Gender identity vote tonight, What does it mean? Are you allowed to switch teachers if they are tran

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many transgendered students does fcps have? How many teachers or administrators? At some point, isn't this all a colossal waste of time, money, resources for a tiny percentage of transgendered people?

I know at least two.

I'd like real statistics.

Will fcps write inclusive language to protect nudists? Teachers with full facial tattoos? Skinheads? Not trying to be flippant about this, but think his is a dangerous road to travel and will set precedents for truly odd inclusions.

This is what ever right wing nut job says about every basic human right granted to a minority. Slippery slope, etc. Enough. There isn't a slippery slope.

See this is the problem. Aren't we supposed to be mutually respectful? Isn't that what the vote was about? But if someone disagrees on this issue, they are a right wing nut job. What about the rights of the right wing nut job? Oh yeah that's right, they have none.

No, I'm not ever going to be respectful of a group of idiots who say things like being trans is a mental illness and that trans people spread HIV rampantly, or that since there are a lot of catholic Hispanics in FCPS, we need to not have any trans people in school, and this is racist against them. This is what was said in citizen testimony. This is what the opposition believes. Nope.

You are a part of the ever increasing group of liberals who are just as if not more intolerant than those you brand intolerant. You are not morally superior. When you take this stance, you shut down any discussion and any hope for positive resolution. You are as much a part of the problem as those you dispise. Educate don't hate.

There is no educating fools that think like that. There just isn't. Their intolerance must be stamped out through the proper legal channels, like this school board meeting.

You are absolutely terrifying.

The right to think, believe, say and protest whatever you want is our most precious and important freedoms and should be protected above all else.

Our courts and "proper legal channels" should only be used to protect this speech and NOT to shut it down just because the elite class of the day deems it offensive.

The right to dissent, even by the objectionable, is a very precious freedom and cannot be taken away.

Be very careful on this path you are advocating. Some day you might find yourself as the one not in power, and the one whose voice is deemed not worth hearing, too "dangerous" to be spoken, and too offensive to be allowed by a very small group of power hungry people.

+1. Agreed. What if someone decided your thoughts needed to be stamped out? You think that it will always go in your favor, but suppose it doesn't and you are the minority opinion about something.

+1 sadly, we are seeing more and more of this in our society. horrifying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
Thank you for posting that, it was nice to hear both sides. While I have e compassion for the man who spoke at the end about his experience with feeling fear and being bullied, I can't help but think this was passed too hastily. Like other speakers pointed out, there are states that already have policies in place to address gender fluidity. Why can't we take the time to study them and see what is working, what is not working. I was also surprised to hear from the OB GYN who basically stated that the medical community has not come to a consensus on gender fluidity. What more of a school system?

As for the claim that we'd lose federal funding. Show me where it states that. One of the attorneys who spoke said that while there are anti-discrimination laws, there is no federal law requiring schools to specifically address gender fluidity or lose funding.
.

So, what do you guys think was their motivation for passing it so hastily? Is it really just kind of a non-issue, maybe?

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter even if you think it IS a mental illness. We accommodate and do not discriminate against other mentally ill people. We don't hate people who are schizophrenic or depressed or whatever. Stop being ridiculous. Home school your little minions.

[Anonymous]

The new policy is not about discrimination, we already have policies in place for that. It's about giving additional "protective" measures to use whatever bathroom or locker room according to the gender you identify with. Or being expressly prohibited from transferring your child from a transgender teachers class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter even if you think it IS a mental illness. We accommodate and do not discriminate against other mentally ill people. We don't hate people who are schizophrenic or depressed or whatever. Stop being ridiculous. Home school your little minions.

We're not being ridiculous at all. Like another PP pointed out, we've received numerous emails about the budget shortfall androi bell schedules. Yet zilch about something like this. We need to know what our parental rights are and how the new policy affects that. We need to know how the new policy ensures the safety off all students, both transgender and our children.There's nothing ridiculous about it.

[Anonymous]

Andrea Lafferty, who runs the Traditional Value Coalition was there leading the charge and she is the one who organized the people who were against the measure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Values_Coalition

Note: The Southern Poverty Law Center considers it a hate group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter even if you think it IS a mental illness. We accommodate and do not discriminate against other mentally ill people. We don't hate people who are schizophrenic or depressed or whatever. Stop being ridiculous. Home school your little minions.

That's the point! We accommodate and do not discriminate against other mentally ill people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
Thank you for posting that, it was nice to hear both sides. While I have e compassion for the man who spoke at the end about his experience with feeling fear and being bullied, I can't help but think this was passed too hastily. Like other speakers pointed out, there are states that already have policies in place to address gender fluidity. Why can't we take the time to study them and see what is working, what is not working. I was also surprised to hear from the OB GYN who basically stated that the medical community has not come to a consensus on gender fluidity. What more of a school system?

As for the claim that we'd lose federal funding. Show me where it states that. One of the attorneys who spoke said that while there are anti-discrimination laws, there is no federal law requiring schools to specifically address gender fluidity or lose funding.
.

So, what do you guys think was their motivation for passing it so hastily? Is it really just kind of a non-issue, maybe?

The impetus appears to be Mark Herring's opinion in March:

http://www.oag.state.va.us/files/14-080_Ebbin.pdf

as stated in this article in the Washington Post

Fairfax County School Board member Ryan McElveen (At Large), who proposed adding gender identity to the district’s policy, said the administration decided to add protections for transgender students after the release of an opinion by Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D). Herring wrote in March that school boards have the authority to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-county-weighs-protections-for-transgender-students-and-teachers/2015/05/06/71b3cb76-f3cd-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

[Anonymous]

We accommodate and do not discriminate against other mentally ill people.

I am not so sure that transgender are mentally ill. However, do you really want people who are mentally ill teaching your children? I mean people with serious issues?

I have known some teachers who were mentally ill. Teaching is not a good job for them. It's not good for them or their students. (I am not talking about mild issues, but serious depression, bi-polar, etc.) Teaching is a very hard job. A teacher constantly needs to be at the top of his game--do you really want someone who is going through transition teaching? This is the issue--not whether they are accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We accommodate and do not discriminate against other mentally ill people.

I am not so sure that transgender are mentally ill. However, do you really want people who are mentally ill teaching your children? I mean people with serious issues?

I have known some teachers who were mentally ill. Teaching is not a good job for them. It's not good for them or their students. (I am not talking about mild issues, but serious depression, bi-polar, etc.) Teaching is a very hard job. A teacher constantly needs to be at the top of his game--do you really want someone who is going through transition teaching? This is the issue--not whether they are accepted.

Right. I think it's a different ballgame for teachers vs students. What about teachers who suffer from depression or anxiety? I guess it matters how much it affects their job at the point they are going through "issues" related to the gender dysphoria (or whatever). I don't think I'd have a problem with a teacher post-transition, all else being equal, but having the teacher teaching DURING the transition period? I mean would a someone going through chemo still teach? It just seems like too big of a life-alterning issue to face AND do a job like teaching at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The impetus appears to be Mark Herring's opinion in March:

http://www.oag.state.va.us/files/14-080_Ebbin.pdf

as stated in this article in the Washington Post

Fairfax County School Board member Ryan McElveen (At Large), who proposed adding gender identity to the district’s policy, said the administration decided to add protections for transgender students after the release of an opinion by Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D). Herring wrote in March that school boards have the authority to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-county-weighs-protections-for-transgender-students-and-teachers/2015/05/06/71b3cb76-f3cd-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

Herring's opinion said they have the authority to include it, not that they SHOULD...I am wondering why they chose to make this a thing? Or, is it just that it's inevitable, Federal law, etc. and they just want to comply rather than needing to be forced? Or do they want to look like they are so wonderfully progressive or something?

[Anonymous]

Herring's opinion said they have the authority to include it, not that they SHOULD...I am wondering why they chose to make this a thing? Or, is it just that it's inevitable, Federal law, etc. and they just want to comply rather than needing to be forced? Or do they want to look like they are so wonderfully progressive or something?

Great opportunity to vote out the SB. Wonder if this will affect Smith's chances for Supervisor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new policy is not about discrimination, we already have policies in place for that. It's about giving additional "protective" measures to use whatever bathroom or locker room according to the gender you identify with. Or being expressly prohibited from transferring your child from a transgender teachers class.

^^^This. It was disingenuous for the board members to claim that this was not a change in policy. If no change was intended, then why the need to hire consultants to figure out what it means? Why even make the policy change?

[Anonymous]

^^^This. It was disingenuous for the board members to claim that this was not a change in policy. If no change was intended, then why the need to hire consultants to figure out what it means? Why even make the policy change?

The claim is that it is required by Dept of Ed--at least that is what it said on FCPS website. I still wish someone would explain the "consultant" which is also a Dept of Ed demand. Why can they demand a consultant? I really think that could be challenged in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Andrea Lafferty, who runs the Traditional Value Coalition was there leading the charge and she is the one who organized the people who were against the measure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Values_Coalition

Note: The Southern Poverty Law Center considers it a hate group.

Southern Poverty Law Center is a different kind of hate group with a real vendetta against Christian religious groups. Take what they say with a grain of salt. They are an anti free speech group that wants to manipulate the courts to shut down any dissent or opinions that do not align with their narrow view of the world.

You are very misguided if you think the upset parents were part of some right wing group's organized conspiracy.

The vast majority of uoset parents are just that, your neighbors, friends, and parents in your school who heard about this at tue last minute from word of mouth at the bus stop, baseball games and walking their dogs.