Society is screwed

[Bob78164]

I am going to speak up as a teacher and say that you really have no clue about all that teachers do. To address the main point, generally teachers do not set the curriculum, but are given latitude within that curriculum on how to teach it. As a high school civics teacher, I have certain goals that I need to address that are set by the state of North Carolina but what material I use to do it is up to me. When I teach about civil rights I talk about the fact that civil rights apply to all citizens and that they need to be recognized regardless of whether we are talking about race, ethnicity, religion, or gender identity. The move to restrict what teachers can discuss in the classroom is frightening and infuriating. For example, it would be impossible to truly deal with the 3/5 Compromise, Jim Crow, Brown v. Board, or the entire freaking Civil War without discussing systemic racism - which some states have deemed off limits as being part of "critical race theory" (spoiler alert: it's not).
In the case of the Florida bill, I strongly suspect that there are very few, if any elementary teachers who are taking time out of their daily schedules to teach gender identity as a separate lesson. In my view, the intent of the law is to ensure that teachers are not permitted to use resources that promote the idea of tolerance of differences of race, sexuality, and/or gender within the context of teaching your readin', writin', and rithmetic. And can you imagine if, like in that old song, I used a hickory stick on a student without the parent's permission?
But to the larger issue, as a teacher, I am asked to be a social worker, medical first responder, medicine provider, counselor, be on the look out for gang and drug activity, all while developing and delivering quality lesson plans to the students while making sure that all the students with IEP and 504 plans are having their accommodations met and making sure that the lesson is relevant to the students' array of learning styles.
The days of the school house being just for learning the 3 r's are long, long, gone. For many of these kids, school is the only place they get a hot meal, the only place where they are warm in the winter, the only place they can feel safe, the only place where there is an adult who will listen to them.
Sorry for the rant.

I'll be fascinated to see what happens the first time a Florida parent sues a teacher, or a school district, for allegedly teaching heteronormative values. --Bob

Well, here's the thing: What the hell is heteronormativity ? And why does anyone have to recognize it as valid for anything?

Michael Warner popularized the term in 1991,[4] in one of the first major works of queer theory. The concept's roots are in Gayle Rubin's notion of the "sex/gender system" and Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality.[5] From the outset, theories of heteronormativity included a critical look at gender; Warner wrote that "every person who comes to a queer self-understanding knows in one way or another that her stigmatization is intricated with gender. ... Being queer ... means being able, more or less articulately, to challenge the common understanding of what gender difference means."[4] Lauren Berlant and Warner further developed these ideas in their seminal essay, "Sex in Public."[6]

Who the hell are Michael Warner, Gayle Rubin, Adrienne Rich and Lauren Berlant? They mean nothing to me or to millions of other people. By what authority can they inject a conjured-up construct into our culture? Are they special, like you? Do they know everything about everything like you? Or can anyone act like they know something, create a name and definition for it, and go around changing all the rules of science, culture and society?

I do not recognize their authority or their 'theory'.

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I'll be fascinated to see what happens the first time a Florida parent sues a teacher, or a school district, for allegedly teaching heteronormative values. --Bob

Well, here's the thing: What the hell is heteronormativity ? And why does anyone have to recognize it as valid for anything?

Michael Warner popularized the term in 1991,[4] in one of the first major works of queer theory. The concept's roots are in Gayle Rubin's notion of the "sex/gender system" and Adrienne Rich's notion of compulsory heterosexuality.[5] From the outset, theories of heteronormativity included a critical look at gender; Warner wrote that "every person who comes to a queer self-understanding knows in one way or another that her stigmatization is intricated with gender. ... Being queer ... means being able, more or less articulately, to challenge the common understanding of what gender difference means."[4] Lauren Berlant and Warner further developed these ideas in their seminal essay, "Sex in Public."[6]

Who the hell are Michael Warner, Gayle Rubin, Adrienne Rich and Lauren Berlant? They mean nothing to me or to millions of other people. By what authority can they inject a conjured-up construct into our culture? Are they special, like you? Do they know everything about everything like you? Or can anyone act like they know something, create a name and definition for it, and go around changing all the rules of science, culture and society?

I do not recognize their authority or their 'theory'.

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

By what authority do I or anyone else have to accept 'queer theory'? I don't.

[silverscreenselect]

By what authority do I or anyone else have to accept 'queer theory'? I don't.

So apparently, you don't have to accept any theory you don't believe in just because it offends your sensibilities. How about evolution or relativity?

Again, your stock answer is never to go to contrary arguments in any field from people with a degree of expertise. It's to refuse to acknowledge the background and training of anyone with whom you disagree, "because I said so."

[flockofseagulls104]

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

[Bob78164]

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

So here's the thing. If that law is construed to permit heternormative teaching but not teaching that is consistent with other values (i.e., "Don't Say Gay"), there's essentially no question that it will be stricken as a content-based regulation of speech that is contrary to the First Amendment.

So the State of Florida is going to be faced with two choices. The first is to allow parents to sue teachers who teach in a heteronormative way. The second is to repeal their stupid law. My prediction is that their initial reaction will be to go with option (c) -- claim that teaching that is obviously heteronormative does not in fact run afoul of the law, even though it plainly would. If it weren't for the serious consequences, both legal and extra-legal that this idiotic law imposes, I'd almost be amused by the gyrations they're going to have to undertake to try to justify this. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

bob, you and your comrades are not one bit interested in what's right or wrong. You are only interested in what's LEFT. And you will use whatever means are necessary to get what you want. Even to children. You are evil have no shame.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rest ... transition

https://twitter.com/i/status/1508513695613214726

[silverscreenselect]

bob, you and your comrades are not one bit interested in what's right or wrong.

No, Flock, you're not one bit interested in what's good for the children, just what scores you brownie points with "our partner Trump" and Ron deSantis. The reason that children having gender identity problems don't want their parents to know is because, by and large, those parents are people like you who love to shout at the top of their lungs about what is normal. Teachers don't "coerce" students into adopting a transgender identity or becoming gay. Parents like you coerce them (and in some cases do a whole lot of coercion including various types of discipline) into adopting a lifestyle that fits what the parents think is normal.

You can't "teach" students to be transgender, any more than you can teach them to be gay. For many years, these children just suffered throughout their childhood. Now they have a chance to lead happier, more comfortable lives. Unless people like you and Ron de Santis keep imposing your ideas of morality and what's "normal."

[kroxquo]

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

You never responded to my first post from the perspective of a teacher, so I am going to elaborate. I have been teaching at either the middle school or high school level for 23 years. I have worked with teachers from all sides of the political spectrum from a department head who had an autographed photo of himself with Jesse Helms to a colleague who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaigns twice. I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

[flockofseagulls104]

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

You never responded to my first post from the perspective of a teacher, so I am going to elaborate. I have been teaching at either the middle school or high school level for 23 years. I have worked with teachers from all sides of the political spectrum from a department head who had an autographed photo of himself with Jesse Helms to a colleague who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaigns twice. I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

I will not dispute that the vast majority of teachers are good, caring people who have the well being of the children as their main goal.That goes without saying. But what about the two examples I linked to? There are apparently some teachers and administrators that put their political and social agendas above everything else. Are those parents lying? Look at bob's responses. You don't think there are teachers and administrators who think like bob? Who would use their position and authority to advance their agendas? Most teachers can deal with this law and have no problem with it. Its these 'activists' that the law is targeting.

[BackInTex]

So you will object to teachers using illustrations that depict traditional two-parent families with a mother and a father as normal, appropriate, and expected, and you'll support the rights of Florida parents to sue on the basis of such teaching? Because that's what heteronormative means. --Bob

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

You never responded to my first post from the perspective of a teacher, so I am going to elaborate. I have been teaching at either the middle school or high school level for 23 years. I have worked with teachers from all sides of the political spectrum from a department head who had an autographed photo of himself with Jesse Helms to a colleague who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaigns twice. I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

So the new Florida law should be a non-issue. Why the uproar? If no one is doing it, then the only reason is because someone wants to.

[silverscreenselect]

But what about the two examples I linked to? There are apparently some teachers and administrators that put their political and social agendas above everything else. Are those parents lying?

What you're doing is looking at one side's allegations in a lawsuit or similar dispute and accepting it as the truth. Those who have actually dealt with children professionally, either as teachers, administrators, counselors, or therapists, know that oftentimes, the parents are the source of the problems because they browbeat their children since birth with their ideas about what is "normal." These same kids feel uncomfortable about talking to their parents about these issues. This isn't about indoctrination as much as trying to help the child feel accepted. Children learn to keep quiet or parrot back what their parents say, not because they agree, but for their own safety. These teachers are not trying to put their "political or social agendas above everything else." They are trying to put the health and safety of the children in their care above everything else.

Why don't you look up sometime the many case studies of children who have suffered lasting psychological trauma because of their parents efforts to make them "normal"?

[silverscreenselect]

I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

The only "indoctrination" I can remember from my school days was my seventh grade social studies teacher, Mr. Vickers (and the fact that I remember his name will tell you what an impression he made). He boasted repeatedly that he was the only Republican mayor ever elected in his small hometown in Georgia (how he wound up teaching social studies in Florida, I'll never know). He was probably about 60 when he taught us, and he would tell us on numerous occasions how the Democratic party was ruining the country. Needless to say, I didn't listen.

[kroxquo]

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

You never responded to my first post from the perspective of a teacher, so I am going to elaborate. I have been teaching at either the middle school or high school level for 23 years. I have worked with teachers from all sides of the political spectrum from a department head who had an autographed photo of himself with Jesse Helms to a colleague who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaigns twice. I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

I will not dispute that the vast majority of teachers are good, caring people who have the well being of the children as their main goal.That goes without saying. But what about the two examples I linked to? There are apparently some teachers and administrators that put their political and social agendas above everything else. Are those parents lying? Look at bob's responses. You don't think there are teachers and administrators who think like bob? Who would use their position and authority to advance their agendas? Most teachers can deal with this law and have no problem with it. Its these 'activists' that the law is targeting.

Having read the links that you provided and doing a bit more further reading, I'll say this about the two cases:
1. The district involved had this statement (quoted in Politico), “From the moment Mrs. Littlejohn first emailed her child’s teacher to inform our staff of the situation, this has been handled together in partnership with clear communication,” said a Leon County Schools spokesperson. “We understand that outside entities have now become involved, but the family clearly instructed the school staff via email to allow their child to ‘take the lead on this’ and to do ‘whatever you think is the best.’ Additionally, our superintendent met with the family and committed to amend any vague or unclear policy language—of which we have created a committee and are working on currently.” Unless the spokesperson is outright lying about the case, it sounds like the district handled the case properly.
2. The second case is a bit more ambiguous, but there are times when school counselors do meet with students without contacting parents. If they feel that contacting the parents will put the well-being of the child in jeopardy, such as in suspected abuse, they are legally obliged (at least in North Carolina) not to contact the parents. In any case, I have real doubts that the entire school administration would conspire to put themselves in harm's way to satisfy an "agenda". The fact that I found at least one website that posted the personal information of the school counselor and her husband on the internet makes me think that the left may not be the only side with an "agenda."

[kroxquo]

Yeah, bob. I'll go out on a limb and say that two-parent families with a male father and a female mother are the norm and are without any doubt appropriate. To most people of sound mind, that really goes without saying. Because, and this might be news to you, biologically, that remains the only sure-fire way to produce a child that I have ever heard of. Please feel free to disagree. After all, I know nothing about biology. But I think children can really wait until at least 4th grade for their public school to indoctrinate them into 'queer theory'.

And I'm sure in your small and hateful mind that means I fit into multiple '-phobe' categories and am a legitimate target for your scorn. (Not that you have ever needed a valid reason). But you might notice if you get past the first sentence that I did not give any list of types of families that are NOT appropriate, although IMO there are many. I just stated what is the norm.

You never responded to my first post from the perspective of a teacher, so I am going to elaborate. I have been teaching at either the middle school or high school level for 23 years. I have worked with teachers from all sides of the political spectrum from a department head who had an autographed photo of himself with Jesse Helms to a colleague who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaigns twice. I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

So the new Florida law should be a non-issue. Why the uproar? If no one is doing it, then the only reason is because someone wants to.

But the law as written would open up a teacher to a lawsuit for using material in say reading class that promotes tolerance of gender identity issues if it violates one parent's beliefs. Laws in other states have been enacted which open up a teacher to a lawsuit for teaching "critical race theory". In my civics class, I teach that the United States had systemic racism at least until the end of the Jim Crow era because that is the truth. If I was doing this in (I think) Oklahoma, I could be sued by anyone (not just someone from Oklahoma), for up to $10,000 and if I lost the suit and tried to pay it from any source other than my own bank account (such as a union or gofundme) I could lose my license. These are the types of laws that make teachers lose sleep at night.
The Florida law is only the tip of the iceberg and is stifling the idea of acceptance in the classroom and the teacher's ability to teach respect and caring for other human beings which is probably the one lesson that all teachers incorporate.

[Bob Juch]

My problem with the law is that besides the restrictions on teaching, it makes it mandatory for teachers to report "abnormal" children to their parents. "I think Johnny might be gay."

[flockofseagulls104]

You never responded to my first post from the perspective of a teacher, so I am going to elaborate. I have been teaching at either the middle school or high school level for 23 years. I have worked with teachers from all sides of the political spectrum from a department head who had an autographed photo of himself with Jesse Helms to a colleague who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaigns twice. I have NEVER met a teacher who is interested, let alone involved in, "indoctrinating" children. Teaching a child to be tolerant and accepting of the differences of others - whether they are because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, family situation, economics, gender orientation - and making children feel safe with what and who they are is not indoctrination. It is being a caring human being.

So the new Florida law should be a non-issue. Why the uproar? If no one is doing it, then the only reason is because someone wants to.

But the law as written would open up a teacher to a lawsuit for using material in say reading class that promotes tolerance of gender identity issues if it violates one parent's beliefs. Laws in other states have been enacted which open up a teacher to a lawsuit for teaching "critical race theory". In my civics class, I teach that the United States had systemic racism at least until the end of the Jim Crow era because that is the truth. If I was doing this in (I think) Oklahoma, I could be sued by anyone (not just someone from Oklahoma), for up to $10,000 and if I lost the suit and tried to pay it from any source other than my own bank account (such as a union or gofundme) I could lose my license. These are the types of laws that make teachers lose sleep at night.
The Florida law is only the tip of the iceberg and is stifling the idea of acceptance in the classroom and the teacher's ability to teach respect and caring for other human beings which is probably the one lesson that all teachers incorporate.

You can thank the bobs of the world for that. That's what they are all about. Many wiser people than me have declared that the left destroys everything it touches. They don't ever stop and they don't ever compromise and they are not concerned with anything but their agenda. It's their religion. These laws you are afraid of are attempts to try and push back against them, but I agree, they are fraught with problems, because the left will do anything to go around, dismantle, sabotage and defame them, as our e-bigots here have shown in the microcosm.

The main thing we have to our advantage is that they are really just a small minority right now. But they have a lot of power behind them. They have infiltrated the university system and they have Washington and the Major Media. But they are growing, because they have had a whole generation go through their colleges. Look at the young people that have come out of college thinking that socialism and communism is a good thing. That's why people who see this and think it's wrong really need to push back. just my opinion.

[flockofseagulls104]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

[earendel]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

I don't doubt that the nurse told the truth. However the question I have was whether it was appropriate for her to do so. As the article points out, health care professionals have an obligation toward confidentiality and while the nurse didn't name names, it is still not appropriate for her to single out the 11-year-old student on puberty blockers and the others who identified as non-binary.

That said, there is also the issue of her saying that 10 of those non-binary students were keeping this from their parents. Again, this isn't really her business to be telling, but laying that aside, the reason(s) for the students not telling their parents may be as numerous as the students themselves, including, yes, the possibility of abuse. I know of two individuals who were abused because of their decision to come out as non-binary. Anecdotal evidence is not the best, of course, but it does happen and since we don't know the students' reasons, it's not for us to say. As for the school's role in keeping student confidentiality, I think that is appropriate.

[flockofseagulls104]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

I don't doubt that the nurse told the truth. However the question I have was whether it was appropriate for her to do so. As the article points out, health care professionals have an obligation toward confidentiality and while the nurse didn't name names, it is still not appropriate for her to single out the 11-year-old student on puberty blockers and the others who identified as non-binary.

That said, there is also the issue of her saying that 10 of those non-binary students were keeping this from their parents. Again, this isn't really her business to be telling, but laying that aside, the reason(s) for the students not telling their parents may be as numerous as the students themselves, including, yes, the possibility of abuse. I know of two individuals who were abused because of their decision to come out as non-binary. Anecdotal evidence is not the best, of course, but it does happen and since we don't know the students' reasons, it's not for us to say. As for the school's role in keeping student confidentiality, I think that is appropriate.

Well, I don't. The parents are legally responsible for their underage children. The school is being entrusted with their care. The school has no right, either legally or morally, to encourage or maybe incite behavior in the children in their care without the parent's consent. They would not do the same thing with tobacco use, drug use and other behavior, as the nurse points out. Why is this behavior exempt? That does not even take into account the allegation of the school supplying puberty blocking drugs to a minor. It is not clear whether the parents know about this, but there are many reports that some schools ARE doing this without the parent's knowledge. That is not only wrong. I think it is evil.

[kroxquo]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

Let's asses the facts based on the link you provided.
1. The nurse broke confidentiality law
2. She stated that she has "an 11 year old female student on puberty blockers." She does not say who authorized them and if we apply Occam's Razor the most likely answer is that the parents are aware and are the ones who authorized it.
3. The nurse stated that she has "a dozen students identifying as non-binary, all but two keeping this a secret from their parents with the help of teachers, school social workers, and administrators."
4. She then goes on to give her own personal opinionated veiws of what is happening at the school.
5. She makes accurate statements about alcohol, tobacco, vaping and cannibis (sic) and says that it is incongruous to inject hormones and perform "Genital mutilating surgery (whatever that means)." Unless the law in Connecticut is wildly different, the only ones who can authorize those sorts of things are the parents.

Your statement includes "the situation as she sees it." That is exactly what this is. A highly biased person who is putting her own beliefs above the well-being of the children involved.

[flockofseagulls104]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

Your statement includes "the situation as she sees it. Let's asses the facts based on the link you provided.
The nurse broke confidentiality law
She stated that she has "an 11 year old female student on puberty blockers." She does not say who authorized them and for all

Just to be clear, I don't know if what the nurse posted is true or not. I am posting under the assumption that it is.
(I know that I don't know what I don't know)
Not sure you finished your thought, but I did address that it is unknown whether the parents are aware and have authorized the use of puberty blockers on their child and the fact that the nurse broke the rules, and has been disciplined. I am not disputing that.
But let me ask you: The law against divulging this kind of information seems to make it possible for the school to engage in doing things like this without parental notification. If you can't say anything about it, how is it to stop? Should the nurse have notified the parents directly? I assume she was instructed not to. If, in fact, the child given puberty blockers was one who's parents were not informed about it, how else, except by breaking the non disclosure rule, is anyone else to know about it? Can she be considered a whistleblower? In her situation, who would she blow the whistle to?
I think that is one of the main reasons Florida passed this law.

[jarnon]

I assume the 11-year-old is taking puberty blockers legally prescribed by a doctor. (Otherwise, I doubt the nurse and school administration would know about it.) That's a medical decision made by the student, their parents and doctor. School employees, including the nurse, have no business interfering either way.

As for the other dozen students, they probably just asked to be called "they." Not a big deal, and the students could change their mind tomorrow. Apparently the school district tolerates it, which the nurse equates to indoctrination.

[flockofseagulls104]

I assume the 11-year-old is taking puberty blockers legally prescribed by a doctor. (Otherwise, I doubt the nurse and school administration would know about it.) That's a medical decision made by the student, their parents and doctor. School employees, including the nurse, have no business interfering either way.

As for the other dozen students, they probably just asked to be called "they." Not a big deal, and the students could change their mind tomorrow. Apparently the school district tolerates it, which the nurse equates to indoctrination.

On your first point, you know as much as I know. Which is only what has been reported. I am speculating about what if the parent's weren't informed that the child had gotten a prescription for it? I don't know, but can an eleven year old child legally get a prescription by him/herself, or authorized by a school official, and not his/her parents?

On the second point, I, and I think most parents, would say that yes, the school should inform them of something like that. The school is not the legal guardian of the child. The parents are. And I think anyone who disagrees with that has ulterior motives. JMO.

[kroxquo]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

Your statement includes "the situation as she sees it. Let's asses the facts based on the link you provided.
The nurse broke confidentiality law
She stated that she has "an 11 year old female student on puberty blockers." She does not say who authorized them and for all

Just to be clear, I don't know if what the nurse posted is true or not. I am posting under the assumption that it is.
(I know that I don't know what I don't know)
Not sure you finished your thought, but I did address that it is unknown whether the parents are aware and have authorized the use of puberty blockers on their child and the fact that the nurse broke the rules, and has been disciplined. I am not disputing that.
But let me ask you: The law against divulging this kind of information seems to make it possible for the school to engage in doing things like this without parental notification. If you can't say anything about it, how is it to stop? Should the nurse have notified the parents directly? I assume she was instructed not to. If, in fact, the child given puberty blockers was one who's parents were not informed about it, how else, except by breaking the non disclosure rule, is anyone else to know about it? Can she be considered a whistleblower? In her situation, who would she blow the whistle to?
I think that is one of the main reasons Florida passed this law.

I was interrupted while I was typing my message and premature pontification (I hate when that happens). I have edited the post to show my full thoughts.

[flockofseagulls104]

Is the nurse lying, or is she telling the truth?
Either way, she broke the rules, although she named no names, just the situation as she sees it.
So she has been disciplined.
The e-bigots will see it one way. And none of it is true.
We don't need no stinkin' Parents Rights Law.

Assuming the Nurse is telling the truth: And why in the world would she post this if it wasn't? (Oh, she's a right-wing plant, right?)
Normal people will say 'They didn't tell the parents and encouraged it?'
But sure. The e-bigots will maintain the school kept it from the parents because of the suspicion of possible abuse by the parents. That's the main reason to keep these things a secret from the parents, right?
So 11 out of 13 of these parents are potential child abusers.

Occam's Razor

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/schoo ... ar-AAVRjTj

Let's asses the facts based on the link you provided.
1. The nurse broke confidentiality law
2. She stated that she has "an 11 year old female student on puberty blockers." She does not say who authorized them and if we apply Occam's Razor the most likely answer is that the parents are aware and are the ones who authorized it.
3. The nurse stated that she has "a dozen students identifying as non-binary, all but two keeping this a secret from their parents with the help of teachers, school social workers, and administrators."
4. She then goes on to give her own personal opinionated veiws of what is happening at the school.
5. She makes accurate statements about alcohol, tobacco, vaping and cannibis (sic) and says that it is incongruous to inject hormones and perform "Genital mutilating surgery (whatever that means)." Unless the law in Connecticut is wildly different, the only ones who can authorize those sorts of things are the parents.

Your statement includes "the situation as she sees it." That is exactly what this is. A highly biased person who is putting her own beliefs above the well-being of the children involved.

I can see your points. It is a by-product of neither of us knowing what actually happened. But you must also concede, if you are fair-minded, that bias is not a one-sided thing. Either side could be the villain here.

Regardless, a law requiring that any public school inform the parents of a child of any concern or behavior is not out of line. I don't think any type of sexual education or guidance is at all appropriate in a school setting for those ages. Let's let the kids be kids for a while. And I don't think that the school should hide any records they have about a child from that children's parents. In every other situation, the parents are the legal guardian and are responsible for that child until they are 18 years old. No other entity or situation should usurp that, unless there is undeniable and provable evidence of abuse. As far as I know, that is what the law in question says. I, personally, do not think it is out of line.

But. of course, any law can be deliberately mislabeled, demagogued, and sabotaged, as has been demonstrated and apparently advocated by some here.