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

[Anonymous]

They did not listen. They clearly expressed they did not care what people emailed, telephoned or said about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They did not listen. They clearly expressed they did not care what people emailed, telephoned or said about this issue.

You did not listen to what they said. Just because you were not successful in persuading them to your side, does NOT mean they did not listen to the people who emailed, telephoned or said about the issue- from all sides of the issue. Just because the people who came to oppose the change yelled louder than those who came to support it - does not mean that the opposers were in the majority in the county.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the point of this vote, it was like watching something that was going to get voted yes no matter what. It was like watching a north korean election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://fcps.edu/news/policy1450.shtml

We also have to hire a consultant! How much is that going to cost?

I would certainly hope since the U.S. Dept of Ed is requiring school districts to hire consultants for this, that they will also be funding it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the point of this vote, it was like watching something that was going to get voted yes no matter what. It was like watching a north korean election.

The point of the vote was to change the wording in FCPS anti-discrimination to add "gender identity". Nothing more, nothing less. It was a vote to codify current practices. It shouldn't have been so controversial. Most of the time these types of votes are quick and easy. It was more procedural that anything, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not listen. They clearly expressed they did not care what people emailed, telephoned or said about this issue.

You did not listen to what they said. Just because you were not successful in persuading them to your side, does NOT mean they did not listen to the people who emailed, telephoned or said about the issue- from all sides of the issue. Just because the people who came to oppose the change yelled louder than those who came to support it - does not mean that the opposers were in the majority in the county.

Then why not postpone the vote to at least notify the parents in advance by sending one email about the topic being considered and also surveying the parents to see wuere the feelings of the district fall?

How many emails do we receive about the budget issue? Anti bullying program? High school sleep schedules?

What infuriated most people was the secret and under the table way the board went about this and the lack of regard their methods and attitudes showed for the people they are elected to represent. I think they lost a lot of middle of the road support in the way they went about this.

[Anonymous]

Props to the members BESIDES Shultz who realized that representing your constituents doesn't mean enshrining discrimination. If Shultz has members that wanted to take out race or ethnicity as well should she be applauded if she helps get that passed?

Also, just because the naysayers are loud doesn't make them the majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Props to the members BESIDES Shultz who realized that representing your constituents doesn't mean enshrining discrimination. If Shultz has members that wanted to take out race or ethnicity as well should she be applauded if she helps get that passed?

Also, just because the naysayers are loud doesn't make them the majority.

Then why not survey the parents to find out where the opinion falls as a first step?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the point of this vote, it was like watching something that was going to get voted yes no matter what. It was like watching a north korean election.

The point of the vote was to change the wording in FCPS anti-discrimination to add "gender identity". Nothing more, nothing less. It was a vote to codify current practices. It shouldn't have been so controversial. Most of the time these types of votes are quick and easy. It was more procedural that anything, IMO.

Why bother voting at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not listen. They clearly expressed they did not care what people emailed, telephoned or said about this issue.

You did not listen to what they said. Just because you were not successful in persuading them to your side, does NOT mean they did not listen to the people who emailed, telephoned or said about the issue- from all sides of the issue. Just because the people who came to oppose the change yelled louder than those who came to support it - does not mean that the opposers were in the majority in the county.

Then why not postpone the vote to at least notify the parents in advance by sending one email about the topic being considered and also surveying the parents to see wuere the feelings of the district fall?

How many emails do we receive about the budget issue? Anti bullying program? High school sleep schedules?

What infuriated most people was the secret and under the table way the board went about this and the lack of regard their methods and attitudes showed for the people they are elected to represent. I think they lost a lot of middle of the road support in the way they went about this.

It was not secretive. It was done the same way all procedural votes are done. Do you know how many more emails we would get if the SB sent out a notice on ALL upcoming votes? It is up to us a citizens get information and the information was available on the website just as it always is.

I did NOT see a lack of regard from the school board, I saw a school board acting in the way it should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the point of this vote, it was like watching something that was going to get voted yes no matter what. It was like watching a north korean election.

The point of the vote was to change the wording in FCPS anti-discrimination to add "gender identity". Nothing more, nothing less. It was a vote to codify current practices. It shouldn't have been so controversial. Most of the time these types of votes are quick and easy. It was more procedural that anything, IMO.

Why bother voting at all

To CODIFY existing practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Props to the members BESIDES Shultz who realized that representing your constituents doesn't mean enshrining discrimination. If Shultz has members that wanted to take out race or ethnicity as well should she be applauded if she helps get that passed?

Also, just because the naysayers are loud doesn't make them the majority.

Then why not survey the parents to find out where the opinion falls as a first step?

LOL, if you think Congress is bogged down. The SB would not be able to do any work if they had to do a survey on EVERYTHING. This was a procedural vote to codify existing practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would certainly hope that if parents can request a different teacher because s/he is transgendered, that teachers be allowed to request students not be in their class because their parents are jackasses.

I like you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What infuriated most people was the secret and under the table way the board went about this and the lack of regard their methods and attitudes showed for the people they are elected to represent. I think they lost a lot of middle of the road support in the way they went about this.

It was not "secret and under the table."

[Anonymous]

Yes they were.