New VA trans policies for schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier as the parent of a trans child but could not bring myself to engage further after this thread truly devolved into meanness and pettiness. I am chiming back in to point you to the story and picture in the post today of a former Republican congresswoman and her trans son. Those of you who insist that this trans man as he currently presents should use the women's room, what would you do if you saw him in there? I can guarantee your first thought would not be that this bearded person who presents as fully male must be a biological woman who totally belongs in the women's room. (I have no idea what his physical situation is obviously, but at least for my son if you pulled down his pants you would still think male not female). Those who support bathroom rules, what do you think about this person in the ladies locker room?

I personally don’t support Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. However believe that children shouldn’t be socially transitioned by a school without the permission of their parents.

The person transitioning is the child. The school doesn't "transition" anyone. They may support a child by using their preferred pronouns and names, but they aren't "doing" anything.

It would be devastating for some kids if schools were forced to "out" them to their parents. Fortunately, this isn't enforceable by Youngkin.

The child can only socially transition if the school actively participates in the transition by treating the child as a member of the opposite gender. Social transition is a clinical pathway and should require the express consent of that child’s parents.

No, it should not be required. It would be devastating for some kids if schools were forced to "out" them to their parents.

Social transition is not a benign act and may put a child on a path of medicalization. It is not neutral and should only be undertaken after careful clinical evaluation. You may disagree but there is a body of evidence that shows otherwise. You and other parents may choose to disregard this evidence. That’s up to you. Other parents may choose not to. Each parent can look at the data and decide for themselves. Given the fact that there is major disagreement on whether social transition is a good thing for every child, parents should know if a child is being socially transitioned in school. Here is a good post with excellent links: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/on-teachers-letting-kids-transition

Outing a child without their permission to their parents is also not benign and would likely be more devastating than going by different pronouns/name at school.

No, it should not be required for schools to "out" students to their parents without their permission.

Given the fact that there is a huge debate in the medical community on the harms or benefits of social transition, and the issue is far from settled, it’s not for you to decide what happens to other people’s children. Focus on your own kids and let others focus on theirs. You clearly didn’t read the link I sent you and the embedded links.

And it's not up to you. Leave these kids alone FFS instead of forcing schools to out them to their parents. Disgusting.

Who is it up to then? Who is the final arbitrator of what happens to a child? What I am saying is that in the majority of circumstances it shouldn’t be you, it shouldn’t be me, and it shouldn’t be the school. It should be the child’s parents. You see to be saying that it should be you and school administrators and teachers that share your specific viewpoint that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’m not saying the viewpoint against socially transition is supported by the evidence either. I’m saying that there is a split in the medical community right now. The US medical establishment’s is the outlier in the Western world when it comes towards its stance on gender affirming care. Given the fact that there is no agreement, we should defer to the child’s parents instead of impose our views on other people’s children. Again you clearly didn’t read the link I sent you. You just don’t have the ability to understand someone else’s viewpoint on the matter and clearly do not want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I personally don’t support Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. However believe that children shouldn’t be socially transitioned by a school without the permission of their parents.

How do you determine which kids are genuinely transitioning vs those experimenting.

I can see some immature middle school boys having a good time with this.

Yeah that’s why it’s incredibly complex. That’s another issue in and of itself. What criteria is used to determine if a child is trans and how do we prevent the situation of a middle school boy pretending he identifies as a girl so he can go in the girl’s bathroom? But with the example PP gave, it is clear that the person has actually transitioned and isn’t an immature boy. The problem with Youngkin’s guidelines when it comes to bathrooms is that they are black and white.

There are ZERO problems with having guidelines that are black and white. That's the actual point of the policy. "This is the policy - do exactly this"
The policies are perfect. Girls will hopefully be less likely to be sexually assaulted in the GIRLS bathroom by "trans" boys. - Looking at YOU Loudoun county. Now he has a perfectly viable accommodation for everyone. Girls can go into the GIRLS bathroom.

PP that you are responding to. Feel free to die on that hill. My bigger concern is with schools socially transitioning students without their parents consent. That’s the hill I will die on.

Regardless of how many students that would harm?

I only have the energy to focus on one thing. The bathroom issue is more complex and less clear cut. The parental consent issue is extremely clear cut to me. All the arguments against parental consent can easily be debunked. I’m not sure why you are even debating me. I am arguing against APS’ current policy.

The question is why would you be arguing to actually "out" kids to their parents against their will when it could cause them serious harm.

Ok well I assumed you were the PP in support of Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. I responded in several posts and answered your question. If my position isn’t clear to you, I’m not sure what to tell you. I posted a link that is a good summary of what I think. Really not sure what more you want from me.

[Anonymous]

LCPS adopted its policy, saying they were required to follow the state model policy.
Is that the case now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LCPS adopted its policy, saying they were required to follow the state model policy.
Is that the case now?

Wow. LCPS has fallen to the MAGAs. Sad day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What amazes me in all of this is that at the end of the day we are talking about just 5% of the population.

Why all the hoopla? There are more kids with disabilities then there are trans kids. Why don't they get all this attention?

Because they aren't the targets of Republicans.

Disabled kids are targets of Republicans, but in much more insidious ways. They’re fine with forcing you to have disabled kids, but the responsibility is 100% on you the parents to take care of all of their needs for life.

Gee. The Democrats want to get rid of disabled kids? I don't believe that, but, basically that is what you just posted.

Abort them before birth, yes.

Kids with disabilities don't get the same attention as trans kids because you don't develop a disability due to social contagion. Disabilities also usually have clear diagnostic criteria and objective measurable markers, as opposed to being diagnosed based on feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I personally don’t support Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. However believe that children shouldn’t be socially transitioned by a school without the permission of their parents.

How do you determine which kids are genuinely transitioning vs those experimenting.

I can see some immature middle school boys having a good time with this.

Yeah that’s why it’s incredibly complex. That’s another issue in and of itself. What criteria is used to determine if a child is trans and how do we prevent the situation of a middle school boy pretending he identifies as a girl so he can go in the girl’s bathroom? But with the example PP gave, it is clear that the person has actually transitioned and isn’t an immature boy. The problem with Youngkin’s guidelines when it comes to bathrooms is that they are black and white.

There are ZERO problems with having guidelines that are black and white. That's the actual point of the policy. "This is the policy - do exactly this"
The policies are perfect. Girls will hopefully be less likely to be sexually assaulted in the GIRLS bathroom by "trans" boys. - Looking at YOU Loudoun county. Now he has a perfectly viable accommodation for everyone. Girls can go into the GIRLS bathroom.

PP that you are responding to. Feel free to die on that hill. My bigger concern is with schools socially transitioning students without their parents consent. That’s the hill I will die on.

Regardless of how many students that would harm?

I only have the energy to focus on one thing. The bathroom issue is more complex and less clear cut. The parental consent issue is extremely clear cut to me. All the arguments against parental consent can easily be debunked. I’m not sure why you are even debating me. I am arguing against APS’ current policy.

The question is why would you be arguing to actually "out" kids to their parents against their will when it could cause them serious harm.

Ok well I assumed you were the PP in support of Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. I responded in several posts and answered your question. If my position isn’t clear to you, I’m not sure what to tell you. I posted a link that is a good summary of what I think. Really not sure what more you want from me.

Because it's mindboggling that you are so insistent on potentially causing these students harm. It's less benign to out them to their parents than it is for schools to acknowledge their transition. Imagine if schools were forced to out homosexual kids to their parents against their will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What amazes me in all of this is that at the end of the day we are talking about just 5% of the population.

Why all the hoopla? There are more kids with disabilities then there are trans kids. Why don't they get all this attention?

Because they aren't the targets of Republicans.

Disabled kids are targets of Republicans, but in much more insidious ways. They’re fine with forcing you to have disabled kids, but the responsibility is 100% on you the parents to take care of all of their needs for life.

Gee. The Democrats want to get rid of disabled kids? I don't believe that, but, basically that is what you just posted.

Abort them before birth, yes.

Kids with disabilities don't get the same attention as trans kids because you don't develop a disability due to social contagion. Disabilities also usually have clear diagnostic criteria and objective measurable markers, as opposed to being diagnosed based on feelings.

You've read a little too much Shrier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier as the parent of a trans child but could not bring myself to engage further after this thread truly devolved into meanness and pettiness. I am chiming back in to point you to the story and picture in the post today of a former Republican congresswoman and her trans son. Those of you who insist that this trans man as he currently presents should use the women's room, what would you do if you saw him in there? I can guarantee your first thought would not be that this bearded person who presents as fully male must be a biological woman who totally belongs in the women's room. (I have no idea what his physical situation is obviously, but at least for my son if you pulled down his pants you would still think male not female). Those who support bathroom rules, what do you think about this person in the ladies locker room?

I personally don’t support Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. However believe that children shouldn’t be socially transitioned by a school without the permission of their parents.

The person transitioning is the child. The school doesn't "transition" anyone. They may support a child by using their preferred pronouns and names, but they aren't "doing" anything.

It would be devastating for some kids if schools were forced to "out" them to their parents. Fortunately, this isn't enforceable by Youngkin.

The child can only socially transition if the school actively participates in the transition by treating the child as a member of the opposite gender. Social transition is a clinical pathway and should require the express consent of that child’s parents.

No, it should not be required. It would be devastating for some kids if schools were forced to "out" them to their parents.

Social transition is not a benign act and may put a child on a path of medicalization. It is not neutral and should only be undertaken after careful clinical evaluation. You may disagree but there is a body of evidence that shows otherwise. You and other parents may choose to disregard this evidence. That’s up to you. Other parents may choose not to. Each parent can look at the data and decide for themselves. Given the fact that there is major disagreement on whether social transition is a good thing for every child, parents should know if a child is being socially transitioned in school. Here is a good post with excellent links: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/on-teachers-letting-kids-transition

Outing a child without their permission to their parents is also not benign and would likely be more devastating than going by different pronouns/name at school.

No, it should not be required for schools to "out" students to their parents without their permission.

Given the fact that there is a huge debate in the medical community on the harms or benefits of social transition, and the issue is far from settled, it’s not for you to decide what happens to other people’s children. Focus on your own kids and let others focus on theirs. You clearly didn’t read the link I sent you and the embedded links.

And it's not up to you. Leave these kids alone FFS instead of forcing schools to out them to their parents. Disgusting.

Who is it up to then? Who is the final arbitrator of what happens to a child? What I am saying is that in the majority of circumstances it shouldn’t be you, it shouldn’t be me, and it shouldn’t be the school. It should be the child’s parents. You see to be saying that it should be you and school administrators and teachers that share your specific viewpoint that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’m not saying the viewpoint against socially transition is supported by the evidence either. I’m saying that there is a split in the medical community right now. The US medical establishment’s is the outlier in the Western world when it comes towards its stance on gender affirming care. Given the fact that there is no agreement, we should defer to the child’s parents instead of impose our views on other people’s children. Again you clearly didn’t read the link I sent you. You just don’t have the ability to understand someone else’s viewpoint on the matter and clearly do not want to.

The child has rights. Ultimately, they decide if they transition or not. And if they don't want to be outed to their parents, no one should force that.

Do European governments force schools to "out" transgender kids against their will? What's the data on that? How much harm does that do?

[Anonymous]

I am constantly disturbed by posts here that want to undermine parental responsibility for children. It is even more disturbing coming from those who say they work in schools.

It is for the parents to work through with their children. Parents must be informed. I have zero trust for any person that says differently and don't believe those people belong around children. It is simply an agenda being driven that has caused a social contagion. And ironically does a disservice to the very small number of children who really are confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am constantly disturbed by posts here that want to undermine parental responsibility for children. It is even more disturbing coming from those who say they work in schools.

It is for the parents to work through with their children. Parents must be informed. I have zero trust for any person that says differently and don't believe those people belong around children. It is simply an agenda being driven that has caused a social contagion. And ironically does a disservice to the very small number of children who really are confused.

I don’t trust anyone who reads Shrier.

- parent who doesn’t want to see kids harmed by RWNJs who force kids “out” against their will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What amazes me in all of this is that at the end of the day we are talking about just 5% of the population.

Why all the hoopla? There are more kids with disabilities then there are trans kids. Why don't they get all this attention?

Because they aren't the targets of Republicans.

Disabled kids are targets of Republicans, but in much more insidious ways. They’re fine with forcing you to have disabled kids, but the responsibility is 100% on you the parents to take care of all of their needs for life.

Gee. The Democrats want to get rid of disabled kids? I don't believe that, but, basically that is what you just posted.

Abort them before birth, yes.

Kids with disabilities don't get the same attention as trans kids because you don't develop a disability due to social contagion. Disabilities also usually have clear diagnostic criteria and objective measurable markers, as opposed to being diagnosed based on feelings.

You've read a little too much Shrier.

You are in denial of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What amazes me in all of this is that at the end of the day we are talking about just 5% of the population.

Why all the hoopla? There are more kids with disabilities then there are trans kids. Why don't they get all this attention?

Because they aren't the targets of Republicans.

Disabled kids are targets of Republicans, but in much more insidious ways. They’re fine with forcing you to have disabled kids, but the responsibility is 100% on you the parents to take care of all of their needs for life.

OH NO! you have to take care of the children you brought into the world! Quelle horreau!

No wonder you are cool with schools keeping secrets from parents, you expect, nay demand, that they state raise them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier as the parent of a trans child but could not bring myself to engage further after this thread truly devolved into meanness and pettiness. I am chiming back in to point you to the story and picture in the post today of a former Republican congresswoman and her trans son. Those of you who insist that this trans man as he currently presents should use the women's room, what would you do if you saw him in there? I can guarantee your first thought would not be that this bearded person who presents as fully male must be a biological woman who totally belongs in the women's room. (I have no idea what his physical situation is obviously, but at least for my son if you pulled down his pants you would still think male not female). Those who support bathroom rules, what do you think about this person in the ladies locker room?

I personally don’t support Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. However believe that children shouldn’t be socially transitioned by a school without the permission of their parents.

The person transitioning is the child. The school doesn't "transition" anyone. They may support a child by using their preferred pronouns and names, but they aren't "doing" anything.

It would be devastating for some kids if schools were forced to "out" them to their parents. Fortunately, this isn't enforceable by Youngkin.

They may not even be transitioning. They may be trying some thing on to see if it fits. It’s not a road to an absolute certain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier as the parent of a trans child but could not bring myself to engage further after this thread truly devolved into meanness and pettiness. I am chiming back in to point you to the story and picture in the post today of a former Republican congresswoman and her trans son. Those of you who insist that this trans man as he currently presents should use the women's room, what would you do if you saw him in there? I can guarantee your first thought would not be that this bearded person who presents as fully male must be a biological woman who totally belongs in the women's room. (I have no idea what his physical situation is obviously, but at least for my son if you pulled down his pants you would still think male not female). Those who support bathroom rules, what do you think about this person in the ladies locker room?

I personally don’t support Youngkin’s bathroom guidelines. However believe that children shouldn’t be socially transitioned by a school without the permission of their parents.

The person transitioning is the child. The school doesn't "transition" anyone. They may support a child by using their preferred pronouns and names, but they aren't "doing" anything.

It would be devastating for some kids if schools were forced to "out" them to their parents. Fortunately, this isn't enforceable by Youngkin.

They may not even be transitioning. They may be trying some thing on to see if it fits. It’s not a road to an absolute certain.

Adding they should be supported and not outed.


We have no idea which parents are unstable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LCPS adopted its policy, saying they were required to follow the state model policy.
Is that the case now?

Good.

Signed,

LCPS parent