12 ms·

This sounds like the same group of pearl-clutching parents The Onion was making fun of 20+ years ago: https://www.theonion.com/98-homosexual-recruitment-drive-n

This sounds like the same group of pearl-clutching parents The Onion was making fun of 20+ years ago: https://www.theonion.com/98-homosexual-recruitment-drive-nearing-goal-1819564785 https://www.theonion.com/98-homosexual-recruitment-drive-nea... Why, next thing you know these activist teachers will be telling our kids that racism is bad. The horror.

nickff 5y ago
Well, one of the basic premises of public schooling is that the parents have a significant say in what is taught, via the election of school boards and other politicians. This report details a subversion of the 'consent of the governed', which is troubling.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  It's remarkable how the underlying grievance has been dressed up over the years. I remember how it was teachers "failing" to "teach the controversy" re: evolution when I was in middle school; now they're "subverting" the democratic will! Gack.
  - potatolicious 5y ago
    Whenever someone speaks in lofty ideals it's always important to get them to be specific about what those ideals look like in practice, and be specific about what they're looking for. "Subversion of the consent of the governed" can be anywhere from "making the kids smoke cigarettes at recess" to "teaching the works of MLK Jr. even though it makes local parents uncomfortable". The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly? People often defend the hard-to-defend by talking in generalities and appealing to abstractions. The real test of the idea is if you can defend it both generally and specifically.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly?" The states have rights according to the tenth amendment (the last amendment in the 'Bill of Rights'): >"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      - fknorangesite 5y ago
        > The states have rights Why don't you answer the question? The Civil War was fought over a state's right to do what, exactly?
        vkou 5y ago
        The declarations of secession by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas only mention slavery 83 times [1][2] between them, but if revisionists are to be believed, they were obviously not about a state's right to enslave human beings and to own them as property. [3] [1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... [2] That word happens to be mentioned only 11 times in the entirety of the text of Huckleberry Finn, by the way. [3] The word 'property' appears 16 times, and refers to human beings in every single one of those instances.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        I like it when people link the actual declarations, because Mississippi's in particular is a doozy: > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
      - potatolicious 5y ago
        Indeed you're still talking in generalities: which rights were being asserted under this reading of the Constitution? The quote you provided could mean literally anything, from regulating the sale of beef to taxing bread. I suspect neither hamburgers nor dinner rolls were the subject of the Civil War. Which rights were in dispute?
  - nickff 5y ago
    I don't know what else you'd call it if an unelected organization uses the governments money & power to do things that the public doesn't want. I am open to using different terminology, in case you have any suggestions.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Normally we'd call that a "civil service." They don't traditionally answer to the electorate, because the electorate appoints their boss(es). And, whether you like it or not, must of the public does want its teachers to be supportive of children who aren't straight or cis.
      - nickff 5y ago
        I think the civil service is supposed to execute the laws of the jurisdiction, and defer to the elected branches when there are policy decisions to be made. If the unions are making their own policies, it doesn't really matter whom the electorate has appointed. I would use the same term ('subvert') for a government contractor siphoning government funds for activities outside their contract terms. I really don't know what else to call this.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        I think a concrete example of a law being broken by teachers not being actively homophobic or transphobic would be a substantive contribution to this discussion. Until then, it's not clear what law or regulation the teachers represented by the CTA are violating.
        nickff 5y ago
        It seems like the CTA is attempting to make policy, without obviously violating laws. Areas without clear policies either require clarification by the elected officials, or should be left to individuals in the field. Unions and corporate lobby groups have no place in making policy.
- multjoy 5y ago
  Basic premises of public schooling in the US. The rest of the world, not so much.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Consent of the governed… seems like the kids are the ones being governed, and nobody is really asking for their consent.
  - dvt 5y ago
    Oh come on, parents should obviously have the final say in what their kids are taught (via voting for school boards, etc.). How is this even remotely controversial?
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      Because kids actually should have a say. Like you don’t just all of a sudden gain sentience on your 18th birthday. Kids are people too and have should have a right to control their life to some degree. It also works. Have you heard of democratic schools (also known as free schools)? The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students.
      - dvt 5y ago
        > The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students. What a privileged childhood you must've had to think that this is a viable schooling system for anyone but upper-middle-class hippie rich kids. You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago, right?
        kennywinker 5y ago
        > You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago So, are you saying that there's some inherent difference between rich kids and inner city kids? Like, beyond their circumstances? Because if rich hippie kids can govern themselves, and inner city kids can't, that is either because rich kids are just better - or that poor kids have shitty circumstances that take that ability away from them. If you believe the former, we can't go any further because you're just racist or classist or both. If you believe the latter, then clearly kids deserve a say in their circumstances wherever they have that ability - and where they don't, something else needs to change first.
- kawera 5y ago
  In the U.S.
spoonjim 5y ago
If you don't think that modern gender ideology has any victims, you should read what some of them have written themselves: https://www.newsweek.com/theres-no-standard-care-when-it-comes-trans-medicine-opinion-1603450 https://www.newsweek.com/theres-no-standard-care-when-it-com...
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  The victims are better off than they were before. Before, they were harassed and beaten. Now, they have a choice. They can either medicate with psychiatric drugs, simply express themselves as the gender they feel themselves to be, or surgically and hormonally change themselves. None of those three options will let them live the lives they wish to lead, but the best option is different for different people, and they have the choice to figure out which is best for them without society responding with violence.
  - noxer 5y ago
    The goal should obviously be to end any violence at all and give people free choice. But AFAIK no decision they make fundamentally changes anything. Hormones, surgery etc. don't seem to solve anything statistically speaking. For example you frequently head that hormone therapy should be stated as early as possible to get the best desired result but if you look at suicide data, earlier hormone treatment does not reduce suicides. Neither does surgery. Should the people sill have their free will to chose? Yes, absolutely but as early as possible? Probably not. Young people make stupid decisions that's why they are not allowed to do certain things and decide certain things. If a kid isn't allowed to get a tattoo why is it controversial that it isn't allowed to take hormones that permanently alter their body and make them infertile. Also lets just assume that from all teenager going trough puberty that would be eligible for hormone therapy on the basis of their own decision, a fraction would eventually have a "normal life" if no hormone treatment is done. Lets say its 10%. So by giving 100% of eligible teenagers hormone treatment this wound mean 10% are permanently harmed versus giving no teenager hormone treatment where 90% would eventually get it anyway when they are older. Which doesn't seem to have a measurable negative effect on their overall mental health and well-being. Then this would mean no early treatment for anyone safes 10% or the other way around early treatment causes 10% collateral damage. Obviously there has to be a middle ground somewhere but I would say there is good evidence that pushing/motivating people/kids/teenagers is overall likely doing more harm than good. And pushing/motivating based on some personal ideology is not in the interest of the people/kids/teens anyway. They may truly believe what they do helps and have no intention to harm anyone but so do the Scientology people. It just not what a school should do.
darawk 5y ago
> Last month, the California Teachers Association (CTA) held a conference advising teachers on best practices for subverting parents, conservative communities and school principals on issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. Speakers went so far as to tout their surveillance of students’ Google searches, internet activity, and hallway conversations in order to target sixth graders for personal invitations to LGBTQ clubs, while actively concealing these clubs’ membership rolls from participants’ parents. This sure sounds like a lot more than "telling our kids that racism is bad".
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Again with the language of "subversion." We would all benefit from a direct link to a recording or summary from this CTA conference. I suspect the reality is more banal than claimed: teachers are frequently the only (trustworthy) adult contacts outside of a child's family, and can be a resource for children who might otherwise be pushed into conversion therapy or other objectively harmful and outright illegal[1] "treatments" by their guardians. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Legal_status_by_US_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Legal_statu...
  - darawk 5y ago
    Ya, it very well may be. I make no claims about the integrity of Abigail's transcription here. She may well be severely misrepresenting things. But if so, that's where the criticism should be located.
- saghm 5y ago
  I'm not quite sure how to interpret this objection. If the objection is to surveillance of the students, I don't see how it would be any better to inform parents about participation in LGBTQ clubs, given how parents would be able to violate the privacy of their children far beyond merely providing them access to a club, and some would be motivated to if they knew their children identified as LGBTQ. If the objection is that parents _should_ be able to monitor their children in this way, I'd have to disagree; having sympathetic adults be the ones who find out seems better in virtually every way. And if the objection is that nobody should be monitoring the kids at all, I think you're either underestimating how little control minors have on their lives in general, and focusing on LGBTQ students getting help is probably not the most effective way to argue for a much larger structural change in society.

nickff 5y ago

Well, one of the basic premises of public schooling is that the parents have a significant say in what is taught, via the election of school boards and other politicians. This report details a subversion of the 'consent of the governed', which is troubling.

woodruffw 5y ago
It's remarkable how the underlying grievance has been dressed up over the years. I remember how it was teachers "failing" to "teach the controversy" re: evolution when I was in middle school; now they're "subverting" the democratic will! Gack.
- potatolicious 5y ago
  Whenever someone speaks in lofty ideals it's always important to get them to be specific about what those ideals look like in practice, and be specific about what they're looking for. "Subversion of the consent of the governed" can be anywhere from "making the kids smoke cigarettes at recess" to "teaching the works of MLK Jr. even though it makes local parents uncomfortable". The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly? People often defend the hard-to-defend by talking in generalities and appealing to abstractions. The real test of the idea is if you can defend it both generally and specifically.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"The classic example of this is the whole "states' rights" canard re: the American Civil War. The states' rights to what, exactly?" The states have rights according to the tenth amendment (the last amendment in the 'Bill of Rights'): >"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    - fknorangesite 5y ago
      > The states have rights Why don't you answer the question? The Civil War was fought over a state's right to do what, exactly?
      - vkou 5y ago
        The declarations of secession by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, and Texas only mention slavery 83 times [1][2] between them, but if revisionists are to be believed, they were obviously not about a state's right to enslave human beings and to own them as property. [3] [1] https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... [2] That word happens to be mentioned only 11 times in the entirety of the text of Huckleberry Finn, by the way. [3] The word 'property' appears 16 times, and refers to human beings in every single one of those instances.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        I like it when people link the actual declarations, because Mississippi's in particular is a doozy: > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
    - potatolicious 5y ago
      Indeed you're still talking in generalities: which rights were being asserted under this reading of the Constitution? The quote you provided could mean literally anything, from regulating the sale of beef to taxing bread. I suspect neither hamburgers nor dinner rolls were the subject of the Civil War. Which rights were in dispute?
- nickff 5y ago
  I don't know what else you'd call it if an unelected organization uses the governments money & power to do things that the public doesn't want. I am open to using different terminology, in case you have any suggestions.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Normally we'd call that a "civil service." They don't traditionally answer to the electorate, because the electorate appoints their boss(es). And, whether you like it or not, must of the public does want its teachers to be supportive of children who aren't straight or cis.
    - nickff 5y ago
      I think the civil service is supposed to execute the laws of the jurisdiction, and defer to the elected branches when there are policy decisions to be made. If the unions are making their own policies, it doesn't really matter whom the electorate has appointed. I would use the same term ('subvert') for a government contractor siphoning government funds for activities outside their contract terms. I really don't know what else to call this.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I think a concrete example of a law being broken by teachers not being actively homophobic or transphobic would be a substantive contribution to this discussion. Until then, it's not clear what law or regulation the teachers represented by the CTA are violating.
        nickff 5y ago
        It seems like the CTA is attempting to make policy, without obviously violating laws. Areas without clear policies either require clarification by the elected officials, or should be left to individuals in the field. Unions and corporate lobby groups have no place in making policy.
multjoy 5y ago
Basic premises of public schooling in the US. The rest of the world, not so much.
kennywinker 5y ago
Consent of the governed… seems like the kids are the ones being governed, and nobody is really asking for their consent.
- dvt 5y ago
  Oh come on, parents should obviously have the final say in what their kids are taught (via voting for school boards, etc.). How is this even remotely controversial?
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    Because kids actually should have a say. Like you don’t just all of a sudden gain sentience on your 18th birthday. Kids are people too and have should have a right to control their life to some degree. It also works. Have you heard of democratic schools (also known as free schools)? The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students.
    - dvt 5y ago
      > The kids govern themselves, set rules, dictate curriculum. They have quite strong outcomes for students. What a privileged childhood you must've had to think that this is a viable schooling system for anyone but upper-middle-class hippie rich kids. You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago, right?
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        > You do realize middle schoolers are routinely recruited into gangs in rough cities like Chicago So, are you saying that there's some inherent difference between rich kids and inner city kids? Like, beyond their circumstances? Because if rich hippie kids can govern themselves, and inner city kids can't, that is either because rich kids are just better - or that poor kids have shitty circumstances that take that ability away from them. If you believe the former, we can't go any further because you're just racist or classist or both. If you believe the latter, then clearly kids deserve a say in their circumstances wherever they have that ability - and where they don't, something else needs to change first.
kawera 5y ago
In the U.S.

spoonjim 5y ago

If you don't think that modern gender ideology has any victims, you should read what some of them have written themselves: https://www.newsweek.com/theres-no-standard-care-when-it-comes-trans-medicine-opinion-1603450 https://www.newsweek.com/theres-no-standard-care-when-it-com...

lern_too_spel 5y ago
The victims are better off than they were before. Before, they were harassed and beaten. Now, they have a choice. They can either medicate with psychiatric drugs, simply express themselves as the gender they feel themselves to be, or surgically and hormonally change themselves. None of those three options will let them live the lives they wish to lead, but the best option is different for different people, and they have the choice to figure out which is best for them without society responding with violence.
- noxer 5y ago
  The goal should obviously be to end any violence at all and give people free choice. But AFAIK no decision they make fundamentally changes anything. Hormones, surgery etc. don't seem to solve anything statistically speaking. For example you frequently head that hormone therapy should be stated as early as possible to get the best desired result but if you look at suicide data, earlier hormone treatment does not reduce suicides. Neither does surgery. Should the people sill have their free will to chose? Yes, absolutely but as early as possible? Probably not. Young people make stupid decisions that's why they are not allowed to do certain things and decide certain things. If a kid isn't allowed to get a tattoo why is it controversial that it isn't allowed to take hormones that permanently alter their body and make them infertile. Also lets just assume that from all teenager going trough puberty that would be eligible for hormone therapy on the basis of their own decision, a fraction would eventually have a "normal life" if no hormone treatment is done. Lets say its 10%. So by giving 100% of eligible teenagers hormone treatment this wound mean 10% are permanently harmed versus giving no teenager hormone treatment where 90% would eventually get it anyway when they are older. Which doesn't seem to have a measurable negative effect on their overall mental health and well-being. Then this would mean no early treatment for anyone safes 10% or the other way around early treatment causes 10% collateral damage. Obviously there has to be a middle ground somewhere but I would say there is good evidence that pushing/motivating people/kids/teenagers is overall likely doing more harm than good. And pushing/motivating based on some personal ideology is not in the interest of the people/kids/teens anyway. They may truly believe what they do helps and have no intention to harm anyone but so do the Scientology people. It just not what a school should do.

darawk 5y ago

> Last month, the California Teachers Association (CTA) held a conference advising teachers on best practices for subverting parents, conservative communities and school principals on issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. Speakers went so far as to tout their surveillance of students’ Google searches, internet activity, and hallway conversations in order to target sixth graders for personal invitations to LGBTQ clubs, while actively concealing these clubs’ membership rolls from participants’ parents. This sure sounds like a lot more than "telling our kids that racism is bad".

woodruffw 5y ago
Again with the language of "subversion." We would all benefit from a direct link to a recording or summary from this CTA conference. I suspect the reality is more banal than claimed: teachers are frequently the only (trustworthy) adult contacts outside of a child's family, and can be a resource for children who might otherwise be pushed into conversion therapy or other objectively harmful and outright illegal[1] "treatments" by their guardians. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Legal_status_by_US_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Legal_statu...
- darawk 5y ago
  Ya, it very well may be. I make no claims about the integrity of Abigail's transcription here. She may well be severely misrepresenting things. But if so, that's where the criticism should be located.
saghm 5y ago
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this objection. If the objection is to surveillance of the students, I don't see how it would be any better to inform parents about participation in LGBTQ clubs, given how parents would be able to violate the privacy of their children far beyond merely providing them access to a club, and some would be motivated to if they knew their children identified as LGBTQ. If the objection is that parents _should_ be able to monitor their children in this way, I'd have to disagree; having sympathetic adults be the ones who find out seems better in virtually every way. And if the objection is that nobody should be monitoring the kids at all, I think you're either underestimating how little control minors have on their lives in general, and focusing on LGBTQ students getting help is probably not the most effective way to argue for a much larger structural change in society.