GOP endorsed school board candidates

[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).

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.

It seems like a bad idea in fairfax. I won't take a democratic sample ballot, but I will take a republican sample ballot just to make sure I don't accidentally vote for one

[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).

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.

It seems like a bad idea in fairfax. I won't take a democratic sample ballot, but I will take a republican sample ballot just to make sure I don't accidentally vote for one

Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The Ds aren’t in charge or publishing books and the school board doesn’t pick out each individual book in the HS libraries.

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:

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.

It seems like a bad idea in fairfax. I won't take a democratic sample ballot, but I will take a republican sample ballot just to make sure I don't accidentally vote for one

+1

Anyone willing to align with those nutters doesn’t have good judgment, if not a nutter themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The Ds aren’t in charge or publishing books and the school board doesn’t pick out each individual book in the HS libraries.

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

DP. Yes, these are issues that the school board controls. Usually not directly, but they set policies that the superintendent and administration implement.

Asking for some balance is not attacking LGBTQIA+ youth. It's asking for balance.

[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.

The OP is allegedly inquiring about controversial books and censoring of such at FCPS. Apparently, so long we limit ourselves to address the books (on strap-on dildos) the School Board and librarians have fought to keep in our schools - and how “intolerant”conservatives have fought to remove due to sexual imagery - we should consider the issue addressed.

This isn’t about conservative or liberal, or how reliable Shrier’s work is, or isn’t. It is about who gets to decide what is appropriate for our kids to be exposed to at school, and why. While imposing one train of thought about Gender Ideology in our schools over any other point of view may work for some, reality is the majority of parents prefer the focus to be on academics, as well as on the development of critical thinking skills and independent thought over anything else. Even though FCPS teaches the concept of transgenderism to our kids, not one single copy of Irreversible Damage is available in our schools to expose students to multiple stories, written with compassion, about young girls who identify as experiencing body dysmorphia, and adults who live as transgender. I would even venture to affirm that neither Civics nor English teachers have dared to include Abigail Shrier in their lessons of freedom of speech, censoring, and eloquence. An brilliant author and a lawyer educated at Columbia, Oxford, and Yale, and whose book, Irreversible Damage, was included among its books of the year for 2020 by The Economist, and one of the best books of 2021 by The Times and by The Sunday Times seems to be irrelevant at FCPS. They have settled instead for an amateur author who uses sexually explicit drawings to communicate to her parents and relatives about her sexuality.

[Anonymous]

Who is this Dr. Harry Jackson, that I keep hearing of frequently lately? How dare he says the focus needs to be routine academics first and foremost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is this Dr. Harry Jackson, that I keep hearing of frequently lately? How dare he says the focus needs to be routine academics first and foremost.

He's the nut who is getting sued for setting up a fake twitter account calling an opponent a porn star

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/22/fairfax-harry-jackson-lawsuit-porn-account/

[Anonymous]

All this is fun and interesting and I probably wouldn't want to be friends with anyone on the board, but at the end of the day, I just care about the education of my child. The current board is passing legislation that is harming my kid's academic growth and that is their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The Ds aren’t in charge or publishing books and the school board doesn’t pick out each individual book in the HS libraries.

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

DP. Yes, these are issues that the school board controls. Usually not directly, but they set policies that the superintendent and administration implement.

Asking for some balance is not attacking LGBTQIA+ youth. It's asking for balance.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. The Ds aren’t in charge or publishing books and the school board doesn’t pick out each individual book in the HS libraries.

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

DP. Yes, these are issues that the school board controls. Usually not directly, but they set policies that the superintendent and administration implement.

Asking for some balance is not attacking LGBTQIA+ youth. It's asking for balance.

School boards should not be picking out specific books for the HS libraries.

Conservatives are absolutely attacking LGBTQ youth across the country. If you can’t see that then maybe you’re part of the problem.

PP is trying to blame the SB for things that the SB didn’t do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this Dr. Harry Jackson, that I keep hearing of frequently lately? How dare he says the focus needs to be routine academics first and foremost.

He's the nut who is getting sued for setting up a fake twitter account calling an opponent a porn star

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/22/fairfax-harry-jackson-lawsuit-porn-account/

He’s part of the RWNJ crowd who overran the TJ PTA.

[Anonymous]

Jackson won't win as his district is the most liberal in the county and is a nut job who is just a distraction but isn't representative of the other people running this year who are much more reasonable and needed on a board that is simply not in tune with the educational needs of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The OP is allegedly inquiring about controversial books and censoring of such at FCPS. Apparently, so long we limit ourselves to address the books (on strap-on dildos) the School Board and librarians have fought to keep in our schools - and how “intolerant”conservatives have fought to remove due to sexual imagery - we should consider the issue addressed.

This isn’t about conservative or liberal, or how reliable Shrier’s work is, or isn’t. It is about who gets to decide what is appropriate for our kids to be exposed to at school, and why. While imposing one train of thought about Gender Ideology in our schools over any other point of view may work for some, reality is the majority of parents prefer the focus to be on academics, as well as on the development of critical thinking skills and independent thought over anything else. Even though FCPS teaches the concept of transgenderism to our kids, not one single copy of Irreversible Damage is available in our schools to expose students to multiple stories, written with compassion, about young girls who identify as experiencing body dysmorphia, and adults who live as transgender. I would even venture to affirm that neither Civics nor English teachers have dared to include Abigail Shrier in their lessons of freedom of speech, censoring, and eloquence. An brilliant author and a lawyer educated at Columbia, Oxford, and Yale, and whose book, Irreversible Damage, was included among its books of the year for 2020 by The Economist, and one of the best books of 2021 by The Times and by The Sunday Times seems to be irrelevant at FCPS. They have settled instead for an amateur author who uses sexually explicit drawings to communicate to her parents and relatives about her sexuality.

Lol. Her education don’t make the book any more credible. Have you checked her “sources” yet?

Instead of pretending like it’s some fact-based book she should have presented it for what it was: skewed stories from anti-trans parents estranged from their kids because they weren’t supportive of their transgender kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jackson won't win as his district is the most liberal in the county and is a nut job who is just a distraction but isn't representative of the other people running this year who are much more reasonable and needed on a board that is simply not in tune with the educational needs of students.

Who are those reasonable people?