The sales are totals, not per store, and Wegmans only has 9 locations compared to Target's 37. Per store, Wegmans has $77 million vs Target's $23 million. Giant is at $43 and wawa is $7 million per store.

You're making an assumption not provided by this story. Again, it will be interesting to see what facts are actually supported in court, but until we know, let's not just make up things to drive an agenda.

We're talking about first grade.

> There are students in elementary school who don’t fit the binary

A lot of kids don't "fit the binary". Not all boys like football. Not all girls like to wear dresses or play with dolls. That doesn't mean that it's the right answer to tell elementary school kids that that their parents are wrong or lying, that they need to keep secrets from their parents, or to otherwise push the new definitions of "gender" that didn't exist until a couple years ago.

Because it's s important not to be like most of Reddit and advocate for mob rule and for the cancellation of people without evidence. Yes, the teacher likely did this with admin knowledge, but they should still get their day in court before being fired.

"They claim she pushed her own agenda on students, told children their parents could be wrong about their gender, implied their parents might be lying and urged children to keep gender discussions secret from their parents."... The district is saying "The complaint filed against the district, its board and employees contains various allegations that are untrue or based on partial truths that mischaracterize events for sensational effect"

We'll see what is held up in court, if the former then that teacher should lose their license and be out of a job.

Malcolm Gladwell has a great book titled "talking to strangers" which addresses these types of aggressive police tactics. The book is highly recommended, but one of its points is that this sort of policing was very effective when first used. (more specifically, the research he was looking at was doing searches at traffic stops, but perhaps similar enough to what you're suggesting). Though, that initial attempt was in high crime areas. Unfortunately, police started doing this sort of thing in all areas, which doesn't catch a lot of criminals and instead generates a lot of ill will (and safety problems). And, by "high crime areas", most violent crime is in a very small area of a city.

So yes, likely effective, provided it's done correctly, but I'm not sure we have a way to ensure it's done correctly.

From recent, updated guidance from the NHS:

"The interim Cass Report has advised that although there are differing views on the benefits versus the harms of early social transition, it is important to acknowledge that it should not be viewed as a neutral act. Dr Cass has recommended that social transition be viewed as an ‘active intervention’ because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning. In line with this advice, the interim service specification sets out more clearly that the clinical approach in regard to pre-pubertal children will reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence; and that for adolescents the provision of approaches for social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of, or prevention of, clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning and the young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition."

Did you read that? The NHS considers social transition as not a neutral act, and should only be done to resolve clinically significant distress. So yes, recognizing non-binary pronouns for kids who self diagnosed themselves after watching hundreds of hours of toktok is problematic.

And, in case you're looking for a source, here's the updated guidance from the NHS.

From that doc:

"The interim Cass Report has advised that although there are differing views on the benefits versus the harms of early social transition, it is important to acknowledge that it should not be viewed as a neutral act. Dr Cass has recommended that social transition be viewed as an ‘active intervention’ because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning. In line with this advice, the interim service specification sets out more clearly that the clinical approach in regard to pre-pubertal children will reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence; and that for 12 adolescents the provision of approaches for social transition should only be considered where the approach is necessary for the alleviation of, or prevention of, clinically significant distress or significant impairment in social functioning and the young person is able to fully comprehend the implications of affirming a social transition."

Still no sources.

I guess you missed this bit:

"Puberty blockers and sex hormones do not have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for children’s gender care. No clinical trials have established their safety for such off-label use. The drugs’ long-term effects on fertility and sexual function remain unclear. "

It's pretty simple.

Helping kids socially transition results in more kids transitioning medically. Sorry if that was confusing for you.

I noticed that while I cited sources, you didn't.

Are you actually asking? Because multiple mainstream sources, including the NY Times and reuters have recently reported on the fact that the medical treatments being touted have "little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy". Which means, quite simply, that the medical treatments are unethical. This also means that taking actions that dramatically increase the chances that a kid pursues these medical treatments are also unethical. And since we know that the vast majority of kids who say they are trans will stop making that claim if allowed to go through puberty normally, then the ethical way of handling this situation is to educate kids on puberty and allow them to go through it normally, instead of helping them to transition.

It really is amazing. Kids are depressed, anxious, lonely, and confused about puberty, and they get the idea in their head that changing their gender (whatever that means) is a solution. And instead of offering them education and counseling, we allow the pharmaceuticals and medical industry to make them promises based, not on research, but on the content in sales brochures, and we send these kids down a road that involves a lifetime connection to taking pills and surgeries with high complication rates. And this is regarded as the option that good, caring people should do. Someone please make this make sense.

> not compatible with most mainstream religion

Except for the catholics, methodists, lutherans, anglicans, presbyterians, unitarians, and others.

Someone says that biological sex is a real thing, and you wonder what they think of evolution? Odd. I think the right person to ask this question is the person who says that your sex is determined by your feelings and not your biology.

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?

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.

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

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.

> 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.

>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?

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?

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.

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.