Doomsought
Well-known member
That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.. Outing people in general is a thing that people don't do, and for good reason.
That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.. Outing people in general is a thing that people don't do, and for good reason.
Yes, let's sum up morality in trite quotes. That's a great idea. By this logic, the US should tell the Russians every spy it has because revealing the truth is some sort of universal good? Should we tell the stalker where his victim hides her guns? Seriously, this is a stupid argument. Do better.That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
Yes, let's sum up morality in trite quotes. That's a great idea. By this logic, the US should tell the Russians every spy it has because revealing the truth is some sort of universal good? Should we tell the stalker where his victim hides her guns? Seriously, this is a stupid argument. Do better.
I'm using the statement in the same way as he is, to show that the statement doesn't work in this instance, basically comparing like to like. He used the statement to justify outing people, specifically quoting that part of my post, because:You are taking a statement that is intended to apply to philosophical and political arguments, and applying it to other things.
That isn't a good argument. Do better.
I gave examples of when the randomly revealing truths is a stupid idea.That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
I'm using the statement in the same way as he is, to show that the statement doesn't work in this instance, basically comparing like to like. He used the statement to justify outing people, specifically quoting that part of my post, because:
I gave examples of when the randomly revealing truths is a stupid idea.
If you have an issue with people using maxims outside of their context, maybe take that up with @Doomsought.
Meanwhile, back to the actual legislation.
I really do think this is another example of the government sticking its head where it doesn't belong. They are legislating how parents can take care of their kids, but only in one direction. How soon until the opposite bill gets enacted in liberal states, mandating gender therapy for children. This is the problem with government control, it will bit you in the ass. Conservatives especially need to be wary of this, as they consistently lose the culture war.
I'm not advocating for the teacher to do any treatment, nor for the doctor to do any treatment, nor for them to do anything else. They should just shut up about it and do nothing with the information, unless the kid asks them to inform their parents. I then follow this with some circumstances under which outing the child could have consequences.I don't get your position here.
Parents get to decide whether or not a minor undergoes a given treatment. That is how legal custody of a minor works. Parents get to be informed if a child has a condition, in part because they are the one who decides the treatment. That is how legal custody of a minor works.
The school does not get to make such decisions. No member of the staff at school gets to decide such things. A doctor does not get to decide such things. A doctor's expert opinion may be involved in determining that a parent is exhibiting criminal negligence in how their child is cared for, which may be grounds for removing custody from them, but...
The parent is informed.
But you are mixing up what Doomslayer is saying the truth will destroy. As far as I can tell, Doomslayer is advocating for outing a child using the argument 'That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be'. I come to this conclusion because he specifically quoted me saying:And as to Doomsought's remarks, when a parent and child are aware of the truth about 'trans' things, not just the radical leftist propaganda, you are going to see very few to no parents letting their children 'transition.' The position of the hard left on this does not stand up tot he light of the truth, it is 'destroyed' by it, thus his use of the quote is entirely appropriate.
He is not making some argument that 'if truth can expose transgenderism as fake, it ought to be exposed', he's saying that outing people is a good idea. You don't have to buy into the far left to discard this argument, you could even think that outing is a good idea, and think that the argument is a bad one. This is what I was responding to with my arguments. If I misinterpreted him, and he wants to correct me, that's fine, but that's the clearest reading I can get from this.Outing people in general is a thing that people don't do, and for good reason.
I'm not advocating for the teacher to do any treatment, nor for the doctor to do any treatment, nor for them to do anything else. They should just shut up about it and do nothing with the information, unless the kid asks them to inform their parents. I then follow this with some circumstances under which outing the child could have consequences.
This is based on a lot of evidence that outing children to their parents can end badly, and is not in a predictable way. Kids are tossed out of previously welcoming houses, are beaten by previous non-abusers, etc, because they were outed. Outing can causes sudden, unpredictable affects on a child's wellbeing in their home. Mandating that teachers out kids is thus a bad idea.
But you are mixing up what Doomslayer is saying the truth will destroy. As far as I can tell, Doomslayer is advocating for outing a child using the argument 'That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be'. I come to this conclusion because he specifically quoted me saying:
He is not making some argument that 'if truth can expose transgenderism as fake, it ought to be exposed', he's saying that outing people is a good idea. You don't have to buy into the far left to discard this argument, you could even think that outing is a good idea, and think that the argument is a bad one. This is what I was responding to with my arguments. If I misinterpreted him, and he wants to correct me, that's fine, but that's the clearest reading I can get from this.
So I'm going to have to use some proxies, as data on how parents kicking out kids isn't typically volunteered, and there are a limited number of trans people compared to LGBT people.You're asserting that 'outing' people who are 'trans' is a dangerous thing, then building your entire argument on that. Do you have anything to actually back that up?
Actually 'anything' isn't adequate. Do you have statistics that show violent reactions are frequent enough that it justifies a parent's right to know something significant of their child? Do you have statistics showing that this definitively outweighs parents who help their child deal with the problem instead?
Please substantiate your argument.
For transgender young people, the familial relationships are overwhelmingly likely to be strained or separated when the youth is out. Over half of the transgender clients at a specialized gender-identity health clinic reported difficulties with parents or guardians, indicating that transgender individuals have just as much difficulty, if not more, in the home than their LGBT peers. Parents of transgender youth are reported to frequently engage in abusive behaviors such as taking actions to “bribe, cajole, and beat their children into expressing the gender they were assigned at birth.”
Yeah, no. You don't get to just conflate a group that is an order of magnitude or two larger with a sub-group. That's not going to fly here, without a lot of support. Further, children who are expressing LGB ideation aren't looking into permanently mutilating their body in ways that will cause health problems for the rest of their life as a part of that. The comparison is not suitable.So I'm going to have to use some proxies, as data on how parents kicking out kids isn't typically volunteered, and there are a limited number of trans people compared to LGBT people.
First, I'm going to use LGBT youth as a substitute for Trans youth. Since LGB is generally more accepted than T, if I can show that it is dangerous to out a LGBT youth, I think it is fair to conclude it's dangerous to out a Trans youth.
Next, I'm going to use youth homeless rates as a proxy to show bad consequences of mandatory outing. This needs some explanation. First, we would expect that homeless youth, if randomly selected from all youth, would have the a similar rate of LGBT members to the general population of all american youth. Here is a good paper about it (link straight to pdf), especially sections II.A and II.C. It references other studies, but it notes that 26% of youth who come out are kicked out (this has probably lessened since the study happened, but not down to a insignificant amount.) In addition, it cites studies that show that 1/3 LGBT youth receive physical violence upon coming out. It also notes the surprising rateas at which parents will confirm that they abuse their kid. One quote specifically on trans kids:
So I'm going to have to use some proxies, as data on how parents kicking out kids isn't typically volunteered, and there are a limited number of trans people compared to LGBT people.
First, I'm going to use LGBT youth as a substitute for Trans youth. Since LGB is generally more accepted than T, if I can show that it is dangerous to out a LGBT youth, I think it is fair to conclude it's dangerous to out a Trans youth.
For the purposes of understanding family reactions to LGBT people, these are remarkably similar populations. Also, note that I'm not really combining LGBT people, but instead combining households of kids who come out as LGBT. I think it is very fair to assume that a household that would kick out a gay kid would also kick out a trans kid. This is a quite reasonable proxy, and I stand by it.Lumping totally different things under a single label and talking about them as if they are all the same thing is not a path to good understanding - it's muddled thinking at best.
It's also a tactic we see a lot of from people pushing agendas that cannot stand clear scrutiny.
Id means the same. What it means in practice is that it is citing the paper right above it, so in this case:...But the footnote is functionally useless. 'Id. at 2.' it says. What the heck does that mean? In fact, spending some time searching the document, it looks like 'Id' appears as a reference 76 times, and nothing ever explains what that means. Maybe I'm unaware because I'm not a part of this 'field,' fortunately another one of the footnotes references something...
cite 46 would refer to Random Book, page 7.45. Random Book
46. Id. at 7
The teachers fears aren't relevant because it's not thier call. They exist to teach math etc. not to be a secret keeper or even friend. Teachers should be required by law to report any non standard behavior. Not worth arguing though I'll just keep using private schools.Not reporting isn't having authority over the parents though. It's just not telling them everything. Generalized, blunt force rules like this are part of the problem of government. Say the teacher knows that the parent is very religiously conservative and outing the child could go badly? Should the teacher report then?
What if the Parents are crazy liberals, and the boy tried on a dress just once, should the kid be reported then? Even if the teacher fears that the kid could be pressured into transitioning when the boy might just be gay?
Overall, this just seems like more evidence we don't want government in charge of schools.
For the purposes of understanding family reactions to LGBT people, these are remarkably similar populations. Also, note that I'm not really combining LGBT people, but instead combining households of kids who come out as LGBT. I think it is very fair to assume that a household that would kick out a gay kid would also kick out a trans kid. This is a quite reasonable proxy, and I stand by it.
Id means the same. What it means in practice is that it is citing the paper right above it, so in this case:
cite 46 would refer to Random Book, page 7.
You are correct about the leftist bias of the source. I know its not great, but here is a wikipedia article on LGBT homelessness, which has itself a number of sources. These should at least back up my claim that LGBT homelessness is wildly disproportionate to their population.
Homelessness among LGBT youth in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But that isn't your core argument. Your core argument is that Parents ought to know everything their Teacher knows about their kid. But rights have limits when they conflict with other rights, and I think this is one, as kids also have a right to safety. If teachers could predict with accuracy when a family would react badly, then you might have a point. And it turns out, they sort of can: parents who don't already know will act badly. Why? because the child had a feeling that telling their parents would be a bad idea.
EDIT: And what is up with this forum. I keep having to argue for the left, which is weird as all hell?