I find it interesting that when this particular aspect of transgender fever is addressed no one ever points out that the state assuming parental responsibility for children is a glaring example of totalitarianism. That this new version is allegedly being done on the basis of so much bad science and political manipulation should be setting off alarms all over the place.
While there might be some truly abusive parental situations, in most cases deceiving parents is merely protecting children from feeling uncomfortable. It is okay and unavoidable to feel uncomfortable, to have difficult conversations, to be told “no” when you want something. Deception defies resilience, facing discomfort leads to growth. Going one step further - it is a problem if people believe the government cares more for a child than his or her parents do. The foster care system is all the proof we need that the government sucks at raising kids.
“Tragically, there are indeed children who would be put in real danger if their families found out they identified as transgender.”
Do you have proof of this? I don’t think this is an accurate assumption. You are assuming a child saying they’re trans is real. Don’t conflate it as gay. The parents are worried and shocked. That’s not the same thing as “real danger”. You seem to assume so many homes are unsafe and parents are abusive first. This is the problem why the attorney general would fill a lawsuit because they think there are so many unsafe homes. You have bought into the indoctrination of this idea too. My son told the school we are unsafe and he’d be in real danger. It’s a script. All the kids say that. They get attention from the teachers that way. Please do better.
We were foster parents for a number of years. If a parent is truly dangerous, there is a legal process for terminating parental rights. It can be initiated by the child (emancipation) or by the state (CPS referral).
Absent that process and a finding that the parents are neglectful or incompetent (not a teacher's intuition but an actual legal conclusion by a judge), no institution has any right hiding ANYTHING about a minor child from the parents. The reasoning behind this is simple: by civil law a parent is legally on the hook for everything that child does; therefore, that parent has a right to know everything that child does.
As a simple example, let's say Andrew decides he wants to be a girl and go by Amy at school. "Amy" is teased about "her" looks by Mike and this escalates to a fight in which Mike gets 3 teeth knocked out. In every state I know if, Amy/Andrew's parents are legally required to foot Mike's dental bill, and rightly so. But the proximate cause of the fight was Mike's teasing of Andrew regarding his "transition", which the school actively hid from the parents. So they're "responsible" for something they had no way of knowing about, which violates one of the most basic rules of law: "intent".
Either parents are considered competent and responsible for their kids (both for their care and the consequences of their behavior) or they are ruled incompetent and not responsible for either. There isn't a middle ground.
California's gender identity non-disclosure policy was challenged by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) in a letter to the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the California Department of Education last August.
This is the part of the letter that dealt with California's policy of not "outing" trans kids:
Parents have a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the upbringing, care, and control of their children. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65-6 (2000) (“[T]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court”). It is parents, and not the state or its schools, who have the primary role in the care and rearing of children. Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972) (stating that it “is now established beyond debate” that parents have the “primary role” in rearing their children); see P ierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S 510, 535 (1925) ( “[A] child is not the mere creature of the State.”) . Parental authority over their minor children is broad. Parham v. J.R. , 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979). It includes involvement in their children’s medical and personal decisions, as “most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment.” Id. at 603. Because gender transition profoundly affects a child’s mental, emotional, and physical development, involvement in that process is well within the scope of parents’ fundamental rights.
The Department’s non-disclosure policy deprives parents of those rights with no due process. It directs schools to withhold gender transition information from parents at the child’s command in all but “very rare” cases where there is a “specific and compelling need to know”—terms that are undefined yet unduly restrictive. Even then, the determination of whether a parent “needs to know” about their child’s gender transition is left entirely within the boundless discretion of the school. There is no process, no preliminary findings of parental unfitness, no appeal, and no notice. Thus, parents not only are denied input into the extremely consequential matter of their child’s gender transition, but also are kept from even knowing whether their child is entering the transition process. Such double infringement upon parents’ fundamental due process rights is unconstitutional.
The Honorable Tony Thurmond August 10, 2022 Page 3 “[T]here is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.” Troxel , 530 U.S. at 68. That presumption originates from the historical recognition that the natural bond between parent and child leads parents to act in the best interests of their children. Parham , 442 U.S. at 602. Without ample evidence that a parent is unfit to raise children, the state may not “inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.” Troxel , 530 U.S. at 68-9. The Department’s policy turns that longstanding principle on its head by presuming (if not concluding) that parents must be unfit to address their child’s gender dysphoria simply if their child says so. The consequences are amplified in the case of adolescents, who frequently conceal information from their parents (often very effectively) not because of a lack of support, but as a byproduct of the normal teenage separation process.
We understand the Department bases its non-disclosure policy on AB 1266. That statute, among other things, permits students to participate in school sports and activities consistent with their gender identity. Nothing in AB 1266 permits public schools to withhold from parents information regarding their minor child’s gender identity. Indeed, as explained above, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states and their agencies from doing so without due process.
The Department also relies on the California Constitution to justify its policy. It is correct that minors have a right to both autonomy privacy and informational privacy under the state Constitution. See Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1. Neither of those privacy rights, however, requires a blanket policy of concealment from parents. The right of autonomy privacy prohibits intrusions that are “so serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact as to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms.” Cobine v. City of Eureka , 250 F. Supp. 3d 423, 436 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Parental involvement in their child’s life is not a breach of social norms; it is a social norm, and a long-established one at that. The right of informational privacy, which is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment, applies to unlawful searches and seizures, surveillance, and similar acts of intrusion where the information recipient or user is the state . See People v. Roberts , 68 Cal. App. 5th 64, 108 (2021). It does not apply to communicating important information to parents about their own minor children.
Additionally, the Department’s policy is inconsistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). That statute gives parents of minor children “the right to inspect and review the education records of their children.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A). The term “education records” means “information directly related to a student” that is “maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” Id. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). Few things are more directly related to a student than their name and sex/gender, which are routinely reflected in official school records. By instructing schools to store that information separately in “unofficial” records to keep it beyond the reach of FERPA and parents, the Department is violating the spirit and purpose (if not the letter) of FERPA. One of the central purposes of that statute is to give parents and guardians the right to access basic official information about their minor children. Simply moving information to a different location does not change the character of the information or its disclosability under FERPA. Otherwise, schools would be able to move any student record to an “unofficial” location, eviscerating FERPA.
In the letter, FAIR also criticized the State of California's compelled pronoun use policy. The entire letter can be retrieved by following the link below and clicking on "read more" under the heading "California Department of Education Gender Policy." https://www.fairforall.org/legal-letters-comments/
The paragraphs quoted above represent one possible rebuttal when trans rights activists, their allies, schools, parents and/or children defend schools' practice or policy of concealing childrens' social transition from their parents.
I am writing solely in my capacity as a supporter of FAIR and do not represent or speak for the organization. The foregoing excerpt from FAIR's letter to the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the California Department of Education is not intended as legal advice. Anyone wishing to receive legal advice on this or any other topic should consult a qualified attorney.
The letter is based on the facts and the applicable law and the judgment of the author as of its date, August 10, 2022. Because the facts and the law may be different in other states, the arguments in the letter may not apply in states other than California and might no longer apply in California if circumstances there have changed.
This is so scary the mindset of these individuals calling it an 'outing', when Parents are the guardians and protectors of their own children and should know what is going on in their child's life that is affecting and impacting them. The school as an institution should not even be involved to this degree in children's private lives. What gives them the authority to be involved to this high degree and expect their parent to be kept totally in the dark?
Worst scenario and I pray to God this never, ever happens but suppose a School knew about a child's gender confusion and that child was so depressed that they decided life was no longer worth living and made a serious attempt but failed attempt to end things and it was only at that 'crisis' point the Parent's got to know. What responsibility does a School have for denying a parent the right to know, the right to intervene and the opportunity to provide a crucial mental health solution for their minor child, that steered that child away from the risk of even attempting to harm themselves? That would 'normally' be pure reckless negligence on the part of a School for not informing the Parents and guardian of that child, in order for them to perform their role of protecting their child who lacks the capacity to protect themselves, from harm.
The World has gone crazy. These adults that are advocating that minors should collude with the schools to hide and deceive their parents, should not be allowed anywhere near children, including their own who I fear for. And they are using public money, that parents have contributed to, to psychologically harm the child and sever their closest support system and reality checker.
I wonder how often a kid or teen’s revolt against the gender binary is really just a revolt against parental authority, with schools as their literal-minded facilitators. No adult in the room to call the bluff
The author circles around another issue on this topic that I have yet to hear a school address: How do schools square the circle of their claims of a child being in literal danger, so this secret identity with new name and pronouns must be kept from their potentially abusive parents while at the same time having this safety-threatening secret written at the top of every paper the student has returned from the teacher and stuffed in their backpack that’s carried home each day, dangerous information known and discussed daily by all the teachers, coaches, and staff along with hundreds of students and whoever they talk to about it? It makes no sense. It’s like they know it’s all a show, about playing a role in the “good vs evil, right side of history” drama and not really about genuine safety concerns.
This is a good example of motte and bailey. The motte -- the part the schools are prepared to defend -- is declining to “out” a student to their parents. The bailey -- what they cannot defend -- is undertaking a psychological-social intervention with that student, and deceiving the parents about their actions.
A child, a person under the age of 18 years, who believes they are not of the sex they were born with needs psychological health care (if they are an adult, by law, then they can do as they please). If that isn't obvious, one has lost touch with the fundamental principles of Western Civilization. The identity of a human being should located in the creative activity of their mind - which is the only characteristic that makes one human, as opposed to animal. Sex is the means by which we can continue our species and so is necessary, unless to reject the value of humanity.
No child has a "transgender identity." That is not real. Yes, I know that they believe that they do. No, I am not cold and uncaring. I was a gay kid in the 80s (but, no, trans is not "the same as gay," because trans isn't real).
I wish all sensible adults would just say the truth. There is no such thing as a transgender kid.
There are only confused kids, misled kids, and kids facing abuse and trauma at home. Kids being caught up in a wicked social delusion.
Please, sensible adults. Please stop re-affirming the idea that there are "transgender kids." Using that phrase without quotation marks, and without disclaiming it as the lunacy that it is, is just firming up this falsehood.
None of this is real. It never has been real. It will not ever be real.
This is no more real than the recovered memory/multiple personality/ritual abuse scandals of the 80s. But it's far worse.
Thank you for this sensible proposal for schools and families to work together. Yet, you write:
"Gender identity is a deeply personal thing, and students have a right to confide in their teachers with a reasonable expectation of privacy and trust."
What does "gender identity" mean here? What might a student's statement to a teacher look like -"I think I'm a .....", "I feel like I'm a ....." "Am I a....?" - and what tools does a teacher teaching today have to respond thoughtfully, without parroting harmful "gender identity ideology" nonsense? I hope that teachers are treading cautiously here. There's a real opportunity to get it wrong - and also a real opportunity to get it right.
Magic word in the Senator tweet is “kid” it was a “kid” and parents are put on this earth to care for and protect their kids - the welfare of their kids is totally “their business” that’s why they are called kids and not grown ups.
I find it interesting that when this particular aspect of transgender fever is addressed no one ever points out that the state assuming parental responsibility for children is a glaring example of totalitarianism. That this new version is allegedly being done on the basis of so much bad science and political manipulation should be setting off alarms all over the place.
While there might be some truly abusive parental situations, in most cases deceiving parents is merely protecting children from feeling uncomfortable. It is okay and unavoidable to feel uncomfortable, to have difficult conversations, to be told “no” when you want something. Deception defies resilience, facing discomfort leads to growth. Going one step further - it is a problem if people believe the government cares more for a child than his or her parents do. The foster care system is all the proof we need that the government sucks at raising kids.
This was good except this paragraph is upsetting.
“Tragically, there are indeed children who would be put in real danger if their families found out they identified as transgender.”
Do you have proof of this? I don’t think this is an accurate assumption. You are assuming a child saying they’re trans is real. Don’t conflate it as gay. The parents are worried and shocked. That’s not the same thing as “real danger”. You seem to assume so many homes are unsafe and parents are abusive first. This is the problem why the attorney general would fill a lawsuit because they think there are so many unsafe homes. You have bought into the indoctrination of this idea too. My son told the school we are unsafe and he’d be in real danger. It’s a script. All the kids say that. They get attention from the teachers that way. Please do better.
We were foster parents for a number of years. If a parent is truly dangerous, there is a legal process for terminating parental rights. It can be initiated by the child (emancipation) or by the state (CPS referral).
Absent that process and a finding that the parents are neglectful or incompetent (not a teacher's intuition but an actual legal conclusion by a judge), no institution has any right hiding ANYTHING about a minor child from the parents. The reasoning behind this is simple: by civil law a parent is legally on the hook for everything that child does; therefore, that parent has a right to know everything that child does.
As a simple example, let's say Andrew decides he wants to be a girl and go by Amy at school. "Amy" is teased about "her" looks by Mike and this escalates to a fight in which Mike gets 3 teeth knocked out. In every state I know if, Amy/Andrew's parents are legally required to foot Mike's dental bill, and rightly so. But the proximate cause of the fight was Mike's teasing of Andrew regarding his "transition", which the school actively hid from the parents. So they're "responsible" for something they had no way of knowing about, which violates one of the most basic rules of law: "intent".
Either parents are considered competent and responsible for their kids (both for their care and the consequences of their behavior) or they are ruled incompetent and not responsible for either. There isn't a middle ground.
California's gender identity non-disclosure policy was challenged by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) in a letter to the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the California Department of Education last August.
This is the part of the letter that dealt with California's policy of not "outing" trans kids:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Gender Identity Non-Disclosure Policy
Parents have a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the upbringing, care, and control of their children. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57, 65-6 (2000) (“[T]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court”). It is parents, and not the state or its schools, who have the primary role in the care and rearing of children. Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972) (stating that it “is now established beyond debate” that parents have the “primary role” in rearing their children); see P ierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U.S 510, 535 (1925) ( “[A] child is not the mere creature of the State.”) . Parental authority over their minor children is broad. Parham v. J.R. , 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979). It includes involvement in their children’s medical and personal decisions, as “most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment.” Id. at 603. Because gender transition profoundly affects a child’s mental, emotional, and physical development, involvement in that process is well within the scope of parents’ fundamental rights.
The Department’s non-disclosure policy deprives parents of those rights with no due process. It directs schools to withhold gender transition information from parents at the child’s command in all but “very rare” cases where there is a “specific and compelling need to know”—terms that are undefined yet unduly restrictive. Even then, the determination of whether a parent “needs to know” about their child’s gender transition is left entirely within the boundless discretion of the school. There is no process, no preliminary findings of parental unfitness, no appeal, and no notice. Thus, parents not only are denied input into the extremely consequential matter of their child’s gender transition, but also are kept from even knowing whether their child is entering the transition process. Such double infringement upon parents’ fundamental due process rights is unconstitutional.
The Honorable Tony Thurmond August 10, 2022 Page 3 “[T]here is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.” Troxel , 530 U.S. at 68. That presumption originates from the historical recognition that the natural bond between parent and child leads parents to act in the best interests of their children. Parham , 442 U.S. at 602. Without ample evidence that a parent is unfit to raise children, the state may not “inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.” Troxel , 530 U.S. at 68-9. The Department’s policy turns that longstanding principle on its head by presuming (if not concluding) that parents must be unfit to address their child’s gender dysphoria simply if their child says so. The consequences are amplified in the case of adolescents, who frequently conceal information from their parents (often very effectively) not because of a lack of support, but as a byproduct of the normal teenage separation process.
We understand the Department bases its non-disclosure policy on AB 1266. That statute, among other things, permits students to participate in school sports and activities consistent with their gender identity. Nothing in AB 1266 permits public schools to withhold from parents information regarding their minor child’s gender identity. Indeed, as explained above, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states and their agencies from doing so without due process.
The Department also relies on the California Constitution to justify its policy. It is correct that minors have a right to both autonomy privacy and informational privacy under the state Constitution. See Cal. Const. Art. 1, § 1. Neither of those privacy rights, however, requires a blanket policy of concealment from parents. The right of autonomy privacy prohibits intrusions that are “so serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact as to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms.” Cobine v. City of Eureka , 250 F. Supp. 3d 423, 436 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Parental involvement in their child’s life is not a breach of social norms; it is a social norm, and a long-established one at that. The right of informational privacy, which is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment, applies to unlawful searches and seizures, surveillance, and similar acts of intrusion where the information recipient or user is the state . See People v. Roberts , 68 Cal. App. 5th 64, 108 (2021). It does not apply to communicating important information to parents about their own minor children.
Additionally, the Department’s policy is inconsistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). That statute gives parents of minor children “the right to inspect and review the education records of their children.” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A). The term “education records” means “information directly related to a student” that is “maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” Id. § 1232g(a)(4)(A). Few things are more directly related to a student than their name and sex/gender, which are routinely reflected in official school records. By instructing schools to store that information separately in “unofficial” records to keep it beyond the reach of FERPA and parents, the Department is violating the spirit and purpose (if not the letter) of FERPA. One of the central purposes of that statute is to give parents and guardians the right to access basic official information about their minor children. Simply moving information to a different location does not change the character of the information or its disclosability under FERPA. Otherwise, schools would be able to move any student record to an “unofficial” location, eviscerating FERPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the letter, FAIR also criticized the State of California's compelled pronoun use policy. The entire letter can be retrieved by following the link below and clicking on "read more" under the heading "California Department of Education Gender Policy." https://www.fairforall.org/legal-letters-comments/
The paragraphs quoted above represent one possible rebuttal when trans rights activists, their allies, schools, parents and/or children defend schools' practice or policy of concealing childrens' social transition from their parents.
I am writing solely in my capacity as a supporter of FAIR and do not represent or speak for the organization. The foregoing excerpt from FAIR's letter to the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the California Department of Education is not intended as legal advice. Anyone wishing to receive legal advice on this or any other topic should consult a qualified attorney.
The letter is based on the facts and the applicable law and the judgment of the author as of its date, August 10, 2022. Because the facts and the law may be different in other states, the arguments in the letter may not apply in states other than California and might no longer apply in California if circumstances there have changed.
This is so scary the mindset of these individuals calling it an 'outing', when Parents are the guardians and protectors of their own children and should know what is going on in their child's life that is affecting and impacting them. The school as an institution should not even be involved to this degree in children's private lives. What gives them the authority to be involved to this high degree and expect their parent to be kept totally in the dark?
Worst scenario and I pray to God this never, ever happens but suppose a School knew about a child's gender confusion and that child was so depressed that they decided life was no longer worth living and made a serious attempt but failed attempt to end things and it was only at that 'crisis' point the Parent's got to know. What responsibility does a School have for denying a parent the right to know, the right to intervene and the opportunity to provide a crucial mental health solution for their minor child, that steered that child away from the risk of even attempting to harm themselves? That would 'normally' be pure reckless negligence on the part of a School for not informing the Parents and guardian of that child, in order for them to perform their role of protecting their child who lacks the capacity to protect themselves, from harm.
The World has gone crazy. These adults that are advocating that minors should collude with the schools to hide and deceive their parents, should not be allowed anywhere near children, including their own who I fear for. And they are using public money, that parents have contributed to, to psychologically harm the child and sever their closest support system and reality checker.
I wonder how often a kid or teen’s revolt against the gender binary is really just a revolt against parental authority, with schools as their literal-minded facilitators. No adult in the room to call the bluff
The author circles around another issue on this topic that I have yet to hear a school address: How do schools square the circle of their claims of a child being in literal danger, so this secret identity with new name and pronouns must be kept from their potentially abusive parents while at the same time having this safety-threatening secret written at the top of every paper the student has returned from the teacher and stuffed in their backpack that’s carried home each day, dangerous information known and discussed daily by all the teachers, coaches, and staff along with hundreds of students and whoever they talk to about it? It makes no sense. It’s like they know it’s all a show, about playing a role in the “good vs evil, right side of history” drama and not really about genuine safety concerns.
“If anyone is being “outed” by policies that require parents be informed of these things, it’s not the student. It’s the school.” BINGO.
Guess who's going to be home schooling their yet-to-be-born children in Commiefornia
This is a good example of motte and bailey. The motte -- the part the schools are prepared to defend -- is declining to “out” a student to their parents. The bailey -- what they cannot defend -- is undertaking a psychological-social intervention with that student, and deceiving the parents about their actions.
A child, a person under the age of 18 years, who believes they are not of the sex they were born with needs psychological health care (if they are an adult, by law, then they can do as they please). If that isn't obvious, one has lost touch with the fundamental principles of Western Civilization. The identity of a human being should located in the creative activity of their mind - which is the only characteristic that makes one human, as opposed to animal. Sex is the means by which we can continue our species and so is necessary, unless to reject the value of humanity.
No child has a "transgender identity." That is not real. Yes, I know that they believe that they do. No, I am not cold and uncaring. I was a gay kid in the 80s (but, no, trans is not "the same as gay," because trans isn't real).
I wish all sensible adults would just say the truth. There is no such thing as a transgender kid.
There are only confused kids, misled kids, and kids facing abuse and trauma at home. Kids being caught up in a wicked social delusion.
Please, sensible adults. Please stop re-affirming the idea that there are "transgender kids." Using that phrase without quotation marks, and without disclaiming it as the lunacy that it is, is just firming up this falsehood.
None of this is real. It never has been real. It will not ever be real.
This is no more real than the recovered memory/multiple personality/ritual abuse scandals of the 80s. But it's far worse.
Thank you for this sensible proposal for schools and families to work together. Yet, you write:
"Gender identity is a deeply personal thing, and students have a right to confide in their teachers with a reasonable expectation of privacy and trust."
What does "gender identity" mean here? What might a student's statement to a teacher look like -"I think I'm a .....", "I feel like I'm a ....." "Am I a....?" - and what tools does a teacher teaching today have to respond thoughtfully, without parroting harmful "gender identity ideology" nonsense? I hope that teachers are treading cautiously here. There's a real opportunity to get it wrong - and also a real opportunity to get it right.
This is excellent.
Magic word in the Senator tweet is “kid” it was a “kid” and parents are put on this earth to care for and protect their kids - the welfare of their kids is totally “their business” that’s why they are called kids and not grown ups.