Do we respect the child’s wishes when he/she wants to consume alcohol? Or get a tattoo, or multiple body piercings, or smoke a cigarette? Or do drugs? Or have sex? How is letting a child make their choices in something as consequential as this ok? I don’t understand.
Your point is what should be guiding us all, so why is that not the case?? WPATH appears to be self-serving and not professional. It seems like having the fox guard the hen house.
I have no idea what's going to happen and can only hope the Supreme Court does the right thing. Though I'm not usually a fan of any of their decisions these days, I guess it's still possible that they can come down on the side of reason and biological truth and throw this "transgender" bullshit out the window.
Another informative and insightful article. A few thoughts. First, on your astute observation that, while keeping secrets from these dangerous parents, "the school sends the student home to these supposed monsters every afternoon." Deep down, these teachers and administrators KNOW that the parents they are deceiving are NOT dangerous, but they do know that these parents may question their radical views, and they don't want that!
Second, on the Mahmoud case, in listening to the Supreme Court's oral argument, I was bothered by the position taken by the plaintiffs (even though I understand why, from a strategic standpoint, they may have chosen to go that route). Plaintiffs cast this as being about parental rights to "opt out" their students from teachings that go against their values. I would have preferred that this be based on what is really happening.
Pseudo-religious claptrap is being taught in our schools as fact. It is Unconstitutional to teach religion as fact in public schools - end of story. I say "pseduo-religious" only because there is no appeal to God or a higher being, but instead only an appeal to individuals' "gendered souls" that is being taught. Still, it is a religious teaching based on a faith-based belief system. One has to have faith that a child can "know" that they must chemically and/or surgically alter their body to appear the opposite sex, and must be referred to and treated "as if" they are the opposite sex by others, to have any semblance of happiness or avoid life-long torment and suicidal ideation. This belief is unprovable and unfalsifiable, and, therefore, religious in nature.
Going back to your main point about secretly lying to children about their sex by referring to them with opposite-sex pronouns, etc., that is part of the pseudo-religious teachings of gender ideology. It should not be done, with or without informing parents, but doing it secretly is obviously even worse. Would we allow teachers to secretly teach children in public schools that Jesus is our savior or that Muhammed is the real messiah or that every person has a thetan? Of course not. We should not be doing this in public school at all, and doing it secretly only serves to highlight just how wrong it is.
"Pseudo-religious claptrap is being taught in our schools as fact. It is Unconstitutional to teach religion as fact in public schools - end of story." Completely agree.
Religion does not have to mean belief in a god or gods or in a soul. Some animist religions believe in the soul but not necessarily in a god or a supreme being. Some believe in a god, but not an immortal soul nor in an afterlife.
But yes, this gender woo is just nonfactual metaphysical nonsense. I don’t know that it constitutes a religion, but imposing it certainly could be seen as violating contrary religious beliefs.
Ive never read Ms Goldis before and some of her statements seem ambiguous, some of which make me worry that she might be a right winger.
But all the more reason for the loony left to be way more damn cautious. The most dangerous weapon we can give to the Right is to defend what’s wrong and to do it so half-assedly
Glenna's a brave lesbian lawyer who has been on the forefront of opposing this nonsense for a very long time. It is her nature to be even-handed in presenting even arguments with which she disagrees, but that's just a reflection of her careful attorney's mind.
Thanks for the background. Like I said, there were several statements that could be taken different ways, and I could not tell where she was coming from.
Plus the picture of the two ordinary looking women with a caption like “but you already knew”. And, no, I didnt know, and I dont get the insinuation. That gave a very RW vibe.
I’m not trans, just a gay man who had early puberty in the 1970s. I have no “identification” with either set of gender stereotypes, which I knew were nonsense very early, but I often thought my life would have been better if I’d been *born* female (but certainly not some frankenstein version of trans femaleness, I had too much sense for that even at age 10).
Anyway, I do remember some adults back then who tried to be supportive of homosexuality, and I really considered them dangerous. As with most things liberal, the dumb dumbs think their good intentions override the need to think thru consequences. They really dont understand the precarious situation of kids who do not have supportive families, churches, teachers (many conservative teachers may be forced to follow current liberal policies resentfully, and kids can be the victims). Helping to out these kids, even if it is obvious how gay or nonconforming they are, removes the last shreds of plausible deniability that then makes kids commit to paths they are not ready for and that they may not understand.
If you want to support gay or otherwise kids, accept OTHER gender-stereotype nonconforming people as they are so that all kids can see there is some acceptance out there. That means accepting effeminate male and butch female family members, peers, neighbors, etc *as they are, so that such children and their peers see that as normal and nonconforming kids can come out on their own terms when they are ready.
If any kid asked me, I would say dont beat yourself up, but wait until you are an adult and have adult rights. In my day, institutionalization was the big danger of both well intentioned and ill intentioned motives.
I really think trans has taken its place and the biggest danger to gay rights is the self righteous and simplistic advocacy of our straight so called allies who think the way towards the “right side of history” is to vilify any dissent, making enemies of the persons they try to silence and many many more silent enemies who witness their cheap lazy illogical conflate-and-confuse tactics
To clarify, I realize our self appointed LGBTQ leaders are just as self righteous and damaging to the cause as our straight allies, but they have no mandate from the rest of us and their tactics are objectionable to many of us. To the extent some of us follow their lead it is often because we are told these are the hills we have to die on, give our enemies an inch, they will take a mile (nevermind that our side was given a few inches and took much more than we can defend); that if we dont stick together with united front we will all go down together. And a lot of us find it so amazing to have so many straight people on our side, they refuse to look the gift trojan horse in the mouth. Plus like the rest of the human race, a lot of us are really stupid and vacuous.
But not very long ago before wrongthink was eliminated, most gay men thought it was very sad to see men decide to transition, recognizing the internal homophobia involved (most of us had no idea that straight men would ever want to be a woman, partly because they hid that fact in order to highjack the gay rights orts, gay media etc)
I wonder how many of these young teachers lived their whole lives, from birth, cared for by "teachers"-- starting in daycare as newborns.
I suspect quite a few.
These young adults do not grok the importance of parental care and the difference between a teacher who just met your kid 3 months ago and a mother who has 14 years of much deeper and more intimate knowledge.
These teachers are disembodied themselves (to imagine genital surgeries in the future & a constant upstream swim for life are no biggie). Their instincts about selfhood are non existent. And they have very poor distress tolerance themselves (watch them testify!). Hence, they are unable to emotionally co regulate children or trust in their natural unfolding.
Perhaps THEIR parents were remote, too busy, & had bad instincts... maybe deferring way too much to teachers due to lacked involvement. Perhaps their 'teachers' WERE closer to them. If so, this informs their view of 'parents' and the capacities of parents.
Daycare for newborn babies has changed society. Teachers are now being presumed more caring, less bigoted, and better able to help children than parents are-- because we began cede these jobs to teachers in 1985.
That is a very interesting theory. And it's the first really sympathetic explanation I've heard for what could possibly be the reason all these emotional predators staffing schools are so driven to "save" students in their schools from their own parents.
What a mess! Federal defunding seems like the key —taking away the financial incentives might undermine the professional advantages and slow down this train wreck despite state courts and legislators going full speed ahead.
Look forward to seeing the FTC go after “gender medicine” as deceptive—and your coverage of that!
Trump is a truly vile , despicable excuse of a human being,. who cares only about himself, BUT right now he is our best bet to confront this insanity. "Right-wing" organizations and legal groups are the only ones taking this on. Progressives and the Democratic party not only allow for this atrocity but are out front promoting it. This is going to rank right up there with their defense of slavery. How long did it take to forget about that?
Harriet Beecher Stowe said ," Common sense is seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be". Liberals need to start seeing the Democratic party as they are.
This comes straight out of child sex predation playbooks, I’m not sure why it’s not labeled as such.
They are being set up to imitate the opposite sex as an inappropriate sexual behavior to joint networks of men and women who do it compulsively, for sexual and emotional gratification.
It requires no sexual contact, since a large part of it is systemic emotional abuse.
Understand the grooming is of adults to perform the work in proxy
How?
1. Only the predator knows what the child needs.
2. The predation must not be communicated to the parent.
3. Alienation of the child’s affections from the parent are essential.
4. Helping the child assume inappropriate sexual behaviors.
5. Creating dependency on the predator for emotional well-being.
6. Physical isolation of the child.
7. Rewarding self-harm.
8. Access to drugs influencing sex, or sexual objects.
I initially thought Gays Against Groomers (my favorite group acronym) were perhaps overdoing it with their name. But after reading how these teachers persistently coaxed these girls toward questioning their "gender identity" and claiming "trans," I think not. And Minnesota, turning on its head the meaning of the word "correct" to push use of pronouns that are abjectly incorrect. This thinking is so crazy, so upside down -- not the least of which is the foundational notion that children -- children! -- should lead in making choices that could well negatively impact their whole lives.
Thanks for another illuminating lay-of-the-land explainer, Glenna.
Would it ever have come this far if pediatricians had resisted the gender ideology? I find it hard to believe that the majority of pediatricians in this country don't see the egregious harm that is being done to children in the name of "inclusion" and "equity". But their medical associations and state licensing boards demand that they go along with the gender narrative, and if they don’t they face the loss of a career that they trained so many years for, and are still paying off loans for the education they received.
Re hard to codify verbal predation - yes - but possible and requires collection of evidence - grooming now codified by state legislatures in Australia following a major royal commission into institutional child sex abuse and many cases of historical child sex assault.
It’s state sanctioned abuse, they are disrupting children’s identities under the guise of kindness. If you go back in time this happened in churches, schools and institutions. We are so outraged at the treatment of children back in those days but somehow this is different? Same behaviour with a modern focus.
Do we respect the child’s wishes when he/she wants to consume alcohol? Or get a tattoo, or multiple body piercings, or smoke a cigarette? Or do drugs? Or have sex? How is letting a child make their choices in something as consequential as this ok? I don’t understand.
Your point is what should be guiding us all, so why is that not the case?? WPATH appears to be self-serving and not professional. It seems like having the fox guard the hen house.
It’s insanity.
Very well done.
I have no idea what's going to happen and can only hope the Supreme Court does the right thing. Though I'm not usually a fan of any of their decisions these days, I guess it's still possible that they can come down on the side of reason and biological truth and throw this "transgender" bullshit out the window.
I guess we'll see.
Another informative and insightful article. A few thoughts. First, on your astute observation that, while keeping secrets from these dangerous parents, "the school sends the student home to these supposed monsters every afternoon." Deep down, these teachers and administrators KNOW that the parents they are deceiving are NOT dangerous, but they do know that these parents may question their radical views, and they don't want that!
Second, on the Mahmoud case, in listening to the Supreme Court's oral argument, I was bothered by the position taken by the plaintiffs (even though I understand why, from a strategic standpoint, they may have chosen to go that route). Plaintiffs cast this as being about parental rights to "opt out" their students from teachings that go against their values. I would have preferred that this be based on what is really happening.
Pseudo-religious claptrap is being taught in our schools as fact. It is Unconstitutional to teach religion as fact in public schools - end of story. I say "pseduo-religious" only because there is no appeal to God or a higher being, but instead only an appeal to individuals' "gendered souls" that is being taught. Still, it is a religious teaching based on a faith-based belief system. One has to have faith that a child can "know" that they must chemically and/or surgically alter their body to appear the opposite sex, and must be referred to and treated "as if" they are the opposite sex by others, to have any semblance of happiness or avoid life-long torment and suicidal ideation. This belief is unprovable and unfalsifiable, and, therefore, religious in nature.
Going back to your main point about secretly lying to children about their sex by referring to them with opposite-sex pronouns, etc., that is part of the pseudo-religious teachings of gender ideology. It should not be done, with or without informing parents, but doing it secretly is obviously even worse. Would we allow teachers to secretly teach children in public schools that Jesus is our savior or that Muhammed is the real messiah or that every person has a thetan? Of course not. We should not be doing this in public school at all, and doing it secretly only serves to highlight just how wrong it is.
"Pseudo-religious claptrap is being taught in our schools as fact. It is Unconstitutional to teach religion as fact in public schools - end of story." Completely agree.
Religion does not have to mean belief in a god or gods or in a soul. Some animist religions believe in the soul but not necessarily in a god or a supreme being. Some believe in a god, but not an immortal soul nor in an afterlife.
But yes, this gender woo is just nonfactual metaphysical nonsense. I don’t know that it constitutes a religion, but imposing it certainly could be seen as violating contrary religious beliefs.
Ive never read Ms Goldis before and some of her statements seem ambiguous, some of which make me worry that she might be a right winger.
But all the more reason for the loony left to be way more damn cautious. The most dangerous weapon we can give to the Right is to defend what’s wrong and to do it so half-assedly
Glenna's a brave lesbian lawyer who has been on the forefront of opposing this nonsense for a very long time. It is her nature to be even-handed in presenting even arguments with which she disagrees, but that's just a reflection of her careful attorney's mind.
Thanks for the background. Like I said, there were several statements that could be taken different ways, and I could not tell where she was coming from.
Plus the picture of the two ordinary looking women with a caption like “but you already knew”. And, no, I didnt know, and I dont get the insinuation. That gave a very RW vibe.
I’m not trans, just a gay man who had early puberty in the 1970s. I have no “identification” with either set of gender stereotypes, which I knew were nonsense very early, but I often thought my life would have been better if I’d been *born* female (but certainly not some frankenstein version of trans femaleness, I had too much sense for that even at age 10).
Anyway, I do remember some adults back then who tried to be supportive of homosexuality, and I really considered them dangerous. As with most things liberal, the dumb dumbs think their good intentions override the need to think thru consequences. They really dont understand the precarious situation of kids who do not have supportive families, churches, teachers (many conservative teachers may be forced to follow current liberal policies resentfully, and kids can be the victims). Helping to out these kids, even if it is obvious how gay or nonconforming they are, removes the last shreds of plausible deniability that then makes kids commit to paths they are not ready for and that they may not understand.
If you want to support gay or otherwise kids, accept OTHER gender-stereotype nonconforming people as they are so that all kids can see there is some acceptance out there. That means accepting effeminate male and butch female family members, peers, neighbors, etc *as they are, so that such children and their peers see that as normal and nonconforming kids can come out on their own terms when they are ready.
If any kid asked me, I would say dont beat yourself up, but wait until you are an adult and have adult rights. In my day, institutionalization was the big danger of both well intentioned and ill intentioned motives.
I really think trans has taken its place and the biggest danger to gay rights is the self righteous and simplistic advocacy of our straight so called allies who think the way towards the “right side of history” is to vilify any dissent, making enemies of the persons they try to silence and many many more silent enemies who witness their cheap lazy illogical conflate-and-confuse tactics
To clarify, I realize our self appointed LGBTQ leaders are just as self righteous and damaging to the cause as our straight allies, but they have no mandate from the rest of us and their tactics are objectionable to many of us. To the extent some of us follow their lead it is often because we are told these are the hills we have to die on, give our enemies an inch, they will take a mile (nevermind that our side was given a few inches and took much more than we can defend); that if we dont stick together with united front we will all go down together. And a lot of us find it so amazing to have so many straight people on our side, they refuse to look the gift trojan horse in the mouth. Plus like the rest of the human race, a lot of us are really stupid and vacuous.
But not very long ago before wrongthink was eliminated, most gay men thought it was very sad to see men decide to transition, recognizing the internal homophobia involved (most of us had no idea that straight men would ever want to be a woman, partly because they hid that fact in order to highjack the gay rights orts, gay media etc)
* orgs (organizations), not orts
I wonder how many of these young teachers lived their whole lives, from birth, cared for by "teachers"-- starting in daycare as newborns.
I suspect quite a few.
These young adults do not grok the importance of parental care and the difference between a teacher who just met your kid 3 months ago and a mother who has 14 years of much deeper and more intimate knowledge.
These teachers are disembodied themselves (to imagine genital surgeries in the future & a constant upstream swim for life are no biggie). Their instincts about selfhood are non existent. And they have very poor distress tolerance themselves (watch them testify!). Hence, they are unable to emotionally co regulate children or trust in their natural unfolding.
Perhaps THEIR parents were remote, too busy, & had bad instincts... maybe deferring way too much to teachers due to lacked involvement. Perhaps their 'teachers' WERE closer to them. If so, this informs their view of 'parents' and the capacities of parents.
Daycare for newborn babies has changed society. Teachers are now being presumed more caring, less bigoted, and better able to help children than parents are-- because we began cede these jobs to teachers in 1985.
That is a very interesting theory. And it's the first really sympathetic explanation I've heard for what could possibly be the reason all these emotional predators staffing schools are so driven to "save" students in their schools from their own parents.
What a mess! Federal defunding seems like the key —taking away the financial incentives might undermine the professional advantages and slow down this train wreck despite state courts and legislators going full speed ahead.
Look forward to seeing the FTC go after “gender medicine” as deceptive—and your coverage of that!
Trump is a truly vile , despicable excuse of a human being,. who cares only about himself, BUT right now he is our best bet to confront this insanity. "Right-wing" organizations and legal groups are the only ones taking this on. Progressives and the Democratic party not only allow for this atrocity but are out front promoting it. This is going to rank right up there with their defense of slavery. How long did it take to forget about that?
Harriet Beecher Stowe said ," Common sense is seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be". Liberals need to start seeing the Democratic party as they are.
This comes straight out of child sex predation playbooks, I’m not sure why it’s not labeled as such.
They are being set up to imitate the opposite sex as an inappropriate sexual behavior to joint networks of men and women who do it compulsively, for sexual and emotional gratification.
It requires no sexual contact, since a large part of it is systemic emotional abuse.
Understand the grooming is of adults to perform the work in proxy
How?
1. Only the predator knows what the child needs.
2. The predation must not be communicated to the parent.
3. Alienation of the child’s affections from the parent are essential.
4. Helping the child assume inappropriate sexual behaviors.
5. Creating dependency on the predator for emotional well-being.
6. Physical isolation of the child.
7. Rewarding self-harm.
8. Access to drugs influencing sex, or sexual objects.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/grooming/
https://raisingchildren.net.au/school-age/safety/online-safety/grooming-signs
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213422005324
I initially thought Gays Against Groomers (my favorite group acronym) were perhaps overdoing it with their name. But after reading how these teachers persistently coaxed these girls toward questioning their "gender identity" and claiming "trans," I think not. And Minnesota, turning on its head the meaning of the word "correct" to push use of pronouns that are abjectly incorrect. This thinking is so crazy, so upside down -- not the least of which is the foundational notion that children -- children! -- should lead in making choices that could well negatively impact their whole lives.
Thanks for another illuminating lay-of-the-land explainer, Glenna.
Excellent, Glenna. Thanks so much for yet another illuminating deep dive.
Would it ever have come this far if pediatricians had resisted the gender ideology? I find it hard to believe that the majority of pediatricians in this country don't see the egregious harm that is being done to children in the name of "inclusion" and "equity". But their medical associations and state licensing boards demand that they go along with the gender narrative, and if they don’t they face the loss of a career that they trained so many years for, and are still paying off loans for the education they received.
I need an explanation on how FERPA is being worked around. What is needed to push back on the work around that eschews parental consent?
Re hard to codify verbal predation - yes - but possible and requires collection of evidence - grooming now codified by state legislatures in Australia following a major royal commission into institutional child sex abuse and many cases of historical child sex assault.
It’s taken decades.
Masterful!!! I hope the Supremes come to the same conclusion!!
It’s state sanctioned abuse, they are disrupting children’s identities under the guise of kindness. If you go back in time this happened in churches, schools and institutions. We are so outraged at the treatment of children back in those days but somehow this is different? Same behaviour with a modern focus.
We should talk. My child was SST I fought the school district to stop. I am friends with Erin Lee. I am going to be working on something for schools.