... the fact that conservatives are very, very obviously and publicly coming for the gays should make the gays SOMEWHAT less willing to throw the trans under the bus and devalue the concept of children's privacy for a little temporary expediency.
... the fact that conservatives are very, very obviously and publicly coming for the gays should make the gays SOMEWHAT less willing to throw the trans under the bus and devalue the concept of children's privacy for a little temporary expediency.
What does the one have to do with the other? What on earth do you mean by gays 'throwing the trans under the bus'?
I suspect most people do not consider informing parents of their child's entire *identity* to be 'throwing them under the bus.'
"Devaluing the concept of children's privacy" - just stop right there. This has to do with actions the student wants to engage in *publicly*, including public name and facility use changes, while at school. This has nothing to do with 'privacy' but rather deliberately lying to parents about the child's and the school employees' PUBLIC actions while at school. It's untenable.
If there is any suspicion whatsoever that the kid is subject to potential or actual abuse, the appropriate response is a report to state authorities.
What does policy on outing trans kids have to do with policy on outing gay kids? Hmm, let me think about that one. Some might think that being gay is a key issue of "identity," but we all know that's different, because reasons. Gee, a real poser there, innit?
What do I mean by gays throwing the trans under the bus? Well, it seems to me that quite a number of people on this thread have expressed views like "gays should support outing trans kids so as to distinguish themselves from the eeeeeeevil transes" (okay that last bit is my editorial commentary), which is very explicitly a call to abandon solidarity in the hope that appeasement of anti-LGBT forces will permit them to retain a privileged position in society. That will not work even slightly, but it will destroy the unity of the movement.
You've identified some reasons why (some) attempts to preserve (some) trans kids' privacy may not be entirely effective. That does not make this not a privacy issue. Here's a close analogy: as a supervisor at my job, I am legally forbidden to tell employees about another employee's reasonable accommodations, because that would be a violation of the accommodated employee's medical privacy. It DOES NOT MATTER if the employee's disability is visible or invisible, whether the accommodation is "public," or whether other employees will find out anyway.
As for the last sentence, somehow I do not think that the "concerned parents" here would be okay with it if state authorities were contacted based on mere suspicion of potential abuse. They would say, not without some reason, that you have no evidence-- just speculation. And even if a report was made, the authorities can't do anything until a child is actually abused, at which point it may well be too late to prevent permanent harm.
"Some might think that being gay is a key issue of "identity," but we all know that's different, because reasons."
It's different because being gay at no point requires medical intervention to facilitate being gay, whereas trans identity is usually accompanied by gender dysphoria, commonly requires lifelong medical interventions, is associated with enormous MH comorbidities and risks, and - most importantly here - requires affirmative behavior on the part of the teachers and administration (eg name and facility changes).
Of course, you know all this.
"very explicitly a call to abandon solidarity" Why do gay people owe trans people 'solidarity'? Being gay has nothing to do with being trans - they are entirely different things. People are merely pointing out these obvious differences.
And that's not a close analogy, since coworkers are in no way analogous to the relationship between a parent and minor child.
... the fact that conservatives are very, very obviously and publicly coming for the gays should make the gays SOMEWHAT less willing to throw the trans under the bus and devalue the concept of children's privacy for a little temporary expediency.
Somewhat.
What does the one have to do with the other? What on earth do you mean by gays 'throwing the trans under the bus'?
I suspect most people do not consider informing parents of their child's entire *identity* to be 'throwing them under the bus.'
"Devaluing the concept of children's privacy" - just stop right there. This has to do with actions the student wants to engage in *publicly*, including public name and facility use changes, while at school. This has nothing to do with 'privacy' but rather deliberately lying to parents about the child's and the school employees' PUBLIC actions while at school. It's untenable.
If there is any suspicion whatsoever that the kid is subject to potential or actual abuse, the appropriate response is a report to state authorities.
What does policy on outing trans kids have to do with policy on outing gay kids? Hmm, let me think about that one. Some might think that being gay is a key issue of "identity," but we all know that's different, because reasons. Gee, a real poser there, innit?
What do I mean by gays throwing the trans under the bus? Well, it seems to me that quite a number of people on this thread have expressed views like "gays should support outing trans kids so as to distinguish themselves from the eeeeeeevil transes" (okay that last bit is my editorial commentary), which is very explicitly a call to abandon solidarity in the hope that appeasement of anti-LGBT forces will permit them to retain a privileged position in society. That will not work even slightly, but it will destroy the unity of the movement.
You've identified some reasons why (some) attempts to preserve (some) trans kids' privacy may not be entirely effective. That does not make this not a privacy issue. Here's a close analogy: as a supervisor at my job, I am legally forbidden to tell employees about another employee's reasonable accommodations, because that would be a violation of the accommodated employee's medical privacy. It DOES NOT MATTER if the employee's disability is visible or invisible, whether the accommodation is "public," or whether other employees will find out anyway.
As for the last sentence, somehow I do not think that the "concerned parents" here would be okay with it if state authorities were contacted based on mere suspicion of potential abuse. They would say, not without some reason, that you have no evidence-- just speculation. And even if a report was made, the authorities can't do anything until a child is actually abused, at which point it may well be too late to prevent permanent harm.
"Some might think that being gay is a key issue of "identity," but we all know that's different, because reasons."
It's different because being gay at no point requires medical intervention to facilitate being gay, whereas trans identity is usually accompanied by gender dysphoria, commonly requires lifelong medical interventions, is associated with enormous MH comorbidities and risks, and - most importantly here - requires affirmative behavior on the part of the teachers and administration (eg name and facility changes).
Of course, you know all this.
"very explicitly a call to abandon solidarity" Why do gay people owe trans people 'solidarity'? Being gay has nothing to do with being trans - they are entirely different things. People are merely pointing out these obvious differences.
And that's not a close analogy, since coworkers are in no way analogous to the relationship between a parent and minor child.