trans in Texas schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

I am not the PP but come on. The child was almost certainly not hospitalized because of the name, and supporting gratuitous name-calling just weakens your credibility. You just sound nasty and ignorant. OP made it clear that the name incident with the teacher happened in conjunction with hormonal treatment withdrawal. We don’t know why the child was hospitalized but one can reasonably hazard a guess that being abruptly withdrawn from medication that has extensive physical and mental impact and that is frequently (if incorrectly) called “lifesaving” by the medical professionals, peers, loved ones, and other people the child trusts most would have a severe mental health impact. This child was let down across the board, but was almost certainly not hospitalized because of one jerk of a teacher. Use your head.

Texas didn’t stop gender affirming care for minors until this summer and the incident in question happened last school year. The hospitalization could not have been due to stopping cross sex hormones because the law wasn’t even in effect.

[Anonymous]

The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

[Anonymous]

State university hospital - sorry, thought I typed that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

I am not the PP but come on. The child was almost certainly not hospitalized because of the name, and supporting gratuitous name-calling just weakens your credibility. You just sound nasty and ignorant. OP made it clear that the name incident with the teacher happened in conjunction with hormonal treatment withdrawal. We don’t know why the child was hospitalized but one can reasonably hazard a guess that being abruptly withdrawn from medication that has extensive physical and mental impact and that is frequently (if incorrectly) called “lifesaving” by the medical professionals, peers, loved ones, and other people the child trusts most would have a severe mental health impact. This child was let down across the board, but was almost certainly not hospitalized because of one jerk of a teacher. Use your head.

Texas didn’t stop gender affirming care for minors until this summer and the incident in question happened last school year. The hospitalization could not have been due to stopping cross sex hormones because the law wasn’t even in effect.

OP says the child stopped. We don’t know why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

I don’t think the kid is being dramatic but is clearly mentally unwell. Unfortunately this population is known to have a lot of mental health issues. Many students can have rough upbringings or other hardships but don’t end up getting hospitalized in a psych unit. I truly hope this kid is getting quality care from a good mental health care provider and not one just solely focusing on gender affirmation.

That’s very valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

Another mean person who is emotionally clueless about how emotional teens can be. And a teacher who bullies/mocks them by refusing to call them their preferred name is nasty as all get out. Why are people so unkind? These are probably the same people who proudly call themselves "pro-life". My @ss. It takes more energy to be mean than kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

Another mean person who is emotionally clueless about how emotional teens can be. And a teacher who bullies/mocks them by refusing to call them their preferred name is nasty as all get out. Why are people so unkind? These are probably the same people who proudly call themselves "pro-life". My @ss. It takes more energy to be mean than kind.

Pp. I’m not actually unkind, but this child doesn’t exist. And I’m a pro-choice radical feminist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

Another mean person who is emotionally clueless about how emotional teens can be. And a teacher who bullies/mocks them by refusing to call them their preferred name is nasty as all get out. Why are people so unkind? These are probably the same people who proudly call themselves "pro-life". My @ss. It takes more energy to be mean than kind.

Pp. I’m not actually unkind, but this child doesn’t exist. And I’m a pro-choice radical feminist.

For a child who doesn't exist you've made quite the unkind judgment about them. Nothing about your post says you are not unkind if you can mock even a "theoretical" teen for being emotionally weak. I don't care what other beliefs you have. There's a meanness to your post that you can't even recognize. No child deserves to be mocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

Another mean person who is emotionally clueless about how emotional teens can be. And a teacher who bullies/mocks them by refusing to call them their preferred name is nasty as all get out. Why are people so unkind? These are probably the same people who proudly call themselves "pro-life". My @ss. It takes more energy to be mean than kind.

Pp. I’m not actually unkind, but this child doesn’t exist. And I’m a pro-choice radical feminist.

For a child who doesn't exist you've made quite the unkind judgment about them. Nothing about your post says you are not unkind if you can mock even a "theoretical" teen for being emotionally weak. I don't care what other beliefs you have. There's a meanness to your post that you can't even recognize. No child deserves to be mocked.

Then why did you say I was pro-life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

Another mean person who is emotionally clueless about how emotional teens can be. And a teacher who bullies/mocks them by refusing to call them their preferred name is nasty as all get out. Why are people so unkind? These are probably the same people who proudly call themselves "pro-life". My @ss. It takes more energy to be mean than kind.

Pp. I’m not actually unkind, but this child doesn’t exist. And I’m a pro-choice radical feminist.

For a child who doesn't exist you've made quite the unkind judgment about them. Nothing about your post says you are not unkind if you can mock even a "theoretical" teen for being emotionally weak. I don't care what other beliefs you have. There's a meanness to your post that you can't even recognize. No child deserves to be mocked.

Then why did you say I was pro-life?

Because the sort of behavior you exhibited tends to be what I expect from anti-abortion people who seemingly only care about fetuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

I am not the PP but come on. The child was almost certainly not hospitalized because of the name, and supporting gratuitous name-calling just weakens your credibility. You just sound nasty and ignorant. OP made it clear that the name incident with the teacher happened in conjunction with hormonal treatment withdrawal. We don’t know why the child was hospitalized but one can reasonably hazard a guess that being abruptly withdrawn from medication that has extensive physical and mental impact and that is frequently (if incorrectly) called “lifesaving” by the medical professionals, peers, loved ones, and other people the child trusts most would have a severe mental health impact. This child was let down across the board, but was almost certainly not hospitalized because of one jerk of a teacher. Use your head.

Texas didn’t stop gender affirming care for minors until this summer and the incident in question happened last school year. The hospitalization could not have been due to stopping cross sex hormones because the law wasn’t even in effect.

OP says the child stopped. We don’t know why.

The OP said the doctor stopped the child’s cross sex hormones due to TX law which can’t be true since this law just went effect this summer and this happened the prior school year. Another reason to doubt this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

I am not the PP but come on. The child was almost certainly not hospitalized because of the name, and supporting gratuitous name-calling just weakens your credibility. You just sound nasty and ignorant. OP made it clear that the name incident with the teacher happened in conjunction with hormonal treatment withdrawal. We don’t know why the child was hospitalized but one can reasonably hazard a guess that being abruptly withdrawn from medication that has extensive physical and mental impact and that is frequently (if incorrectly) called “lifesaving” by the medical professionals, peers, loved ones, and other people the child trusts most would have a severe mental health impact. This child was let down across the board, but was almost certainly not hospitalized because of one jerk of a teacher. Use your head.

Texas didn’t stop gender affirming care for minors until this summer and the incident in question happened last school year. The hospitalization could not have been due to stopping cross sex hormones because the law wasn’t even in effect.

OP says the child stopped. We don’t know why.

The OP said the doctor stopped the child’s cross sex hormones due to TX law which can’t be true since this law just went effect this summer and this happened the prior school year. Another reason to doubt this story.

Good catch.