Gender confusion

[Sliceitup]

https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/ny-teache ... ouns-suit/

If this isn't child abuse, I don't know what is.

I read an article on this and thought there was some significant information missing. In my experience children are not given new pronouns or names unless the child brings up the issue and requests it. It really isn’t clear how or why the teacher supposedly ‘forced’ this unto the child. Me suspects the child requested it, but has been too afraid to tell the parents.

... did you miss the part where the teacher involved has had multiple complaints against her which the school was afraid to investigate and act further on?

Yes I did. That changes the situation. I had read it on another site that didn’t have all those details.

[Soloist]

https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382

More adolescents with no history of gender dysphoria—predominantly birth registered females—are presenting at gender clinics. A recent analysis of insurance claims by Komodo Health found that nearly 18 000 US minors began taking puberty blockers or hormones from 2017 to 2021, the number rising each year.34 Surveys aiming to measure prevalence have found that about 2% of high school aged teens identify as “transgender.”

These young people are also more likely than their cisgender peers to have concurrent mental health and neurodiverse conditions including depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorders, and autism.

As the number of young people receiving medical transition treatments rises, so have the voices of those who call themselves “detransitioners” or “retransitioners,” some of whom claim that early treatment caused preventable harm. Large scale, long term research is lacking, and researchers disagree about how to measure the phenomenon, but two recent studies suggest that as many as 20-30% of patients may discontinue hormone treatment within a few years. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) asserts that detransition is “rare.”

[temporal1]

NATIONAL REVIEW / “Vermont Christian School Barred from Future Competition for Refusing to Play against Male Athlete”
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ver ... e-athlete/

.. MVCS was scheduled to play the Long Tail Mountain Lions in the Vermont state championship tournament in February but refused to play the team due to concerns that playing against a biological male would endanger the team’s female players.

“We withdrew from the tournament because we believe playing against an opponent with a biological male jeopardizes the fairness of the game and the safety of our players. Allowing biological males to participate in women’s sports sets a bad precedent for the future of women’s sports in general,” a senior administrator at MVCS told Fox News Digital in a statement.

Vermont law, however, permits transgender females to compete in the group corresponding to their gender identity and prohibits so-called discrimination based on sex.

“Transgender and gender nonconforming students are to be provided the same opportunities to participate in physical education as are all other students,” the Vermont Agency of Education’s best practices explains. “Participation in competitive athletic activities and sports will be resolved on a case-by-case basis.”

Stringent state laws protecting transgender athletes have made Vermont the source of numerous recent controversies pitting concerned girls and parents against such legislation.

In October 2022, a middle school girls soccer coach from Randolph Union High School was suspended after he reportedly “misgendered” a transgender student. The coach’s daughter had earlier expressed discomfort with having the individual share the girls’ locker room.

Administrators at Randolph also banned members of the girls volleyball team that same month over similar objections. “I feel like for stating my opinion — that I don’t want a biological man changing with — that I should not have harassment charges or bullying charges. They should all be dropped,” one concerned student told Fox News.

This is a Christian school, i don’t detect a faith-based reason for the school’s decision in this report. They have a valid complaint shared by many, regardless of religion or no religion.

[temporal1]

Soloist:

.. As the number of young people receiving medical transition treatments rises, so have the voices of those who call themselves “detransitioners” or “retransitioners,” some of whom claim that early treatment caused preventable harm.

Large scale, long term research is lacking, and researchers disagree about how to measure the phenomenon,

but two recent studies suggest that as many as 20-30% of patients may discontinue hormone treatment within a few years.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) asserts that detransition is “rare.”

WPATH
How to remove wrong from BOTH legal protections+promotion, AND access to the public treasury?!
This is a more recent double-whammy failure in the western world.

Wrong has identified a sure path to prevail, and it’s not holding back to exploit it.

[temporal1]

De-transitioned teen sues Kaiser Permanente for performing double mastectomy on her at 13: 'Intentional fraud'
Layla Jane alleges hospital pushed surgery as 'the only way forward'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/de-transi ... onal-fraud

Relying on lawsuits to determine life on earth is not The Way.
In deep spiritual poverty, that’s where western culture is. Top-down. Literally, the U.S. White House leading.

[Josh]

De-transitioned teen sues Kaiser Permanente for performing double mastectomy on her at 13: 'Intentional fraud'
Layla Jane alleges hospital pushed surgery as 'the only way forward'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/de-transi ... onal-fraud

Relying on lawsuits to determine life on earth is not The Way.
In deep spiritual poverty, that’s where western culture is. Top-down. Literally, the U.S. White House leading.

A double mastectomy on a 13 year old who doesn’t have cancer is utterly disgusting. Even in a serious cancer case, it is an involved surgery - lots of complications and things can go wrong. A good cancer team will try to avoid one if at all possible.

It is unbelievable we live in a world where people would do this to children, and what is even more disturbing is that the liberals right here on MennoNet defend this.

[HondurasKeiser]

De-transitioned teen sues Kaiser Permanente for performing double mastectomy on her at 13: 'Intentional fraud'
Layla Jane alleges hospital pushed surgery as 'the only way forward'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/de-transi ... onal-fraud

Relying on lawsuits to determine life on earth is not The Way.
In deep spiritual poverty, that’s where western culture is. Top-down. Literally, the U.S. White House leading.

A double mastectomy on a 13 year old who doesn’t have cancer is utterly disgusting. Even in a serious cancer case, it is an involved surgery - lots of complications and things can go wrong. A good cancer team will try to avoid one if at all possible.

It is unbelievable we live in a world where people would do this to children, and what is even more disturbing is that the liberals right here on MennoNet defend this.

"That's not happening and it's a good thing it is. You're a fearful conspiracy theorist for claiming it happens and you're a hateful bigot for opposing it."

[Ken]

De-transitioned teen sues Kaiser Permanente for performing double mastectomy on her at 13: 'Intentional fraud'
Layla Jane alleges hospital pushed surgery as 'the only way forward'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/de-transi ... onal-fraud

Relying on lawsuits to determine life on earth is not The Way.
In deep spiritual poverty, that’s where western culture is. Top-down. Literally, the U.S. White House leading.

A double mastectomy on a 13 year old who doesn’t have cancer is utterly disgusting. Even in a serious cancer case, it is an involved surgery - lots of complications and things can go wrong. A good cancer team will try to avoid one if at all possible.

It is unbelievable we live in a world where people would do this to children, and what is even more disturbing is that the liberals right here on MennoNet defend this.

"That's not happening and it's a good thing it is. You're a fearful conspiracy theorist for claiming it happens and you're a hateful bigot for opposing it."

What are your actual principles here? I'm curious because there are multiple principles involved in this issue.

Where do you come down on the issue of freedom versus risk? We live in a society and a world in which children face constant risk. Young people are more than 2x likely to die in car accidents. Thousands of children die from unsecured firearms. Thousands of children die or suffer from abuse and neglect. Children die every year in farm accidents. Or from being unvaccinated. Or from eating poor diets and getting insufficient exercise. Setting aside the trans issue and address the general principle. Our default is towards freedom rather than safety. Under what general criteria or threshold of harm do you think it appropriate for the government to step in and use the force of law to protect children? Should we ban teens from driving? From working on farms? Should we ban corporal punishment? Regulate diet? What is the general standard here?

Where do you come down on the issue of parental rights? We live in a society in which we give great deference to the rights of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. Setting aside the trans issue, under what criteria do you think it appropriate for the government to override parental rights? Should we ban corporal punishment because of anecdotal reports of children being abused and injured? Should we regulate homeschooling because of anecdotal reports of children being poorly educated or abused in homeschool settings? Should we impose curriculum standards for private schools because of anecdotal reports of children being poorly educated in some of them? Should we regulate the foods that parents feed their children because some parents feed their children garbage? Should we force parents to vaccinate their children? Under what general criteria or threshold of harm do you think it appropriate for the government to step in and use the force of law to overrule the decisions of parents with respect to their children?

Where do you come down on the issue of medical privacy and autonomy? When should the government step in and intervene/overrule the private decisions reached by a patent and their physician? The pandemic has certainly revealed that doctors are not all wise and error free. In fact it has revealed an astonishing degree of quackery within the medical profession. With the parade of anti-vaxers, ivermectin pushers, hydroxychloroquine pushers, and so forth. Setting aside the trans issue, when do you think it appropriate for the government to step into the private medical decisions of doctors and patients and overrule or substitute the government's judgement for theirs?

If you can articulate clear and consistent GENERAL principles in these three areas, and those GENERAL principles lead you to conclude it is appropriate for the government to intervene in this particular area of LGBT youth, then I would be curious to hear them. But make sure you are on very solid ground. Because conservatives and especially religious conservatives are a minority in this country. Conservative Anabaptists are a very tiny minority. And I promise you that there are a whole lot of busy body liberal types who are eager to take their turn at bat when you are done. And who are eager to cue up all manner of restrictions on your lives based on the "safety of children" that you may be less than eager to see. And whatever standards you might come up with to justify government regulation of transgender youth might easily be weaponized against you.

[HondurasKeiser]

A double mastectomy on a 13 year old who doesn’t have cancer is utterly disgusting. Even in a serious cancer case, it is an involved surgery - lots of complications and things can go wrong. A good cancer team will try to avoid one if at all possible.

It is unbelievable we live in a world where people would do this to children, and what is even more disturbing is that the liberals right here on MennoNet defend this.

"That's not happening and it's a good thing it is. You're a fearful conspiracy theorist for claiming it happens and you're a hateful bigot for opposing it."

What are your actual principles here? I'm curious because there are multiple principles involved in this issue.

Where do you come down on the issue of freedom versus risk? We live in a society and a world in which children face constant risk. Young people are more than 2x likely to die in car accidents. Thousands of children die from unsecured firearms. Thousands of children die or suffer from abuse and neglect. Children die every year in farm accidents. Or from being unvaccinated. Or from eating poor diets and getting insufficient exercise. Setting aside the trans issue and address the general principle. Our default is towards freedom rather than safety. Under what general criteria or threshold of harm do you think it appropriate for the government to step in and use the force of law to protect children? Should we ban teens from driving? From working on farms? Should we ban corporal punishment? Regulate diet? What is the general standard here?

Where do you come down on the issue of parental rights? We live in a society in which we give great deference to the rights of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. Setting aside the trans issue, under what criteria do you think it appropriate for the government to override parental rights? Should we ban corporal punishment because of anecdotal reports of children being abused and injured? Should we regulate homeschooling because of anecdotal reports of children being poorly educated or abused in homeschool settings? Should we impose curriculum standards for private schools because of anecdotal reports of children being poorly educated in some of them? Should we regulate the foods that parents feed their children because some parents feed their children garbage? Should we force parents to vaccinate their children? Under what general criteria or threshold of harm do you think it appropriate for the government to step in and use the force of law to overrule the decisions of parents with respect to their children?

Where do you come down on the issue of medical privacy and autonomy? When should the government step in and intervene/overrule the private decisions reached by a patent and their physician? The pandemic has certainly revealed that doctors are not all wise and error free. In fact it has revealed an astonishing degree of quackery within the medical profession. With the parade of anti-vaxers, ivermectin pushers, hydroxychloroquine pushers, and so forth. Setting aside the trans issue, when do you think it appropriate for the government to step into the private medical decisions of doctors and patients and overrule or substitute the government's judgement for theirs?

If you can articulate clear and consistent GENERAL principles in these three areas, and those GENERAL principles lead you to conclude it is appropriate for the government to intervene in this particular area of LGBT youth, then I would be curious to hear them. But make sure you are on very solid ground. Because conservatives and especially religious conservatives are a minority in this country. Conservative Anabaptists are a very tiny minority. And I promise you that there are a whole lot of busy body liberal types who are eager to take their turn at bat when you are done. And who are eager to cue up all manner of restrictions on your lives based on the "safety of children" that you may be less than eager to see. And whatever standards you might come up with to justify government regulation of transgender youth might easily be weaponized against you.

Wait. To be clear, are surgeries and hormone therapies being performed on minors in the U.S. or aren't they? Last time this issue rolled around you told us it wasn't, that it was silly to suggest as much and you made a lot of hay out of your misreading Josh and thinking he suggested that surgeries were being performed in schools.

Now you want my "clear and consistent principles" on the issue which would seem to suggest that you tacitly acknowledge that surgeries and therapies ARE being performed on minors but how dare I object to them because: privacy, parental rights, and freedom.

So which is it; are they not happening and I'm a silly fear-monger or are they happening and I'm a bigot and too stupid to see that protecting the rights of children to chemically and surgically castrate themselves is a blessing of modern liberalism and a potential safeguard against the encroachments of a future, even more progressive state/society that may be inclined to take my children from me because I might not be "safe"?

[HondurasKeiser]

A double mastectomy on a 13 year old who doesn’t have cancer is utterly disgusting. Even in a serious cancer case, it is an involved surgery - lots of complications and things can go wrong. A good cancer team will try to avoid one if at all possible.

It is unbelievable we live in a world where people would do this to children, and what is even more disturbing is that the liberals right here on MennoNet defend this.

"That's not happening and it's a good thing it is. You're a fearful conspiracy theorist for claiming it happens and you're a hateful bigot for opposing it."

What are your actual principles here? I'm curious because there are multiple principles involved in this issue.

Where do you come down on the issue of freedom versus risk? We live in a society and a world in which children face constant risk. Young people are more than 2x likely to die in car accidents. Thousands of children die from unsecured firearms. Thousands of children die or suffer from abuse and neglect. Children die every year in farm accidents. Or from being unvaccinated. Or from eating poor diets and getting insufficient exercise. Setting aside the trans issue and address the general principle. Our default is towards freedom rather than safety. Under what general criteria or threshold of harm do you think it appropriate for the government to step in and use the force of law to protect children? Should we ban teens from driving? From working on farms? Should we ban corporal punishment? Regulate diet? What is the general standard here?

Where do you come down on the issue of parental rights? We live in a society in which we give great deference to the rights of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. Setting aside the trans issue, under what criteria do you think it appropriate for the government to override parental rights? Should we ban corporal punishment because of anecdotal reports of children being abused and injured? Should we regulate homeschooling because of anecdotal reports of children being poorly educated or abused in homeschool settings? Should we impose curriculum standards for private schools because of anecdotal reports of children being poorly educated in some of them? Should we regulate the foods that parents feed their children because some parents feed their children garbage? Should we force parents to vaccinate their children? Under what general criteria or threshold of harm do you think it appropriate for the government to step in and use the force of law to overrule the decisions of parents with respect to their children?

Where do you come down on the issue of medical privacy and autonomy? When should the government step in and intervene/overrule the private decisions reached by a patent and their physician? The pandemic has certainly revealed that doctors are not all wise and error free. In fact it has revealed an astonishing degree of quackery within the medical profession. With the parade of anti-vaxers, ivermectin pushers, hydroxychloroquine pushers, and so forth. Setting aside the trans issue, when do you think it appropriate for the government to step into the private medical decisions of doctors and patients and overrule or substitute the government's judgement for theirs?

If you can articulate clear and consistent GENERAL principles in these three areas, and those GENERAL principles lead you to conclude it is appropriate for the government to intervene in this particular area of LGBT youth, then I would be curious to hear them. But make sure you are on very solid ground. Because conservatives and especially religious conservatives are a minority in this country. Conservative Anabaptists are a very tiny minority. And I promise you that there are a whole lot of busy body liberal types who are eager to take their turn at bat when you are done. And who are eager to cue up all manner of restrictions on your lives based on the "safety of children" that you may be less than eager to see. And whatever standards you might come up with to justify government regulation of transgender youth might easily be weaponized against you.

As to my principles? I think puberty blockers, mastectomies, binders, hormone therapies and surgeries like phalloplasty, performed on minors, are moral horrors. To chalk those horrors up to things protected by the values of "parental rights, freedom, and privacy" as though puberty blockers were similar in kind to say "what junk food parents feed their children", is, as is your wont, a minimizing of those horrors. I too value parental rights, freedom and privacy but they are not absolute values or the highest values that I adhere to. Indeed, most people generally recognize that when children are put at risk for whatever reason, those 3 values take a back seat. That you are ostrich-like on this issue is at once unsurprising but also baffling...plenty of left-leaning people that also have no problem with trans-adults undergoing surgeries are morally outraged at what is happening to minors in the realm of trans therapies. Read: Jesse Singal for one such person.

As for your suggestion that I should shut up and thank my stars that the U.S. has such a high view of child-parental rights that even the ability to surgically and chemically transition one's child shall not be infringed. That I should be careful what I wish for lest the tables be turned and my parental rights be trampled. You really are willfully blind to the issue as it actually is aren't you?

The progressive, pro-LGBTQ+ side has already turned the tables: The right to transition a minor is sacrosanct in the courts and the many layers of bureaucracy that deal with minors. Thus some states that want to pump the brakes on the transitioning of minors have their laws enjoined SEE: Alabama. At the same time Judges in other states forcibly remove minors from their parents' home because they won't accede to hormone therapy and surgical transitioning or even just the "right" pronouns...this is what my silence on this issue is meant to avoid if I recall...something, something "parents' rights".

Meanwhile in the schools, teachers are deciding to hide their transgender students from their own parents and are utilizing didactic tools and fairly in-your-face methods to "open up conversations" about exploring one's gender. SEE: Jesse Singal, again.

So tell me again why I should care about the next time "the liberals are up to bat"?