Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "New VA trans policies for schools" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The thread addresses new model policies issued by the Virginia Department of Education regarding the treatment of transgender students in schools. The new model policies require students to use facilities that match their biological sex and require referring to students by names matching the sex on their official record unless parents request something different in writing, It will be up to local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the new models. As would be expected, posters are strongly divided about the new guidelines. For instance, regarding the role of parents in a student's social transition, posters favoring parental rights strongly agree that parents should be informed if their children are using different names or pronouns at school. They consider a failure by schools to inform parents of such matters as "conspiring" against parents and, in the most extreme cases, examples of "grooming". The new model policies go beyond merely informing parents, however, and prevent schools from using names or pronouns that differ from the sex contained in the official records. Parents opposed to these policies want schools to be safe places for students in which children can confide in trusted adults without fear of repudiation by their parents. There is also considerable disagreement about the guidelines concerning bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a lot of fear and anxiety among some posters concerning students assigned as male at birth sharing girls facilities. These parents welcome the new guidelines that prohibit this. On the other hand are parents who view this as discriminatory. While I did not see it mentioned in the thread, my understanding is that this issue has already been decided legally in favor of transgender students. Ironically, this is based on legal proceedings that took place in Virginia. A transgender student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County School Board when he was prohibited from using male bathrooms. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rule in Grimm's favor and the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving those rulings in place. This would seem to mean the new guidelines are in contradiction to legal findings. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin may welcome a legal battle on this issue given the political advantages he seems to see in attacking transgender rights. Moreover, the current Supreme Court Justices may not be as sympathetic to transgender students as in the past. At any rate, transgender issues remain among the most divisive topics on DCUM.

The next most active thread was originally posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum but I moved it to the "Money and Finances" where I thought it would be more appropriate. Titled, "So it’s 22% tips now", the original poster says that during his recent travels, standard tips listed on checks were 18%, 20%, and 22% and wants to know if this is the standard now. Several tip-related threads have been among DCUM's most active and I have previously discussed several of them. DCUM posters tend to have strong opinions about tipping with a number being surprisingly anti-tipping. I think that much of this debate is owed to changing views of the purpose of tipping. Originally, tipping was seen as a reward for good service. But, tips allowed businesses to pay lower wages and many employees rely on tips as a major part of their compensation. A failure in most jurisdictions to increase the minimum wage meant that the only way these employees could receive raises was through increased tips. Hence, there was a trend toward tipping at higher rates. But, as prices have risen, even keeping the same tipping percentage increased the absolute amount of the tip. As a result, a 20% tip can frequently be a significant amount of money. Moreover, whether it is true or just perception, many consumers believe that tips are being expected in an increasing number of places where they were not previously requested. This has led to support for moving away from a tipping culture. DC residents, for instance, twice voted in favor of ballot initiatives to phase out the tipped minimum wage with higher wages replacing tipping. The DC Council overturned the first ballot initiative, but has left the second standing. Opinions in this thread are broken down, though far from evenly, between those who believe consumers should be able to afford higher tipping and see higher tips as necessary for low-paid staff and those who resent and dislike adding tips to their bills. Many resolutely refuse to pay tips in certain circumstances. The most common reason posters don't like tips is due to their perception that they are paying employees' wages rather than the employers. That would still be true if tips were replaced by higher wages because the additional cost of labor would simply be rolled into the prices, but I guess these posters prefer it that way. Of course, then they would be back complaining about higher prices.

The third most active thread yesterday was titled, "‘Died unexpectedly’ in obit" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that a former colleague of hers recently passed away. The individual had previously retired unexpectedly on short notice and died less than two months later. The obituary for the former colleague says that he "died unexpectedly" and provides no other information about the cause of death. The original poster wonders what this might mean. A number of posters reply somewhat sarcastically saying that it means the obituary writers didn't expect the individual to die at this time and anything else is none of the original poster's business. Some posters believe that this type of phrasing means that the individual died by suicide or drug overdose. The original poster seems to believe this might be the case and appears to have been seeking confirmation. This elicits considerable criticism of the original poster provoking her to leave the thread in a bit of a huff. The thread might have ended there on page 2, but continued and is currently on page 11. The continued interest seems to be due to a fight between a poster who claims to have once written obituaries professionally and other posters. The obituary writer challenges the assumption that "died unexpectedly" means the cause of death was suicide or a drug overdose. Not only do posters not believe her, some don't even think that obituaries are written by professionals. Other posters say that often friends and family prefer to keep the cause of death private and, as such, there are no real implications to "died unexpectedly". This leads to a debate about why posters insist on knowing what might be private details, eliciting various justifications for such interest. Basically, while worded differently, it comes down to people are just nosey.

The next most active thread was titled, "How much sex did you have in college and do you regret it?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. I am not going to summarize this thread or even link to it. Primarily because I don't think it will be around long due to Google's advertising guidelines but also because, frankly, I don't feel like writing about people's past sex lives. The next most active thread after that one is the "Strategies to Marry Rich" thread that I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one as well. The thread that follows that one was titled, "Community Message Concerning Access to the Carver Educational Services Center on Thursday, July 20" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. This thread discusses an upcoming Montgomery County Public Schools Board of Education meeting and rules regarding attendance at the meeting. The issue here is that protesters who are demanding the right to opt-out of reading LGBTQ+ themed books are expected to attend the meeting. Once again, LGBTQ+ issues are responsible for divisive and lengthy threads on DCUM. The debate is not much different than the several earlier threads on similar topics that I have discussed. Pro opt-out posters believe that LGBTQ+ issues should be addressed at home by parents. Those opposed support being inclusive to LGBTQ+ individuals and families and point out that the books merely acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals and don't address sexual topics. There is currently a lawsuit demanding the right to opt-out. The board meeting in question was actually held last night so much of the discussion is about what ended up happening at the meeting. As happened in Fairfax, VA, the Muslim community has had a high-profile role in demanding the right to opt-out. As I noted in an earlier blog post, former President Donald Trump once posed as the defender of LGBTQ+ rights against Muslims who he believed opposed them. But, political realities have changed and now Muslims are being enlisted by Republicans to oppose the LGBTQ+ community. I sincerely hope that as the Muslim community cozies up the Republicans in efforts such as this, they will remember that tides can easily change again. So, maybe don't become too good of friends.