Youngkin will block schools from accommodating transgender students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no doubt that the right-wing has correctly identified trans issues as a wedge issue to win back the women they are losing on abortion rights. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t serious issues with some of what is going on with the approach to trans kids and in particular treatments that leave kids as lifelong medical patients. It is terrible this has become politicized because it’s preventing a rational conversation.

Yup. It's a medical discussion for someone to have with their doctors. Not a political discussion for Republicans to fearmonger votes.

The problem is that the medical establishment doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to protecting the bodily integrity of neurodiverse kids, POC kids, kids who are poor, etc. It’s all fine and well to say “this should just be a medical conversation” but that assumes that doctors can be trusted to make recommendations that aren’t harmful. And in this country, there is an awful history of medical harm done to more vulnerable people in the name of progress.

It should not be political, but it’s becoming political in part precisely because many people feel they cannot trust their doctors, and frankly for very good historic reason.

I trust doctors to "do no harm" more than I trust ignorant Republicans with a religious agenda in public office.

Sure. You do. But my point is that many parents do not, and often very good reasons. I mean it’s great that you’ve been privileged enough in life to be able to trust the medical establishment. But that’s not the case for many, many people and for good historic reasons. So politicians will resonate, because people do not trust the medical establishment, especially when it comes to their children.

In an ideal world, trans issues would be entirely handled by caring doctors. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and that’s why these issues are successfully being politicized.

"Many parents don't trust doctors"

Total BS argument.

Politicians get traction because we have a lot of bigots.

It must be nice to be young, healthy, wealthy, and white, and to never have had reason to distrust the medical establishment. I’m genuinely glad for you, PP, that you have the luxury of such total faith in doctors. But you sound pretty clueless about the very long history of why many parents (especially parents of kids who are POC, neurodivergent, not wealthy, etc.) might not feel that way. You can continue in your ignorance if you want, but one of the reasons that this issue is resonating as a political issue and the call to keep it as a medical issue is failing is because many people have good reason not to trust doctors.

POC mistrust of doctors is a real thing. It just has nothing to do with why parents are anti-trans bigots and think that politicians should be making medical decisions for people without their consent.

Genuine question for you: so do you think that it’s totally not an issue that the doctors who manage trans health care are overwhelmingly white, wealthy, neurotypical, extensively educated, and cisgender, while they treat a population that is more racially diverse than the population as a whole, with a high percentage of neurodivergent individuals, that is obviously not cisgender, and that is usually less well-off and less educated than the doctors are? Do you think it’s “bigotry” on the part of parents who are worried about that? Do you see how parents might feel stuck between a rock (medical establishment) and a hard place (Republican politicians) on issues of trans care for kids? Or do you think any unease parents might feel at what I described above is just “bigotry”?

Your posts strike me as wildly naive, if well-intentioned and passionate, and I’m trying to figure out if you can see any nuance whatsoever in this discussion.

Citation? And then please also share the demographics of all physicians.

It's bigotry to focus on this particular issue if you're really "concerned" about medical racial injustice in our state. Why not focus on POC maternal mortality rates? Access to care in rural areas? There are plenty of actual real-life medical issues for POC. Stop exploiting them for your own bigoted agenda.

People can focus on more than one issue than a time. I believe you can’t, but many other people can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no doubt that the right-wing has correctly identified trans issues as a wedge issue to win back the women they are losing on abortion rights. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t serious issues with some of what is going on with the approach to trans kids and in particular treatments that leave kids as lifelong medical patients. It is terrible this has become politicized because it’s preventing a rational conversation.

Yup. It's a medical discussion for someone to have with their doctors. Not a political discussion for Republicans to fearmonger votes.

The problem is that the medical establishment doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to protecting the bodily integrity of neurodiverse kids, POC kids, kids who are poor, etc. It’s all fine and well to say “this should just be a medical conversation” but that assumes that doctors can be trusted to make recommendations that aren’t harmful. And in this country, there is an awful history of medical harm done to more vulnerable people in the name of progress.

It should not be political, but it’s becoming political in part precisely because many people feel they cannot trust their doctors, and frankly for very good historic reason.

I trust doctors to "do no harm" more than I trust ignorant Republicans with a religious agenda in public office.

Sure. You do. But my point is that many parents do not, and often very good reasons. I mean it’s great that you’ve been privileged enough in life to be able to trust the medical establishment. But that’s not the case for many, many people and for good historic reasons. So politicians will resonate, because people do not trust the medical establishment, especially when it comes to their children.

In an ideal world, trans issues would be entirely handled by caring doctors. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and that’s why these issues are successfully being politicized.

"Many parents don't trust doctors"

Total BS argument.

Politicians get traction because we have a lot of bigots.

It must be nice to be young, healthy, wealthy, and white, and to never have had reason to distrust the medical establishment. I’m genuinely glad for you, PP, that you have the luxury of such total faith in doctors. But you sound pretty clueless about the very long history of why many parents (especially parents of kids who are POC, neurodivergent, not wealthy, etc.) might not feel that way. You can continue in your ignorance if you want, but one of the reasons that this issue is resonating as a political issue and the call to keep it as a medical issue is failing is because many people have good reason not to trust doctors.

POC mistrust of doctors is a real thing. It just has nothing to do with why parents are anti-trans bigots and think that politicians should be making medical decisions for people without their consent.

Genuine question for you: so do you think that it’s totally not an issue that the doctors who manage trans health care are overwhelmingly white, wealthy, neurotypical, extensively educated, and cisgender, while they treat a population that is more racially diverse than the population as a whole, with a high percentage of neurodivergent individuals, that is obviously not cisgender, and that is usually less well-off and less educated than the doctors are? Do you think it’s “bigotry” on the part of parents who are worried about that? Do you see how parents might feel stuck between a rock (medical establishment) and a hard place (Republican politicians) on issues of trans care for kids? Or do you think any unease parents might feel at what I described above is just “bigotry”?

Your posts strike me as wildly naive, if well-intentioned and passionate, and I’m trying to figure out if you can see any nuance whatsoever in this discussion.

Citation? And then please also share the demographics of all physicians.

It's bigotry to focus on this particular issue if you're really "concerned" about medical racial injustice in our state. Why not focus on POC maternal mortality rates? Access to care in rural areas? There are plenty of actual real-life medical issues for POC. Stop exploiting them for your own bigoted agenda.

People can focus on more than one issue than a time. I believe you can’t, but many other people can.

Stop using LGBTQ youth and POCs as your political pawns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg. How will FCPS respond to this madness?

“In a major rollback of LGBTQ rights, the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) will require that transgender students in Virginia access school facilities and programs that match the sex they were assigned at birth and is making it more difficult for students to change their names and genders at school.
Under new “model policies” for schools’ treatment of transgender students released Friday evening, the Department of Education is requiring that families submit legal documentation to earn their children the right to change names and genders at school. The guidelines also say teachers cannot be compelled to refer to transgender students by their names and genders if it goes against “their constitutionally protected” free speech rights.
And the guidelines say schools cannot “encourage or instruct teachers to conceal material information about a student from the student’s parent, including information related to gender” — raising the prospect that teachers could be forced to out transgender students to their parents.
School districts must adopt the new state guidelines or “policies that are more comprehensive,” after a 30-day comment period that will begin on Sept. 26“

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/16/trans-students-virginia-bathroom-sports/

Thank God!!! I don’t want a boy in my girl’s bathroom.

Except now apparently you will have trans boys in the girls bathroom.

Not one girls parent minds if a girl presenting as a biy uses the girls bathroom

The issue is any male, at any identity, can claim at any time that they identify as a girl to gain access to intimate female spaces such as girls locker rooms or bathrooms, with no pushback, even if that man is fully male, not actually trans, and has never entertained the idea of transitioning.

Getting parents involved brings sanity to a situation that has gone entirely off the rails.

+1 This exactly. I’m the PP. I don’t mind if a trans boy is my daughter’s bathroom bc they are actually a girl and have girl parts. I don’t want a boy posing as a girl in my girl’s locker or bathroom. Totally different.

Girls get raped in bathrooms regardless of transgender bathroom policies.

Transgender girls are most at risk for sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Youngkin doesn't respect the laws of VA:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just the beginning, folks. Next it’ll be LGB kids, then non-Christian kids…

Basically, if you're not a white, Evangelical family you are screwed.

Please read the entire 20 page document so you understand what this document actually says, rwther than basing your opinion off a headline, catch phrase or the summary of an activist on twitter.

Go directly to the source, not someone else's biased statement.

Then form your opinion through infkrmed, firwt person knowledge rather than someone else's opinion.

We are basing our opinion on Youngkin's actions.

First, he went after women, now he's going after LGBTQ youth. We see where he is headed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the 12 pages of this thread.

My freshman son came home from school the first day talking about a junior who has a full beard and wears a sundress. Do you moms of girls really want your daughters to encounter someone like that in the school restroom?

All I can say is, thank you, Gov Youngkin. This is why many of us voted for him.

$100 says that a) this didn’t happens and b) that you don’t even live in Fairfax County. I should ask Jeff to share the location of your IP address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://doe.virginia.gov/support/gender-diversity/2022-model-policies-on-the-privacy-dignity-and-respect-for-all-students-town-hall.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3tWKpjhFCia_8iecD906HN3L83ko3-4cc9QBjEKR4eZtSe85g8HDSrMg8

I just read through the full policy and I'm not a lawyer and the language seems intentionally cloaking things under the guises of "rights", but thinking it through it seems problematic to me:

a) It forces parents to make an assertion about their child's gender preferences to the school if they their kids' name preferences to be used. I don't want a formal record of that but I also don't want to shut down my child's gender identity exploration. Some kids are in more flux than others.

b) It forces teachers to report students to their parents on something that the law has never said requires reporting. Having this policy put into place after the start of the school year rather than before is unfair to students and teachers as they made decisions about who to share their names with without knowing the consequences.

c) In my reading it permits --in violation of the VA 2020 law-- teachers to not use students preferred names/pronouns even with parental decisions. I know there have been some court actions around this but an executive action asserts it as if it were a settled right when it's not if I'm reading it correctly.

d) It makes decisions about bathroom usage that seem to go against previous VA law.

[Anonymous]

First of all, the part of the statute being cited by Roem is a non-operative part of the statute.

And, second, Youngkin's team would be on solid grounds asserting that its revised policy is consistent with the policy in any event.

Now, you get to explain why you think it's OK for biological males to be in bathrooms and locker rooms with girls and how that is respectful of the rights of female students. We'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the 12 pages of this thread.

My freshman son came home from school the first day talking about a junior who has a full beard and wears a sundress. Do you moms of girls really want your daughters to encounter someone like that in the school restroom?

All I can say is, thank you, Gov Youngkin. This is why many of us voted for him.

$100 says that a) this didn’t happens and b) that you don’t even live in Fairfax County. I should ask Jeff to share the location of your IP address.

+1

Sounds like Astroturfing 101. "Do you moms of girls..." is a dead giveaway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the 12 pages of this thread.

My freshman son came home from school the first day talking about a junior who has a full beard and wears a sundress. Do you moms of girls really want your daughters to encounter someone like that in the school restroom?

All I can say is, thank you, Gov Youngkin. This is why many of us voted for him.

$100 says that a) this didn’t happens and b) that you don’t even live in Fairfax County. I should ask Jeff to share the location of your IP address.

So there are no trans girls in Fairfax County now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg. How will FCPS respond to this madness?

“In a major rollback of LGBTQ rights, the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) will require that transgender students in Virginia access school facilities and programs that match the sex they were assigned at birth and is making it more difficult for students to change their names and genders at school.
Under new “model policies” for schools’ treatment of transgender students released Friday evening, the Department of Education is requiring that families submit legal documentation to earn their children the right to change names and genders at school. The guidelines also say teachers cannot be compelled to refer to transgender students by their names and genders if it goes against “their constitutionally protected” free speech rights.
And the guidelines say schools cannot “encourage or instruct teachers to conceal material information about a student from the student’s parent, including information related to gender” — raising the prospect that teachers could be forced to out transgender students to their parents.
School districts must adopt the new state guidelines or “policies that are more comprehensive,” after a 30-day comment period that will begin on Sept. 26“

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/16/trans-students-virginia-bathroom-sports/

Thank God!!! I don’t want a boy in my girl’s bathroom.

Except now apparently you will have trans boys in the girls bathroom.

Not one girls parent minds if a girl presenting as a biy uses the girls bathroom

The issue is any male, at any identity, can claim at any time that they identify as a girl to gain access to intimate female spaces such as girls locker rooms or bathrooms, with no pushback, even if that man is fully male, not actually trans, and has never entertained the idea of transitioning.

Getting parents involved brings sanity to a situation that has gone entirely off the rails.

+1 This exactly. I’m the PP. I don’t mind if a trans boy is my daughter’s bathroom bc they are actually a girl and have girl parts. I don’t want a boy posing as a girl in my girl’s locker or bathroom. Totally different.

So your solution is what, a genital check at the bathroom door? How do we know your cisgender female daughter isn’t really MtF transgender? How do we tell the difference between FtM transgender kids (who you say belong in the girls room) and cisgender male?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the 12 pages of this thread.

My freshman son came home from school the first day talking about a junior who has a full beard and wears a sundress. Do you moms of girls really want your daughters to encounter someone like that in the school restroom?

All I can say is, thank you, Gov Youngkin. This is why many of us voted for him.

$100 says that a) this didn’t happens and b) that you don’t even live in Fairfax County. I should ask Jeff to share the location of your IP address.

So there are no trans girls in Fairfax County now?

Work on your reading comprehension and then come back. Thanks, dear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the 12 pages of this thread.

My freshman son came home from school the first day talking about a junior who has a full beard and wears a sundress. Do you moms of girls really want your daughters to encounter someone like that in the school restroom?

All I can say is, thank you, Gov Youngkin. This is why many of us voted for him.

$100 says that a) this didn’t happens and b) that you don’t even live in Fairfax County. I should ask Jeff to share the location of your IP address.

So there are no trans girls in Fairfax County now?

Trans girls don’t wear full beards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all, the part of the statute being cited by Roem is a non-operative part of the statute.

And, second, Youngkin's team would be on solid grounds asserting that its revised policy is consistent with the policy in any event.

Now, you get to explain why you think it's OK for biological males to be in bathrooms and locker rooms with girls and how that is respectful of the rights of female students. We'll wait.

I am a woman and have been using public women’s rooms for my whole life and in 50+ years nobody has watched me pee. Wth are you doing in the restroom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all, the part of the statute being cited by Roem is a non-operative part of the statute.

And, second, Youngkin's team would be on solid grounds asserting that its revised policy is consistent with the policy in any event.

Now, you get to explain why you think it's OK for biological males to be in bathrooms and locker rooms with girls and how that is respectful of the rights of female students. We'll wait.

Why don’t we ask the teen girls themselves.