GOP endorsed school board candidates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the same two people responding?

Seems like one anti-trans poster arguing with at least 2 others.

I suspect one of the pro-Board people responding is Karl Frisch himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this thread is exhibit A why the current SB needs to go.

It demonstrators how conservatives have to lie and mislead to push their anti-LGBTQ agenda.

The screenshot of that book was a lie?

Conservatives have been pushing lies throughout this whole thread. About that book and other topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?amp

New Book “Irreversible Damage” Is Full of Misinformation

Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.

Further arguing against Shrier’s objectivity is her crass and offensive language throughout the book.

Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.

Shrier claims that a large number of kids who say they are transgender are actually LGB and afraid to say so because transgender identity carries less stigma than being LGB. Actual data suggest otherwise.

Shrier states there is evidence that providing adolescents with puberty blockers makes them more likely to continue to identify as transgender. That’s false.

Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.


It’s anti-trans political propaganda.

Since your posting is based on a piece by Jack Turban MD MHS, allow me to share a different perspective about his input:

…In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low. Even trans activists in the academy who detest the ROGD hypothesis wrote a letter in which they take Turban to task. While the Turban study’s intentions are “admirable,” these authors write, its “results were overinterpreted and . . . the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.

That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community. American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.

Full text:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-new-low


Furthermore, allow me to share a more reliable source that references the work of Abigail Shrier by experts on the field. You may really want to take your time to read it :
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?amp

New Book “Irreversible Damage” Is Full of Misinformation

Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.

Further arguing against Shrier’s objectivity is her crass and offensive language throughout the book.

Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.

Shrier claims that a large number of kids who say they are transgender are actually LGB and afraid to say so because transgender identity carries less stigma than being LGB. Actual data suggest otherwise.

Shrier states there is evidence that providing adolescents with puberty blockers makes them more likely to continue to identify as transgender. That’s false.

Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.


It’s anti-trans political propaganda.

Since your posting is based on a piece by Jack Turban MD MHS, allow me to share a different perspective about his input:

…In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low. Even trans activists in the academy who detest the ROGD hypothesis wrote a letter in which they take Turban to task. While the Turban study’s intentions are “admirable,” these authors write, its “results were overinterpreted and . . . the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.

That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community. American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.

Full text:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-new-low

Furthermore, allow me to share a more reliable source that references the work of Abigail Shrier by experts on the field. You may really want to take your time to read it :
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

Deflection. Her book is full of misinformation. It's not based on data or even accurate case studies. If you actually checked her sources you'd realize that it's not based on peer-review scientific journals, it's based on partisan op-eds. If you actually look to the science and medical community, she's wrong on almost everything.

She's an anti-trans political hack pushing conservative propaganda.

[Anonymous]

It’s great to know that basic literacy, STEM skills, and adequate facilities will all likely continue to go unaddressed by the next School Board as they burnish their credentials with the LBGTQ lobby by making sure future board debates focus on the need for “Gender Queer” in school libraries and the need to appoint people feverishly obsessed with discrediting Abigail Shrier (a Yale Law graduate) to every advisory committee in sight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s great to know that basic literacy, STEM skills, and adequate facilities will all likely continue to go unaddressed by the next School Board as they burnish their credentials with the LBGTQ lobby by making sure future board debates focus on the need for “Gender Queer” in school libraries and the need to appoint people feverishly obsessed with discrediting Abigail Shrier (a Yale Law graduate) to every advisory committee in sight.

Who is pushing LGBTQ topics? Who even brought up the topic of Gender Queer? Conservatives.

Leave LGBTQ kids alone FFS. They aren’t your pawns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Republican endorsed candidates not tell us they’re Republican? Are they ashamed?

Do the Democrats announce they're Democrats? If so, it would certainly make it easier to know who not to vote for.

They do. I want the Republicans to do the same thing so I know not to vote for them! But they are too ashamed to announce they’re Republicans.

Every candidate on the ballot has “nonpartisan” next to their name.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools,_Virginia,_elections_(2023)

both candidates in my district are endorsed by their respective parties. Karl Frisch will tell us proudly that he’s a Democrat. But the Republican calls himself an “independent” despite him being a member of the Fairfax GOP and endorsed by them. At least the Dems don’t try to lie.

If you really wanted to be an “independent” you wouldn’t apply for the endorsement of either party. (Note: there is a candidate for at-large who is truly an independent and didn’t apply for either party’s endorsement).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?amp

New Book “Irreversible Damage” Is Full of Misinformation

Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.

Further arguing against Shrier’s objectivity is her crass and offensive language throughout the book.

Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.

Shrier claims that a large number of kids who say they are transgender are actually LGB and afraid to say so because transgender identity carries less stigma than being LGB. Actual data suggest otherwise.

Shrier states there is evidence that providing adolescents with puberty blockers makes them more likely to continue to identify as transgender. That’s false.

Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.


It’s anti-trans political propaganda.

Since your posting is based on a piece by Jack Turban MD MHS, allow me to share a different perspective about his input:

…In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low. Even trans activists in the academy who detest the ROGD hypothesis wrote a letter in which they take Turban to task. While the Turban study’s intentions are “admirable,” these authors write, its “results were overinterpreted and . . . the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.

That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community. American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.

Full text:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-new-low

Furthermore, allow me to share a more reliable source that references the work of Abigail Shrier by experts on the field. You may really want to take your time to read it :
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

Deflection. Her book is full of misinformation. It's not based on data or even accurate case studies. If you actually checked her sources you'd realize that it's not based on peer-review scientific journals, it's based on partisan op-eds. If you actually look to the science and medical community, she's wrong on almost everything.

She's an anti-trans political hack pushing conservative propaganda.

DP. Not really, since there aren't many and they don't say what you want them to say. Why do you think Europe has backed off of their support for gender affirming care? Because there's no support for it in peer reviewed studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?amp

New Book “Irreversible Damage” Is Full of Misinformation

Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.

Further arguing against Shrier’s objectivity is her crass and offensive language throughout the book.

Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.

Shrier claims that a large number of kids who say they are transgender are actually LGB and afraid to say so because transgender identity carries less stigma than being LGB. Actual data suggest otherwise.

Shrier states there is evidence that providing adolescents with puberty blockers makes them more likely to continue to identify as transgender. That’s false.

Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.


It’s anti-trans political propaganda.

Since your posting is based on a piece by Jack Turban MD MHS, allow me to share a different perspective about his input:

…In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low. Even trans activists in the academy who detest the ROGD hypothesis wrote a letter in which they take Turban to task. While the Turban study’s intentions are “admirable,” these authors write, its “results were overinterpreted and . . . the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.

That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community. American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.

Full text:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-new-low

Furthermore, allow me to share a more reliable source that references the work of Abigail Shrier by experts on the field. You may really want to take your time to read it :
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

Deflection. Her book is full of misinformation. It's not based on data or even accurate case studies. If you actually checked her sources you'd realize that it's not based on peer-review scientific journals, it's based on partisan op-eds. If you actually look to the science and medical community, she's wrong on almost everything.

She's an anti-trans political hack pushing conservative propaganda.

Doctor Jack Turban, the person you are basing your accusation on, is personally invested in debunking Abigail Shrier’s work, which represents a deep conflict of interest. If I were you, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt:

….In many of Turban’s published papers, the sources of the funding for his research reveal conflicts of interest. Particularly, his past work was made possible by a grant from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), where Turban is a member of its media committee and where “it’s hard to get any contrary opinions on the symposia,” according to Levine.
Most notably, AACAP is financially supported by pharmaceutical companies Arbor and Pfizer. Both produce off-label puberty blockers that inhibit the onset of physical changes aligning with a person’s sex.
Given that even progressive European nations, such as England, France, Finland, and Sweden, have started to adopt an increasingly cautious approach towards minor gender transitioning, the relationship between Turban’s funding and his conclusions has come under scrutiny.

Full text:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/advocate-rather-than-a-scientist-the-compromised-research-of-child-gender-transition-doctor-jack-turban/

Unfortunately the activists at the FCPS School Board seem to believe that our students are more interested in drawings of strap-on dildos than information that will help them develop critical thinking skills, such is the case of the work of Abigail Shrier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?amp

New Book “Irreversible Damage” Is Full of Misinformation

Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.

Further arguing against Shrier’s objectivity is her crass and offensive language throughout the book.

Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.

Shrier claims that a large number of kids who say they are transgender are actually LGB and afraid to say so because transgender identity carries less stigma than being LGB. Actual data suggest otherwise.

Shrier states there is evidence that providing adolescents with puberty blockers makes them more likely to continue to identify as transgender. That’s false.

Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.


It’s anti-trans political propaganda.

Since your posting is based on a piece by Jack Turban MD MHS, allow me to share a different perspective about his input:

…In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low. Even trans activists in the academy who detest the ROGD hypothesis wrote a letter in which they take Turban to task. While the Turban study’s intentions are “admirable,” these authors write, its “results were overinterpreted and . . . the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.

That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community. American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.

Full text:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-new-low

Furthermore, allow me to share a more reliable source that references the work of Abigail Shrier by experts on the field. You may really want to take your time to read it :
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

Deflection. Her book is full of misinformation. It's not based on data or even accurate case studies. If you actually checked her sources you'd realize that it's not based on peer-review scientific journals, it's based on partisan op-eds. If you actually look to the science and medical community, she's wrong on almost everything.

She's an anti-trans political hack pushing conservative propaganda.

Doctor Jack Turban, the person you are basing your accusation on, is personally invested in debunking Abigail Shrier’s work, which represents a deep conflict of interest. If I were you, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt:

….In many of Turban’s published papers, the sources of the funding for his research reveal conflicts of interest. Particularly, his past work was made possible by a grant from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), where Turban is a member of its media committee and where “it’s hard to get any contrary opinions on the symposia,” according to Levine.
Most notably, AACAP is financially supported by pharmaceutical companies Arbor and Pfizer. Both produce off-label puberty blockers that inhibit the onset of physical changes aligning with a person’s sex.
Given that even progressive European nations, such as England, France, Finland, and Sweden, have started to adopt an increasingly cautious approach towards minor gender transitioning, the relationship between Turban’s funding and his conclusions has come under scrutiny.

Full text:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/advocate-rather-than-a-scientist-the-compromised-research-of-child-gender-transition-doctor-jack-turban/

Unfortunately the activists at the FCPS School Board seem to believe that our students are more interested in drawings of strap-on dildos than information that will help them develop critical thinking skills, such is the case of the work of Abigail Shrier.

Specifically which point did he get wrong. Oh right, he didn’t. Have you checked her sources yet?

He’s just one of many people who called out her book for what it is: anti-trans propaganda devoid of real data or analysis.

The Rs are the people fixated on LGBTQ books. Who keeps bringing them up? Not the Ds. Not the school board.

You want to stop talking about sexuality/gender so much? Then stop the R’s relentless attack on LGBTQ youth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Republican endorsed candidates not tell us they’re Republican? Are they ashamed?

Do the Democrats announce they're Democrats? If so, it would certainly make it easier to know who not to vote for.

They do. I want the Republicans to do the same thing so I know not to vote for them! But they are too ashamed to announce they’re Republicans.

Every candidate on the ballot has “nonpartisan” next to their name.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools,_Virginia,_elections_(2023)

both candidates in my district are endorsed by their respective parties. Karl Frisch will tell us proudly that he’s a Democrat. But the Republican calls himself an “independent” despite him being a member of the Fairfax GOP and endorsed by them. At least the Dems don’t try to lie.

If you really wanted to be an “independent” you wouldn’t apply for the endorsement of either party. (Note: there is a candidate for at-large who is truly an independent and didn’t apply for either party’s endorsement).

Omeish was on the Democratic board and saying she was non partisan. I agree with you though that an independent shouldn’t be a member of a political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Republican endorsed candidates not tell us they’re Republican? Are they ashamed?

Do the Democrats announce they're Democrats? If so, it would certainly make it easier to know who not to vote for.

They do. I want the Republicans to do the same thing so I know not to vote for them! But they are too ashamed to announce they’re Republicans.

Every candidate on the ballot has “nonpartisan” next to their name.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools,_Virginia,_elections_(2023)

both candidates in my district are endorsed by their respective parties. Karl Frisch will tell us proudly that he’s a Democrat. But the Republican calls himself an “independent” despite him being a member of the Fairfax GOP and endorsed by them. At least the Dems don’t try to lie.

If you really wanted to be an “independent” you wouldn’t apply for the endorsement of either party. (Note: there is a candidate for at-large who is truly an independent and didn’t apply for either party’s endorsement).

Yes, and next to no one knows who that candidate is, and he has zero chance of winning. Given how much money the FCDC and its patrons can throw around to support the candidates they endorse, I don’t begrudge other candidates for seeking a GOP endorsement as a lifeline. It’s the only realistic shot they have at breaking through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Republican endorsed candidates not tell us they’re Republican? Are they ashamed?

Do the Democrats announce they're Democrats? If so, it would certainly make it easier to know who not to vote for.

They do. I want the Republicans to do the same thing so I know not to vote for them! But they are too ashamed to announce they’re Republicans.

Every candidate on the ballot has “nonpartisan” next to their name.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools,_Virginia,_elections_(2023)

both candidates in my district are endorsed by their respective parties. Karl Frisch will tell us proudly that he’s a Democrat. But the Republican calls himself an “independent” despite him being a member of the Fairfax GOP and endorsed by them. At least the Dems don’t try to lie.

If you really wanted to be an “independent” you wouldn’t apply for the endorsement of either party. (Note: there is a candidate for at-large who is truly an independent and didn’t apply for either party’s endorsement).

Omeish was on the Democratic board and saying she was non partisan. I agree with you though that an independent shouldn’t be a member of a political party.

She exploited the FCDC endorsement process to the hilt to get endorsed in 2019. But she needed to say she was non-partisan later because the Democrats veered so far left on issues of gender and sexuality that it made it difficult for her to retain support in her more socially conservative community. And of course she got frozen out of any responsibility on the School Board by the mean Karen’s (Corbett Sanders and Keys Gamarra) and nasty Elaine (Tholen) as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation?amp

New Book “Irreversible Damage” Is Full of Misinformation

Shrier did not interview most of the transgender adolescents she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.

Further arguing against Shrier’s objectivity is her crass and offensive language throughout the book.

Shrier claims that “in most cases—nearly 70 percent—gender dysphoria resolves," and thus youth should not be provided gender-affirming medical care. That statistic is false.

Shrier claims that a large number of kids who say they are transgender are actually LGB and afraid to say so because transgender identity carries less stigma than being LGB. Actual data suggest otherwise.

Shrier states there is evidence that providing adolescents with puberty blockers makes them more likely to continue to identify as transgender. That’s false.

Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.


It’s anti-trans political propaganda.

Since your posting is based on a piece by Jack Turban MD MHS, allow me to share a different perspective about his input:

…In a field known for its weak methodologies and even weaker scientific conclusions, Turban’s study sets a new low. Even trans activists in the academy who detest the ROGD hypothesis wrote a letter in which they take Turban to task. While the Turban study’s intentions are “admirable,” these authors write, its “results were overinterpreted and . . . the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.

That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community. American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.

Full text:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-new-low

Furthermore, allow me to share a more reliable source that references the work of Abigail Shrier by experts on the field. You may really want to take your time to read it :
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71296/

Deflection. Her book is full of misinformation. It's not based on data or even accurate case studies. If you actually checked her sources you'd realize that it's not based on peer-review scientific journals, it's based on partisan op-eds. If you actually look to the science and medical community, she's wrong on almost everything.

She's an anti-trans political hack pushing conservative propaganda.

Doctor Jack Turban, the person you are basing your accusation on, is personally invested in debunking Abigail Shrier’s work, which represents a deep conflict of interest. If I were you, I would take anything he says with a grain of salt:

….In many of Turban’s published papers, the sources of the funding for his research reveal conflicts of interest. Particularly, his past work was made possible by a grant from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), where Turban is a member of its media committee and where “it’s hard to get any contrary opinions on the symposia,” according to Levine.
Most notably, AACAP is financially supported by pharmaceutical companies Arbor and Pfizer. Both produce off-label puberty blockers that inhibit the onset of physical changes aligning with a person’s sex.
Given that even progressive European nations, such as England, France, Finland, and Sweden, have started to adopt an increasingly cautious approach towards minor gender transitioning, the relationship between Turban’s funding and his conclusions has come under scrutiny.

Full text:
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/advocate-rather-than-a-scientist-the-compromised-research-of-child-gender-transition-doctor-jack-turban/

Unfortunately the activists at the FCPS School Board seem to believe that our students are more interested in drawings of strap-on dildos than information that will help them develop critical thinking skills, such is the case of the work of Abigail Shrier.

Specifically which point did he get wrong. Oh right, he didn’t. Have you checked her sources yet?

He’s just one of many people who called out her book for what it is: anti-trans propaganda devoid of real data or analysis.

The Rs are the people fixated on LGBTQ books. Who keeps bringing them up? Not the Ds. Not the school board.

You want to stop talking about sexuality/gender so much? Then stop the R’s relentless attack on LGBTQ youth.

Ds and school board created the school LGBTQ book issue. This forces parents point out the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the Republican endorsed candidates not tell us they’re Republican? Are they ashamed?

Do the Democrats announce they're Democrats? If so, it would certainly make it easier to know who not to vote for.

They do. I want the Republicans to do the same thing so I know not to vote for them! But they are too ashamed to announce they’re Republicans.

Every candidate on the ballot has “nonpartisan” next to their name.
https://ballotpedia.org/Fairfax_County_Public_Schools,_Virginia,_elections_(2023)

both candidates in my district are endorsed by their respective parties. Karl Frisch will tell us proudly that he’s a Democrat. But the Republican calls himself an “independent” despite him being a member of the Fairfax GOP and endorsed by them. At least the Dems don’t try to lie.

If you really wanted to be an “independent” you wouldn’t apply for the endorsement of either party. (Note: there is a candidate for at-large who is truly an independent and didn’t apply for either party’s endorsement).

Omeish was on the Democratic board and saying she was non partisan. I agree with you though that an independent shouldn’t be a member of a political party.

She exploited the FCDC endorsement process to the hilt to get endorsed in 2019. But she needed to say she was non-partisan later because the Democrats veered so far left on issues of gender and sexuality that it made it difficult for her to retain support in her more socially conservative community. And of course she got frozen out of any responsibility on the School Board by the mean Karen’s (Corbett Sanders and Keys Gamarra) and nasty Elaine (Tholen) as a result.

If she was kept from responsibility, it was probably due more to her not bothering to show up for meetings or do any work.