Comments
KyleRichXV t1_irbsn3w wrote
It’s starting to happen in my district as well - a bunch of people belong to Moms 4 Liberty and are planning on doing psychotic shit. One sitting board member just publicly encouraged people to check out the “No Left Turns” FB group at the last school board meeting.
pekepeeps t1_irchlcw wrote
This is the very well funded moms for Liberty Facebook crap. They are very well organized in PA and are hosting meetings in PA this month:
October 13th Berks county
October 20th Lehigh County
November 1st Cumberland County
They are funded by DeVos, Koch, Heritage, Turning Point. Their Director for PA is a Republican for hire that was fired from her school board years ago because she said early education was meaningless.
They want to burn it all down.
Join up on their Facebook pages and get involved in the meetings to see just how outrageous their goals are. They will dox people, go after good people in your community, your neighbors and they love the fights and drama they create. All to further their religious goals. How far will they go? Apparently planting any evidence they see fit.
KyleRichXV t1_ird4sv4 wrote
Yeah unfortunately I know, and two school board members are attending the rally meeting in the future to understand how best to increase the “grassroots presence”, as the M4L leader put it, in our district. There are already plans to “do away with CRT” and form a committee to overlook the district’s curricula. It’s so bizarre. The frustrating part is I don’t understand a way to prevent them from doing this.
Spiritual-Flan-410 t1_irbnr7h wrote
This is my school district. It's awful that this is happening. Right wing nut jobs are running for school board positions all over. Democrats HAVE to get on the ball and start running for local offices.... ESPECIALLY school boards.
rubikscanopener t1_irbt626 wrote
This. The far right started figuring this out in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Half the battle is just showing up, which deeply conservative groups do extremely well.
PoiLethe t1_irdrn4g wrote
Church Sundays taught them well.
Mysterious_Bobcat483 t1_ire4p3h wrote
Early 80s too. Reagan, Fallwell and the rest. This is what the US punks were so pissed about. Source: was one
IamSauerKraut t1_ircus6k wrote
In my county, the local dems group puts few folks up for school board and provides little if any support, even if the candidate is from amongst its own group. But if someone (especially if a woman) not on the committee runs for a different office, they trip all over themselves to knock on doors, donate, and put out signs.
Bizarre, really, all those lost opportunities. And the business of not even supporting their fellow members. Wonder why so many of their spots go unfilled.
Professional_Fun_664 t1_irbssv8 wrote
Look what happened in Loudon and VA when Dems did. They went full-stupid in the opposite direction and then when the crazy exceeded it's limit, parents put an end to the "woke" shit and voted red.
IamSauerKraut t1_ircuxta wrote
Loudon admins handled that sexual assault matter poorly, but the school board did not hold them to account. They essentially bent over to be spanked.
Professional_Fun_664 t1_ird4qk3 wrote
Didn't the school board vote to not notify the parents that it had happened? The board didn't do shit and that was the main reason most were voted out.
IamSauerKraut t1_ird7bgo wrote
I can find nothing with respect to the board taking any vote to not notify parents. Only indication comes from non-media sources, and I find those suspect.
Professional_Fun_664 t1_ird87m1 wrote
Ok. I was under the impression the board was the ones that tried to keep it under wraps until the dad of the first girl found out. Then when he went to raise hell about it at the board meeting, they had him arrested and moved the rapist to another school where he did the exact same thing at that school.
IamSauerKraut t1_ird8sw4 wrote
I can only go by what I found with a quick search. Did not do a deep dive. Loudon did wrong by that parent and his kid. No doubt about that. Does not mean I agree with attacking LGBTQ students due to the behavior of the one, tho.
Professional_Fun_664 t1_irdb665 wrote
No, and I don't think so either. I have a problem with schools pushing an agenda that the parents don't agree with. I don't think schools should be teaching any far left or far right stuff. High school? Fine. Whatever. I've always told my kids to form their own opinions. They shouldn't have any belief system just because someone else told them they have to think a certain way. They also know that if someone has to scream, they have no valid points and think they can force you to cave. But there is no reason for any of that garbage to be taught to a 7yo in an elementary school.
IamSauerKraut t1_irddk8u wrote
> there is no reason for any of that garbage to be taught to a 7yo in an elementary school.
I hear this often these days, same as the agenda thing, but no one ever really says what "that garbage" is. Kids are going to be who they are; parents who are NOT the parents of a gay kid should have no say in who that kid should be.
Professional_Fun_664 t1_ire1px9 wrote
I get what you're saying. I happen to believe I know my kids better than their teacher does. My wife's friend just put her son (4yo) in preschool last month. The preschool teacher asked what his preferred pronouns are. She said, "He's 4. He doesn't know what a pronoun is yet. Last week he was convinced he was Spiderman. This week he's the Hulk."
Shawna_Love t1_irbzc4j wrote
Why are the worst people always attracted to positions of power?
AlbrechtSchoenheiser t1_irbzjqm wrote
That is a great question that the Washington Post tried to answer last year: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-power-attracts-the-wrong-kind-of-people/2021/11/17/21057ca0-3da5-11ec-8ee9-4f14a26749d1_story.html
Zestyclose_Minute_69 t1_irc3ofd wrote
Thank you for the article. I had some blasé semi-sarcastic comment but read the article before I made myself look like a short-sighted idiot.
AlbrechtSchoenheiser t1_irc57gi wrote
"Thank you for the article. I had some blasé semi-sarcastic comment but read the article before I made myself look like a short-sighted idiot."
Unlike 99% of reddit.
Thank you for actually taking the time to read it.
PoiLethe t1_irdsd2r wrote
Because they want power and corruption.
Is_this_social_media t1_irc4tqy wrote
Just to be clear, any resident can run for a board seat. It’s not necessarily parents of school children. Yes, Pennridge has also gone off their rocker.
AlbrechtSchoenheiser t1_irc5pi3 wrote
You are correct
RememberCitadel t1_irc4j6u wrote
Well it is actually worse than that. Half of them are just super crazy and want to control the way things are and don't even have kids in the district if at all.
AlbrechtSchoenheiser t1_irc5lbz wrote
You are 100% correct. There are people showing up to PTA meetings to bring up their concerns about district policies regarding children and then you find out that the person showing up and asking those questions doesn't even have a child in the district. It's ridiculous. They are saying "I just want to protect the children," but what they actually mean is "I want to protect my Fringe political beliefs from further criticism and dissent."
PoiLethe t1_irdt03z wrote
I mean you can twist it either way. People with children just trying to enact policies that benefit their child. (Like a coach). But i am a childfree person on the side of education being a priority. I'm not...like someone who could run really for other reasons. But I'd support someone else whose childfree. But the main thing is having people on the board that support the concept of education to begin with, not people trying to dismantle it.
carlydelphia t1_ircgjaf wrote
I live in lower montco. Can't move. Any further south, they shoot. Any further north they ban blacks and gays. How's my kid supposed to get an education...
[deleted] t1_ircxggz wrote
[removed]
PoiLethe t1_irdrk7w wrote
Oh gawd. Reminds me of those parents that volunteer to be coaches only when their kid is sports age so they can make sure their kid gets the special treatment and basically ignore anyone else on the team that isn't their kids friend group.
It's never about the actual sport and teaching kids how it works or about the kids, it's about abusing the system, "life hack" to get your kid ahead of everyone else because everything's a competition and you're kid deserves the best.
DinoReads t1_irbvroo wrote
Thank you ACLU. Let’s make this personal because the consequences are personal.
Plane_Vanilla_3879 t1_irbrdod wrote
Pennsylvania needs to understand that LGBTQ is the new norm. Live with it!
MildlyInfuria8ing t1_irc9z4u wrote
I would rephrase it. It's not the new norm for kids. What it is though, is a normal thing for people to accept and live with this community. Literally no harm is being done by these people other than being different than the Christian definition of a person and family. People need to get over it, and just let people be people. Do some take it too far? Yes. Are they the majority of the community? No, they aren't despite 'psychoconservativewebsite.ca' polls or articles saying so.
M4053946 t1_ircmbby wrote
> Literally no harm is being done
Well, a small percentage of kids are pursuing meds and surgery for gender, and while unpopular with reddit, the truth is that there is no robust research based evidence to support that sort of thing. So yes, that's harm. It's also odd that suddenly, out of nowhere, it's become the thing for young people to declare that their gender identity is some absolutely critical thing, and it's unclear how this helps society, or how it helps these kids in their life. (this group also has high mental health issues). So yes, it's ok for a school to try to put the brakes on this. People who think that putting the brakes on this is bigotry or evil are the exact reason why we need to put the brakes on this.
>Are they the majority of the community
No one says they're the majority, but we're up to about 1 in 50 kids identifying as trans, up from 1 in 10,000 a few years ago.
CheckPlease54 t1_ire9d5v wrote
Those numbers come from?
M4053946 t1_irgf6rt wrote
The DSM IV had the rate at "1:10,000 to 1:100,000 for MF and 1:30,000 to 1:400,000 for FM". That's from back in the 90s to the 00s. The 1 in 50 comes from gallup. If you look at the gallup data, scroll down to where they break it out by age, as it's .2% for GenX, while it's 1.8% for GenZ.
Of course, GenZ isn't teenagers. One study from pittsburgh showed a rate of 9% of kids reporting as either transgender or non-binary, so getting close to 1 in 10.
Night_hawk419 t1_ircnbw0 wrote
Why do you care what these people do? It doesnt impact you at all.
[deleted] t1_irco36s wrote
[removed]
Night_hawk419 t1_ircqgq4 wrote
You can care about whether your neighbor lives or dies without infringing on their own rights to live their own lives.
There are rules that make it so that minors can’t just go have gender changing surgery. But infringing on a persons right to figure themselves out in their own way isn’t cool and is none of your business.
M4053946 t1_ircqlmm wrote
> There are rules that make it so that minors can’t just go have gender changing surgery
One would think, but hospitals around the country have been exposed as doing these procedures. It's happening, and unfortunately, it's seen as a right-wing extremist thing to want to shut it down.
Night_hawk419 t1_ircqsc8 wrote
Proof?
M4053946 t1_ircsk63 wrote
There are plenty of example on right wing sites, which you will probably simply reject, despite them having videos, source tweets, etc. Left wing sites have been ignoring the issue, though the NY Times just ran this piece. A few key bits:
"Michael is part of a very small but growing group of transgender adolescents who have had top surgery, or breast removal, to better align their bodies with their experience of gender. Most of these teenagers have also taken testosterone and changed their name, pronouns or clothing style."
So, drugs with permanent affects, and surgery on minors.
"Genital surgeries in adolescents are exceedingly rare, surgeons said, but top surgeries are becoming more common. "
Rare, but apparently even the NY Times is saying they're happening. And "top surgery", aka double-mastectomies, are "becoming more common".
"some patients come to regret their surgeries."
This is pretty big for the Times to say this, as not too long ago people said that detransitioners didn't really exist.
"Dr. Gallagher, whose unusual embrace of platforms like TikTok has made her one of the most visible gender-affirming surgeons"
A surgeon is directly advertising to teens on tiktok. Reddit loves to hate on pharmaceutical companies advertising their drugs, but apparently a doctor advertising to vulnerable youth is fine.
"[in one study] Roughly one-third of those who underwent surgery reported ongoing loss of nipple sensation...Most patients were surveyed less than two years after their surgeries, and nearly 30 percent could not be contacted or declined to participate."
This is a study they point to as showing success, a study where 30% have negative side effects and where 30% of the participants dropped out, and where there was no real long-term follow up. This fits the pattern in that studies that show support for this are low quality.
Miserable-Effective2 t1_iree7ic wrote
Also read the comments on that NYTimes article. You will find the majority taking your stance, the opposite of the Reddit hive mind.
Night_hawk419 t1_irgmv71 wrote
Ok and did their parents sign off on it? Or are they just going and doing it on their own behind their parents back? If there’s parental consent and child and parent all want it to happen, I don’t see a problem here.
M4053946 t1_irh1l0k wrote
So a kid (or their parents) can't consent to sex, but they can consent to surgery that has no evidence of effectiveness and large risks of permanent harm? Come on.
And of course, the other question is how honest were the doctors about the treatments? For example, it's commonly stated that puberty blockers are safe, but there's no actual evidence for this, and the NHS recently changed their website to indicate that it's not known to be safe and there are risks. If a doctor told the parents it was safe while not actually having any data, then was that really consent?
Night_hawk419 t1_irh4anz wrote
I think kids are allowed to consent to sex. Not sure what you are saying by that.
I could see there being legal liability for the doctor if the parties don’t sign a form saying they consent and understand there are risks. But that’s why there’s courts. I sign away liability going to Bounce U lol. If they sign away liability they are choosing to take that risks and that’s on them.
Quothhernevermore t1_ircrbp1 wrote
How does living as a different gender compare to self-harm? You just don't like it and won't admit that's your only issue. No teenager is getting surgery.
M4053946 t1_ircsvgl wrote
I just posted a link to a NY Times article here. Yes, it's happening.
Do I understand you correctly that you think that this is bad for teenagers to be getting this sort of surgery?
edit: and, downvoted for posting sources. Whatever happened to the party of science? Did that get boring or something?
BurntOrange101 t1_ircv6cq wrote
That’s between the child, their parents, and their doctor.
When they said it doesn’t harm anybody, they meant it doesn’t harm the people around you…. Yes it has the potential to harm the child if their surgery goes wrong…. No, a child identifying as the opposite gender they were born does not affect the other kids around them… if my kid decides to dress like a boy and identify as a boy, none of the other kids in the school are going to become physically harmed by it….
M4053946 t1_ircviqs wrote
>That’s between the child, their parents, and their doctor.
Interesting, so a child can't consent to sex, but they can consent to genital surgery? What's your rationale for that?
>does not affect the other kids around them
Kids influence each other. This has been understood for at least 3000 years. A few years ago the trans rate was 1 in 10000, according to the DSM, and now it's about 1 in 50 (or more). But reddit thinks that this is biology and not peers influencing one another. Because of reasons.
BurntOrange101 t1_ircxh9q wrote
Interesting…. Ignore the part about “their parents and their doctor.” 😐
M4053946 t1_ircxsxb wrote
The parents and the doctor have no high quality research to point to that show these procedures are effective, so these procedures are unethical.
BurntOrange101 t1_ircxxe3 wrote
Also there’s more of a lot of things (queer, autistic, anxious, depressed).
It’s called being more widely accepted and more people being ok with coming out….
You know there was a point in time where you couldn’t have a mental illness or you were a maniac and locked up…? Does that mean now since more people are diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar, depression etc that’s also just made up / a result of kids rubbing off on one another or ….?
M4053946 t1_irdlwbc wrote
There's those reasons I was talking about.
So let's recap: no research to show the benefits of medication/surgery, massive negative side affects from medication/surgery, massive increase in numbers, the existence of co-morbitidies such as depression and autism, a predatory medical environment, and huge financial costs.
No problem says Reddit! These depressed and lonely teenagers have looked deep within themselves and know who they truly are. Sure, teenagers have been making bad decisions based on emotions and peer influence for all of recorded human history, but these teenagers are special, and so anyone who questions their emotions is a hater and a bigot.
But, to answer your question, if a condition like bipolar increases by thousands of percent, you still don't give them medications and surgery that are not backed by rigorous research, especially when there's massive negative side affects.
MildlyInfuria8ing t1_ire8m7g wrote
I disagree. I grew up with people who thought they were not the rigut sex but had no realistic options. Instead they suffered mentally and were out casted by all their peers because they were different to these kids, and not the right way inside. They stayed the same gender they were born with, but to this day they've had several failed marriages and other issues. In the same way I can't prove it is because of their own internal confusion, you cannot prove it WASN'T from that confusion. It is NOT the school's place to make this decision or try to politico this. Period. They are there for education, not seeing what is in the kids pants.
As for 'up to' xyz amount of kids. Could it be that kids are just more free to express themselves now? If a kid used to say 'I think I might not be a boy inside' and all their parents, teachers, and peers chastised them and embarrassed or harassed them, they'd stop saying it, but still suffer internally. With less of this 'hushing' there are more who can be accounted for.
I have a young son. I am not sure how I'd react if he decided he was a girl. I'd try to talk it through with him and figure out why he thinks that way. It's me and his decision however, and not a school's or your decision to make. Ultimately, a belief I have is suppressed gender identity leads to mental health issues from a sort of internal 'gas lighting', and down the line these people will become part of LGBTQ community anyways.
I'm not against debate that kids are too young to make that decision on their own. I agree to an extent actually. However, that's when the parents need to step in and work with their kids to figure out if the internal conflict is real, or just a misguided game or thought the kid is having. There is no real right or wrong answer here as long as the kids well being is the ultimate goal. You may not agree with trans procedures, but if it really helps the kid long term, it should be the goal. At the same time if keeping them out of it feels like the best option for the kid long term, and it is not some selfish cultural adult reason preventing the procedure and choices, then that should also be the goal. There is no true book or guide on how to parent. You do the best you can for your kid, regardless of your own self interests or political beliefs.
M4053946 t1_ired5mz wrote
Sounds like your friends were gay. We truly are living in bizarro land as it's the republicans saying that we should just let the kids be gay while the progressives are saying we should let them have their genitals surgically removed.
>There is no real right or wrong answer here as long as the kids well being is the ultimate goal.
Y'all are the ones arguing for medical treatments that have no long term studies showing their benefits.
>Could it be that kids are just more free to express themselves now?
That's the popular reddit answer, but more and more experts are expressing concern. For example, the ratio used to be more men then women, but the ratio has flipped. Also, the symptoms of gender dysphoria used to start at a very early age, and now most kids are claiming dysphoria starting in puberty. Which means a lot of these kids are 100% normal: they're just in puberty, lonely, maybe depressed, maybe gay, and we're putting them on "treatment" programs that require them to be on meds the rest of their lives, with no safety studies.
MildlyInfuria8ing t1_iregfb7 wrote
I like how you, a stranger, has taken a small few sentences on reddit, and decided that person was 'just gay' as if your own personal bias isn't the biggest, heaviest weight that caused you to say something so lazy and convenient. It is not that easy, no matter how convinced you are that it is.
Also, you've said it several times, that 'this is the reddit response anymore'. Just because it may be annoying to read for whatever your reason is, does not mean that it is the wrong response. Most likely you feel it is a response of dismissal, and sometimes it may be. However it can still be overall correct. Once upon a time cancer was just 'the sickness' and there was little to no reports of cancer. Now cancer is known, established, and unfortunately many report having it. It's not wrong to say that because it is more accepted and known, that this is the reason why more cancer cases are showing up in reports. I know that isn't an apples to apples example, but you should be able to understand the underlying point.
Finally, I cannot comment to dysphoria rates, and numbers of the such. I only have personal experience and a desire to see others happy regardless of my beliefs. This subject has way more nuances than a set of statistics is going to explain, and requires the response of the parents, and working with their kids through the situation and coming to a proper response. That response may require gender affirmation steps, which you would dislike, or it may be determined that the child does not need these steps, and that it is either not the time, or that the child is indeed confused based on something heard from school. Again, extremely nuanced, and very hard for you or I to determine. It would require the parents and providers to determine that the correct and proper way, not the school to make that decision in any way.
M4053946 t1_irfzu7p wrote
>That response may require gender affirmation steps, which you would dislike, or it may be determined that the child does not need these steps
You're under the assumption that the kids get actual therapy prior to beginning hormones. You are mistaken. There are numerous detransitioners who say they were given hormones after a single visit, and there are experts in the field, including one gender specialist who is herself transgender, who has expressed concern over how easily kids are getting hormones. So, your assumption is wrong. I want kids to have a through screening and high quality therapy before drugs. Everyone wants this right? But it's not happening.
>It would require the parents and providers to determine
You missed the video released by a whistleblower of a talk by a doctor at a hospital where they talked about getting into gender medicine due to how much money was in it. Also, gender folks talk to parents about suicide risks, while not telling them that the treatment doesn't actually reduce suicide. This seems pretty unethical, no? But it makes the parents scared and so the parents go along with it.
So the clinicians are "true believers" and are willing to transition kids with no real therapy, the hospitals are in it for the money (this is on video), the drug companies make millions of dollars and have lifelong customers, and the parents are scared. So tell me, who exactly is actually looking out for kids? According to detransitioner after detransitioner, the answer is no one. Why doesn't this fact piss everyone off? Why do so many people implicitly trust the gender clinicians, even though they can't point to research and get angry when people ask?
MildlyInfuria8ing t1_irg13i7 wrote
You are making assumptions off a single video. I could extrapolate that all Republicans are seditionists because I have videos of Republicans storming our government on January 6th. It is not fair to paint with a broad brush on one situation.
On top of that, I do work for a Healthcare facility , a large non-profit at that. I can assure you any evidence that would implicate our network in anyway would immediately be resolved with internal investigations and definite firings. By and large Healthcare facilities want to care for patients properly, it is literally beaten into our heads year after year after year, and we are educated deeply on the various government regulations that we can lose our freedoms over.
As for who is taking care of the kids, you have demos tatted you believe no one is. As such, I must conclude there is no reasoning on this topic with you. Parents, Healthcare workers, psychiatrists, etc do care for these kids. I feel you are of the belief that clinicians are out to make money and scare people into expensive procedures. I've no doubt those people exist, and it is unfortunate, in the same way that a few really shitty cops make it bad for the good ones. The goal is to weed these people out to restore faith in the system. If you are beyond faith being restored, you should state that in the first responses you have so as to not waste anyone's time.
M4053946 t1_irg68pw wrote
> Parents, Healthcare workers, psychiatrists, etc do care for these kids.
Here's the story from one de-transitioner. Read it and get back to me if you still agree with your statement:
https://twitter.com/TullipR/status/1536422533230206976
Not enough, then watch this video, or read this, or this, or this.
>If you are beyond faith being restored
I've repeatedly said there's little to no evidence to support these treatments for teenagers. That's admitted to in the Times article, and a new article from reuters says the same thing. One bit: "But when families decide to take the medical route, they must make decisions about life-altering treatments that have little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy".
So, how did you get to the point where you think I'm the odd one for wanting solid research before doing major surgery on kids? You talk about me not being able to be reasoned with, but I'm the one asking for research and for kids to be treated with basic decency.
> If you are beyond faith being restored
I'm an optimist. As noted, the Times and Reuters came out with stories this month that state how little research there is for all this. A number of countries have put the brakes on these medical treatments for kids, and several states here in the US have legislation pending to do the same. And, the lawsuits are starting to increase in other countries, and eventually those lawsuits will be in full gear here in the US. So yes, I'm confident these practices will be shut down, but I'm concerned for the kids who will be caught up in the process in the mean time.
MildlyInfuria8ing t1_irghgct wrote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1122101
I read through most of the Reuters link, as I trust them. You painted their coverage as negative, or so it felt like you did, but it was just being informative and cautionary, while not calling a negative light to the procedure. What a story should do, to be honest. It does raise good points that there is no long term studies available, but it is also a newer procedure with little chance for long term studies. That should change over time. If the long term data points to more harm then good, than I'd say it should remain a restricted procedure. The article also states that because the demand far outpaces the supply of caretakers, critical steps are being missed in order to try and care for more patients. That is wrong, and that is why regulations and laws are in place. If a for profit place pops up and abuses patients by not implementing proper steps, that facility should come under scruity by government and lawsuits.
I'd also like to clear up some misconceptions you may have about the medical field.
-
One thing you stated seemed to indicate you felt the medical professionals were 'fear selling' families into procedures to make money. That is false. It is legally required for a provider to be up front about the risks of a procedure, and the risks that could happen if you hold off on the procedure. It is no secret that those affected by dysphoria have a greater chance of suicide than the general population. So telling a parent the risk of NOT doing the procedure is suicide, is factually correct. If the child or person is mentally distressed by their orientation, and they become mentally fatigued, they can get to a low point and commit suicide. The same for standard depression, and common for those physically and mentally abused.
-
Along the lines above, a provider must provide the patient a clear picture of the risks and possibilities of a procedure within reason. The Twitter thread trans woman is an example. Neither you nor me can confirm her providers let her and her family know of the risks. If they did not, there is legal recourse and they should enact it. While not perfect, the laws and regulations in our healthcare industry are pretty robust. The penalties for breaking patient/provider trust is generally high as well, as in losing license to practice, hundreds of thousand dollar fines, and jail time.
-
Patients and families are always encouraged to get second opinions by quality Healthcare facilities, especially for large decisions such as this. I am not sure if the same can be said for 'at profit' hospitals.
All of this still does not mean a SCHOOL should interfere with any of this, and it should not be used for culture war political crap, and should not care what is in a child's pants. It should care about education, and creating a warm welcoming environment so kids can relax and learn.
M4053946 t1_irh13n2 wrote
Interesting how you ignore everything I write and simply press your agenda. The NY Times and Reuters says the quality of data is low, but you think links to three old studies proves your point? The first study uses data from 2015 and looks at people who had surgery at least 2 years before. This is before the current explosion of cases. Interviews from trans folks who had surgery back then describe a rigorous process with lots of therapy prior to being approved for hormones or surgery. A carefully screened group is a very different matter than the current situation where teenagers are self diagnosing themselves and getting hormones after 1 or two appointments. Your third study uses the same 2015 data and has the same issues. Your second study is from the dutch, where these medical treatments originated, and has data starting from 1972.
>It is legally required for a provider to be up front about the risks of a procedure,
Like they did with oxycontin? Your faith in the medical community is higher than mine. Again, numerous detransitioners are coming out with stories that contradict you, numerous clinicians are starting to speak out, and the clinic in england was recently shut down due to these types of ethical problems, and there's a big class action lawsuit getting filed.
>All of this still does not mean a SCHOOL should interfere with any of this
Agreed!!! But they chose to get involved, and many schools around the country have been discovered to have helped with a kids social transition behind the parents' backs, even lying to parents about what was going on.
susinpgh t1_irf0wix wrote
Man, really? Nobody is saying any of the stuff that you promulgating in your posts. You have made these same arguments again and again, ad infinitum.
Did you know that when you start testing for Celiac, the incidence of it went up? Same thing with T2 diabetes. Doctors are testing for it earlier and finding that it affects more people at a younger age.
It works the same way with these issues: awareness of alternatives to the norm creates a safe space for exploration of those alternate gender identities.
M4053946 t1_irfyg9c wrote
And, the tone is starting to shift. The NY Times ran a piece recently, and so did reuters. Both pieces mentioned things that were unmentionable last year. People are starting to become aware and concerned about de-transitioners and the major mental and physical problems they're dealing with as a result of their "treatment" by the gender folks. Of course, other countries are ahead of us on this, and other countries are cracking down on the extreme unethical practices, such as providing hormones with no real therapy, which is still common here.
And again, when the celiac rates went up, we didn't recommend people get major surgery with no research on its effectiveness, like what we're doing with gender.
If someone was on this sub advocating for kids to take an off-label medicine to treat depression that had no scientific backing, you'd block them, right? But you're ok with people advocating for teenagers to have access to hormones? Is that right? If so, why the difference between these two scenarios?
jesterwords t1_irgftmi wrote
"by the gender folks"
by labeling them as an other you make it easier for you to make them less human and then treat them as less than human
just a fact
M4053946 t1_irgilkl wrote
I'm referring to the therapists and doctors who put kids through medical procedures with no evidence the procedures have any benefit. Those actions are not the actions of good people, and I feel terrible for the poor kids caught up in that process
MinionOfDoom t1_ircplru wrote
Nice to see the occasional voice of reason here.
[deleted] t1_irfwj04 wrote
[removed]
Professional_Fun_664 t1_irbswv3 wrote
Guessing you don't live here.
blurplethenurple t1_irc0b91 wrote
"The Gays don't exist in PA!"
IamSauerKraut t1_ircv7v4 wrote
They apparently do not exist in Bucks County, if those two school boards are to be believed. Boy, oh boy, are they in for a rude awakening. About time someone took them to the courthouse to get woke.
Errata: complaint not filed at the courthouse but administratively with US Ed's Office of Civil Rights. Let's see if Biden's OCR does a better job with this than how Title IX/sex assault complaints were handled under DeVos.
Professional_Fun_664 t1_ird49iq wrote
Way to jump to a conclusion, along with all the idiots downvoting. That's not what I'm saying at all. If they lived here, they would know there IS a strong LGBT culture in a lot of places throughout PA. About the only places you won't find it as prevalent is in the Amish communities.
Is_this_social_media t1_irc4fop wrote
This is my hood and I teach at a neighboring district, let this be a warning to them all… crazy ass school boards
IamSauerKraut t1_ircvbmy wrote
Does not help when teachers vote for the crazy school board members for no reason except that the candidate has R after their name. Cutting their own throats.
randompittuser t1_ircahf3 wrote
The administrators and parents are just so stupid. No one wins here except lawyers. If banning books exists in your repertoire of responses to a situation, realize that you’re the villain.
introspeck t1_ircoe7c wrote
If the school board has in loco parentis responsibility to the students, as it always has done, then they must prevent porn like Gender Queer (with its explicit sexual images and text) from reaching elementary school, or any age, children. "Banning" is an inflammatory word for what they've always done, and should do, which is to ensure that books are appropriate for children.
Anyone who has actually looked at the contents of Gender Queer, and still believes that prepubescent children should have it pushed on them, is morally suspect.
shorthairedlonghair t1_ircpgcw wrote
I wasn't aware that libraries forced people to check out books. TIL.
randompittuser t1_irct0ip wrote
The library can restrict books by age. But let’s be clear that you cherry picked what you thought was the most offensive book to be banned. The nut jobs on the school board want to ban sex Ed books because they have pictures of sexual organs. That’s hardly pornographic.
Redlar t1_irddlv9 wrote
I just read Gender Queer.
I don't see what all the fuss is about, there's nothing in there that I wouldn't want a middle schooler or high schooler to learn about or see if they are being raised with a healthy understanding of the sexual nature of humans. It was very informative, and an enjoyable read. Someone calling it "porn" says a lot about where their brain automatically goes to, yikes.
A graphic novel like Gender Queer would have mind-blowing to me as a teenager. I grew up down in MD in a school district that had extremely basic sex education (back in the 80s and 90s), the area was also racist and saturated with Christianity. What a coincidence lol
As a kid I'd already seen pottery with naked people on it from reading National Geographic and depictions of people on network TV engaged in sexual activity (always under the sheets but you knew what was supposed to be going on). The rest of the novel I wouldn't have objected to my kids learning (they're all young adults now), it certainly would have been healthy than when their friends would show them inappropriate pictures or videos without any warning or way to educate.
As to the other novel mentioned in above comments, I haven't read it.
annnon26252918 t1_irf420i wrote
>I don't see what all the fuss is about, there's nothing in there that I wouldn't want a middle schooler or high schooler to learn about or see if they are being raised with a healthy understanding of the sexual nature of humans.
And that is your choice as their parent. Most parents want to avoid their children getting a hold of sexual novels.
Buy the book for your child if you think it is appropriate.
This material does not belong in a public school library. There's a reason all sexual material is limited to 18+ by law.
Redlar t1_irfjmzp wrote
>This material does not belong in a public school library
The school library is there to serve all students not just the ones raised with conservative values, after all, my tax money went to that library too. I don't like Ayn Rand's ideas, I think they harmful in the wrong hands and are a horrible way to think about and treat other people, but I'm not going to demand her books are removed, in fact, my son started reading one of her books after playing Bioshock because he became interested in the ideas that lay at the heart of the game's story, I didn't interfere but I did make myself available to talk about those ideas.
>There's a reason all sexual material is limited to 18+ by law.
Oh boy, you don't want to know about network or cable TV, streaming services, video games, books, music, the Internet or what students discuss amongst themselves.
>Most parents want to avoid their children getting a hold of sexual novels.
I think parents want their kids to grow up to be healthy and happy adults which requires teaching them about the world as it exists currently.
It's natural to want to protect your child from harm but it's also difficult for some parents to accept that their teenager is growing into an adult so they react harshly to anything deemed "sexual" in a misguided attempt to protect them. Teenagers will seek information, period, it's better if the information is factual.
I grew up with a repressed understanding of human sexuality due to a very basic sex education in school and parents that couldn't even bring themselves to use the proper names for body parts "down there", plus the mindset that sex was dirty, not that anything was ever really discussed in my family. I didn't even have a discussion about menstruation with my mother, thankfully I had older sisters so I knew what to do but only with pads.
>Buy the book for your child if you think it is appropriate.
I suspect you didn't read all of my original comment or skimmed because I specifically said they are adults now.
annnon26252918 t1_irfkxbo wrote
>The school library is there to serve all students not just the ones raised with conservative values, after all, my tax money went to that library too.
So now you're advocating for porn to be in school libraries... Good for you.
>Oh boy, you don't want to know about network or cable TV, streaming services, video games, books, music, the Internet or what students discuss amongst themselves.
Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.
That's why I specifically said law. Children will find a way to see said materials, but it should not be readily available in a school setting.
>I think parents want their kids to grow up to be healthy and happy adults which requires teaching them about the world as it exists currently.
And what you consider "healthy and happy" is not the same as what others consider healthy and happy.
Should my tax dollars go towards something I believe to be completely inappropriate materials for a classroom just because you think it's "okay" for kids to read pornographic materials, even as it breaks federal law?
Homeschool your kids, folks!
Redlar t1_irfm0vh wrote
>So now you're advocating for porn to be in school libraries... Good for you.
>Should my tax dollars go towards something I believe to be completely inappropriate materials for a classroom just because you think it's "okay" for kids to read pornographic materials, even as it breaks federal law?
>to transfer obscene matter
Define "obscene matter".
annnon26252918 t1_irfs37e wrote
Sucking D*ck is pretty obscene. You're not allowed to show someone sucking D'ck on cable television, why should it be allowed in our classrooms with young children?
Redlar t1_irg1fzs wrote
Define "obscene matter" in the legal sense not your opinion of it
annnon26252918 t1_irg4li0 wrote
Each State defines it differently, but since we're in a PA sub here's their law
> (2) sell, lend, distribute, transmit, exhibit, give away or show any obscene materials to any person 18 years of age or older or offer to sell, lend, distribute, transmit, exhibit or give away or show, or have in his possession with intent to sell, lend, distribute, transmit, exhibit or give away or show any obscene materials to any person 18 years of age or older, or knowingly advertise any obscene materials in any manner;
> "Obscene." Any material or performance, if:
(1) the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
(2) the subject matter depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct of a type described in this section ; and
(3) the subject matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value.
None the less, what does sucking D*ck have to do with education?Are the girls and boys supposed to learn multiplication by how many D'cks they suck?
Like I said above, if a parent believes these kind of books are appropriate for their child, go buy it for them. It is not appropriate material for a learning environment.
Redlar t1_irgk1ma wrote
>(2) sell, lend, distribute, transmit, exhibit, give away or show any obscene materials to any person 18 years of age or older
This part has nothing to do with your argument.
As to whether or not it is considered obscene, the law does not support your argument because it does not pass the last part of this three part test, which you quoted:
>(3) the subject matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value.
Ultimately, the law appears to be entirely irrelevant to your argument because of this section:
(j) Exemptions.--Nothing in this section shall apply to any recognized historical society or museum accorded charitable status by the Federal Government, any county, city, borough, township or town library, any public library, any library of any school, college or university or any archive or library under the supervision and control of the Commonwealth or a political subdivision.
Whether or not something is obscene has been argued for more than 100 years in our country.
I did enjoy learning more about the law in PA so thank you for that.
>It is not appropriate material for a learning environment.
That is your opinion.
If you have concrete evidence that the book is to be found in elementary school libraries across the state, I would be very interested in seeing it. Do keep in mind that anecdotal evidence is not acceptable.
susinpgh t1_irgdvq7 wrote
OMG! I'm from a very different generation. But I brought home "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" and the Communist Manifesto when I was in high school in the mid-70s. My dad didn't like it, but he didn't stop me from reading them. I checked them out of my HS library, btw. I swear to FSM, I hate what the current generation is going through. I mean, there wasn't a lot of stuff out about LGBTQ when I was in HS, and I wish there was. But the indifference of my parent's generation towards education meant that I wasn't censored on what I read. Hell, I checked Clockwork Orange out of my public library when I was 11. That's the age you had to be to check out adult material. That would have been in, what? like 1969 1962?
Redlar t1_irgmurv wrote
Wow, I'm seriously impressed! I've not read those particular books but knowing my son he has lol
>I swear to FSM, I hate what the current generation is going through. I mean, there wasn't a lot of stuff out about LGBTQ when I was in HS, and I wish there was.
FSM, may we be blessed by his noodley appendages 🙏
My adult children have a few friends that had tough times with their parents, one was tossed out for a few days until her dad calmed down (she crashed on my kid's couch), some just don't say anything to their families, and a few actually had supportive families. I got to hear about the turmoil in their friends' lives and it breaks my heart, they have a difficult enough time just existing, they don't need their difficulties compounded by adults being awful and making up lies about their orientations.
I was so oblivious to anything LGBTQ+, back in high school, I didn't even know my best friend was gay! Reflecting on it I know why he didn't come out to me, it would have been extremely dangerous in the area we lived.
I'm really not enjoying this timeline's updated version of McCarthyism and the Satanic Panic. Hmmm, that could be a cool band name tho lol
susinpgh t1_irgd289 wrote
Thank you. I have been meaning to read it myself to see where I stood on its assessment.
Revolutionary-Swim28 t1_irc0uqu wrote
GO OFF ALCU!!!!
LL_is_a_Cool_J t1_ircbk4t wrote
As far as the books, Gender Queer and Lawn Boy are two books that are found in elementary libraries and books like that have no business being in a school library.These books are outright child porn.
As to the rest, let kids alone.
Edit: To whoever downvoted me, go read up on those titles and come back and explain how a "children's" book should include graphic depictions of anal sex and such.
introspeck t1_ircnmgv wrote
There are some very explicit pictures and descriptions in Gender Queer which do not belong in elementary schools.
It feels to me that the LGBT lobby continually shifts the definition of "homophobic" and "transphobic" toward "we don't even want to hear a single criticism of any of our behaviors or beliefs." This is already starting to backfire, and it's only going to get worse.
> “intimidating” faculty into self-censoring
> deadnaming of trans students
> “thinly disguised” effort to censor
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's bad enough that the 'inclusive' teachers are bedwetting about it, but the ACLU lawsuit will burn up our tax dollars on lawyers, not the education it was intended to be spent on.
No-Razzmatazz- t1_irczlj5 wrote
> explain how a "children's" book should include graphic depictions of anal sex and such
If you don't think elementary school kids are having anal sex you might be a boomer
Miserable-Effective2 t1_ireflu7 wrote
Elementary school children are having anal sex?? WHAT??? Do you know how old elementary school children are??? If they're having any sex at all, this is a problem. Elementary school children are between 5 years old and 11 years old. You think they're having anal sex?
Environmental_Act82 t1_irc006s wrote
In regards to #2 , what is considered “elementary “
[deleted] t1_ircnant wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irc4vtl wrote
[removed]
OttomanTwerk t1_ircomq4 wrote
Not surprising. Best of luck to aclu.
[deleted] t1_ire7vlr wrote
[removed]
300blakeout t1_ircirwe wrote
So many lost souls
IamSauerKraut t1_ircyt7z wrote
Notice right away the reference to the CBSD "escorting" as teacher who helped a student file an OCR complaint off campus... retaliation by any other name is no less an act of retaliation.
arickg t1_irdqsz9 wrote
So it sounds like that the worst that could happen is that the school district would not receive federal funding. Sounds good to me. Why don't we eliminate all funding from the department of education to all 50 states? In fact eliminate the Department of Education from the Federal Government completely? Let each state determine whats best for their students and families?
https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/what-is-title-ix/
Professional_Fun_664 t1_irbs2n6 wrote
Oh look, Bucks managed to piss off both of them. The loudest asshole in the room doesn't mean the whole room thinks the same.
NoCokJstDanglnUretra t1_irbsvlq wrote
While I agree with the ACLU here, it must be ridiculously annoying learning all these completely random new pronouns. I feel sincerely for these teachers, must actually be a nightmare to work through these days.
PreExistingAmbition t1_irbwbxe wrote
As someone who works through it these days, it's not as difficult to work with as some would have you believe.
Think of it like learning someone's name, you may forget it, you use the wrong name accidentally and stumble over your words trying to get it right while you're still getting to know this person. Eventually, you develop a genuine connection to this human and care enough to get it right so you remember their name more readily.
It's amazing what a human is capable of when they want to express kindness to others.
IamSauerKraut t1_ircvf7b wrote
Just learn the student's name. Cannot be all that hard after the first couple of days.
M4053946 t1_ircn4km wrote
> when they want to express kindness to others.
There are increasing stories of girls avoiding appropriate feminine health care due to discomfort with the idea that going to a doctor for feminine concerns conflicts with their identity. Given this, are you sure it's kindness to go along with these ideas? Is it more kind to help kids live a healthy life over the long term?
MinionOfDoom t1_ircqfpj wrote
All the upvotes. Seriously, the modern rhetoric is CAUSING body dysmorphia. Let kids be kids, teach them about the bodies they are in, and stop filling their heads with noise about sexuality, societal identities, etc. at inappropriate ages.
blurplethenurple t1_irc0rsm wrote
I know multiple non-binary people, they prefer to be called "they"
The zer/zim/ etc stuff seems to be more closely tied to the terminally online folks that don't go outside their bubbles and want to feel unique and tie their personality around it.
My friends don't want to be special snowflakes, they just want to be called a pronoun that doesn't make them uncomfortable. Saying "they" isn't learning new terms.
Not trying to be confrontational, just giving some context with my little anecdotal evidence.
Edit: i should say, I'm talking about 30 ish year old people, I don't have experience with kids in schools and what they are up to.
NoCokJstDanglnUretra t1_irc33jv wrote
I’m cool with they. It makes sense. I was more talking about the new ones that people are just making up. Idc what other people do, I’m all for people being happy in whatever way. But forcing people to learn new words that are only used in one context and then getting upset about it is the part I find ridiculous.
LesbianIvy t1_ircgt8f wrote
It's no different then learning hundreds of names. There's a lot less pronouns than names.
BrightProfessional8 t1_irxnaai wrote
Agreed.
AlbrechtSchoenheiser t1_irbm2v4 wrote
I live in the region and I have friends that teach in the region. One of the biggest problems is that there are crackpot parents getting elected to school boards and attempting to push their beliefs on the rest of the school district. The Pennridge school district in Upper Bucks county has had problems with this type of behavior as well. The board has several times pushed an illegal policy only to have their own lawyers tell them that they can't do it. The sooner the radical right disappears, the better.