subset of people to the exclusion of consideration of other people's concerns as well. While I don't have a good answer to the sports question, I don't understand why there isn't (can't be) discussion about alternatives that help assuage everyone's feelings and needs and concerns. Such as the gender-neutral restrooms so each student can choose according to their own comfort; or privacy barriers of some sort in locker rooms.

While I personally have a hard time getting used to today's pronoun choices (mainly because of the English language and people wanting to use a plural pronoun for a single individual), regardless of my views about gender identity and such, I don't believe calling anyone by their preferred name should be an issue - it's a matter of respect, not agreement or validation. And I don't see how it is an infringement on anyone's religious freedoms. You don't have to "believe in" transgenderism or approve of anyone's birth name. What religion specifically states it is a sin or wrong to call Tonya "Tony"? What's the equivalent slander against someone who is a rapist or murderer? I hope those people's actions are also against one's religious beliefs.

What is it with you people? So when anyone criticizes the guidance pre-Youngkin you say that if children with gender dysphoria aren’t allowed to socially transition, they may commit suicide I.e. this is a big deal - a life or death issue. But then when someone defends Youngkin’s guidance saying parents need to know if there kid wants to socially transition (cuz you know it’s a big deal), then you come back and say it’s just like changing a nickname. Why do parents need to know about that. Well it’s either a big deal or it isn’t. If it’s a big deal, then as legal guardians parents have the right to make these decisions for their child.

Bingo. And if teachers believe that sharing this information with parents would result in abuse or neglect on the part of the parents, then as mandatory reporters teachers ought to report that fact to social services, so that the state and judicial system can get involved in determining what is in the best interests of the child. Either the threat is credible or it isn't. There's no comfortable middle ground where the threat is somehow real enough to warrant coming between a kid and their parents, but not so real as to require involving the people whose job it is to determine whether someone needs to come between a kid and their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why walking out in the middle of class to protest is ok (and will be excused by the school) but walking out in the middle of class to use the restroom is not (at least not at my kid's school?)

Where is the proof schools are excusing it? Has anyone gotten communication about it from their school and shared here? I have yet to see it.

DD's school is doing it during times when the kids don't have class, and the school is essentially supporting it.

My opinion is that I don't think it's necessarily good for the schools to excuse it. I think that if you are going to protest and resist, some sacrifice comes along with it and if that's an unexcused absence, so be it. On the other hand it would really suck if there were teachers who wouldn't let you take a test or something if that's when the protest was.

They aren't protesting the school. They are protesting the bigoted governor, Youngkin.

Why should the school punish them for supporting vulnerable people?

Then why do it at/during school? Do it on a Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Of course they won't, because the only thing that would disrupt is their social life.

They are doing it at school because Youngkin’s policy affects the school environment. It’s a state decision that impacts at the local level. Don’t be so dense.

No, that's not why they're doing it at school. THey have walkouts frequently for things that aren't school-specific, like the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe.

I look forward to your genuine concern about students being absent and missing class during the March for Life.

Or, similarly, KKK rallies.

If you see that as "similar" your parents really screwed up in raising you. Terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why walking out in the middle of class to protest is ok (and will be excused by the school) but walking out in the middle of class to use the restroom is not (at least not at my kid's school?)

Where is the proof schools are excusing it? Has anyone gotten communication about it from their school and shared here? I have yet to see it.

DD's school is doing it during times when the kids don't have class, and the school is essentially supporting it.

My opinion is that I don't think it's necessarily good for the schools to excuse it. I think that if you are going to protest and resist, some sacrifice comes along with it and if that's an unexcused absence, so be it. On the other hand it would really suck if there were teachers who wouldn't let you take a test or something if that's when the protest was.

They aren't protesting the school. They are protesting the bigoted governor, Youngkin.

Why should the school punish them for supporting vulnerable people?

Then why do it at/during school? Do it on a Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Of course they won't, because the only thing that would disrupt is their social life.

They are doing it at school because Youngkin’s policy affects the school environment. It’s a state decision that impacts at the local level. Don’t be so dense.

Exactly.

Youngkin is going to hurt kids at these schools.

Having parents excluded from such an important decisions in a minor's lives hurts minors even more.

As Thomas Harrell said: "There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs."

So in the one hand parents want to be in the know, and on the other hand certain trans kids want to be able to called their chosen name at school without fear of their abusive parents finding out.

Tough choice.

So this is just about "chosen names?" if my son, Charles, wants teachers and administrators to call him "Your Royal Highness" or "Supreme Lord" instead of Charles/Chuck/Charlie---that should be obliged? Or is it only if my son Charles wants to be called "Sheila?"

Its about the right for any child to feel safe when they change/go to the bathroom. Unfortunately children of bigots are rampant in VA bully trans kids in schools - they bully then move on with their day. Meanwhile trans kids (and non-binary and gender nonconforming kids) are anxious all day about what will happen in the bathroom/locker room. That is not a safe environment to learn in.

I don't disagree with you. But feeling safe goes in both directions and girls who feel uncomfortable with a trans girl in the restroom or lockeroom with them need to be considered, too. Same with the boys' restrooms and locker rooms situations. It isn't right to give consideration and full accommodation to one subset of people to the exclusion of consideration of other people's concerns as well. While I don't have a good answer to the sports question, I don't understand why there isn't (can't be) discussion about alternatives that help assuage everyone's feelings and needs and concerns. Such as the gender-neutral restrooms so each student can choose according to their own comfort; or privacy barriers of some sort in locker rooms.

While I personally have a hard time getting used to today's pronoun choices (mainly because of the English language and people wanting to use a plural pronoun for a single individual), regardless of my views about gender identity and such, I don't believe calling anyone by their preferred name should be an issue - it's a matter of respect, not agreement or validation. And I don't see how it is an infringement on anyone's religious freedoms. You don't have to "believe in" transgenderism or approve of anyone's birth name. What religion specifically states it is a sin or wrong to call Tonya "Tony"? What's the equivalent slander against someone who is a rapist or murderer? I hope those people's actions are also against one's religious beliefs.

What is it with you people? So when anyone criticizes the guidance pre-Youngkin you say that if children with gender dysphoria aren’t allowed to socially transition, they may commit suicide I.e. this is a big deal - a life or death issue. But then when someone defends Youngkin’s guidance saying parents need to know if there kid wants to socially transition (cuz you know it’s a big deal), then you come back and say it’s just like changing a nickname. Why do parents need to know about that. Well it’s either a big deal or it isn’t. If it’s a big deal, then as legal guardians parents have the right to make these decisions for their child.

Bingo. And if teachers believe that sharing this information with parents would result in abuse or neglect on the part of the parents, then as mandatory reporters teachers ought to report that fact to social services, so that the state and judicial system can get involved in determining what is in the best interests of the child. Either the threat is credible or it isn't. There's no comfortable middle ground where the threat is somehow real enough to warrant coming between a kid and their parents, but not so real as to require involving the people whose job it is to determine whether someone needs to come between a kid and their parents.

Yep. It's just like with abortion---they say abortion NEEDS to be legal because of children who are victims of rape that get pregnant. Obviously the solution is not to stop men from raping children--oh no, no no! Men, you can keep on raping children! We'll find a "safe and legal" way to destroy the baby-whoops, I mean "evidence!"