Current Events > C/D: Schools reporting to parents that their kid is gay/trans is abuse

(+) Yeah! (+)

GranolaPanic posted...

Yes if the child told a teacher or counselor in confidence. Some parents might not be accepting of an LGBTQ child and that could lead to physical and psychological abuse.

What about if a teacher just noticed it, like seeing them kiss their same sex boyfriend/girlfriend?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Expecting anything else from BM was your first mistake

Bad_Mojo posted...

D, in no way is that, "abuse." Now you can argue it's okay that keep it from their parents until the kid is ready, but in no way is that abuse from the teacher/school.

Yeah, people use weighty words way too loosely these days.

GranolaPanic posted...

Its none of their business. The child or teen must be allowed to come out when they are comfortable and on their own terms.

We good then :)

HairyQueen posted...

There's no reason the school would need to mention the gender of the other student.

If it's an interaction where pregnancy could be a potential risk, I do think that is a valid reason for mentioning it to the parents. (More of a sex than gender thing, but still.)

But that presumably isn't exactly going to be an issue with the gay kids.

BobbaDukes posted...

Yeah, people use weighty words way too loosely these days.

It's accurate though. If you're doing for something for strictly moral reasons(not protecting anyone) and it could endanger them, that's abuse.

hockeybub89 posted...

"Actually, 10% of the time it might be warranted for the school" is not the fucking gotcha you think it is. Most queer kids aren't keeping having sex at school from their parents.

"But what if the school has to say something because the kid is flunking math because they're writing gay love letters on their tests instead of algebra answers?"

The risk of abuse is there. If the child isn't literally hurting themselves or their schoolwork with relation to their sexuality, then the school should not fucking say anything. Assume there is a reason their parents don't know.

Dude, for the last time, I'm not going for a "gotcha." Quite literally all I said was "not necessarily." And then you guys said "100% abuse."

Okay....?

There is risk to abuse in a lot of things, but going with the statement that it is always abuse is a shit take. Hence why my first post doesn't even have a C or D, but rather has "Not necessarily."

ejolson posted...

And that is harrassment, which is totally different than these bills that are out there where it is a teachers' duty to report even suspected homosexuality.

Which if you read the first post, it's :

C/D: Schools reporting to parents that their kid is gay/trans is abuse
The parents don't need to know unless the kid wants to tell them and it can put the kid in danger.

It does not mention the bills in question. As I was assuming that this was more of a societal question than a "let's talk about clearly discriminatory bills." If anything, it feels more like a "gotcha" from other people trying to say that I should immediately assume we are talking about the bills when... They weren't mentioned in the topic title. I guess that's my bad for reading the title and first post at face value?

ArtiRock posted...

Dude, for the last time, I'm not going for a "gotcha." Quite literally all I said was "not necessarily." Because you guys said "100% abuse."

Okay....?

There is risk to abuse in a lot of things, but going with the statement that it is always abuse is a shit take. Hence why my first post doesn't even have a C or D, but rather has "Not necessarily."

Which if you read the first post, it's :

It does not mention the bills in question. As I was assuming that this was more of a societal question than a "let's talk about clearly discriminatory bills." If anything, it feels more like a "gotcha" from other people trying to say that I should immediately assume we are talking about the bills when... They weren't mentioned in the topic title. I guess that's my bad for reading the title and first post at face value?

It is your fault for not being well read and engaged enough in current events to know where this may be coming from. This stuff is happening real time and people just wallow in their myopia.

ejolson posted...

It is your fault for not being well read and engaged enough in current events to know where this may be coming from. This stuff is happening real time and people just wallow in their myopia.

Christ dude. The fuck? I literally know about the bills. The topic doesn't sound like that was what it was talking about.

Like seriously people what in the bloody hell is wrong with you people? Clearly I just don't know about them because a topic doesn't address them within the title.

D, obvious obvious D

It is can and does lead to abuse, there is no good reason for schools to be outing kids

But it is obviously not abuse itself

ArtiRock posted...

Christ dude. The fuck? I literally know about the bills. The topic doesn't sound like that was what it was talking about.

Like seriously people what in the bloody hell is wrong with you people? Clearly I just don't know about them because a topic doesn't address them within the title.

There are two types of people in this world, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...

ejolson posted...

There are two types of people in this world, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...

Bad statement, because there's the other obvious option of "people that don't make assumptions."

ArtiRock posted...

Dude, for the last time, I'm not going for a "gotcha." Quite literally all I said was "not necessarily." And then you guys said "100% abuse."

Okay....?

There is risk to abuse in a lot of things, but going with the statement that it is always abuse is a shit take. Hence why my first post doesn't even have a C or D, but rather has "Not necessarily."

Which if you read the first post, it's :

It does not mention the bills in question. As I was assuming that this was more of a societal question than a "let's talk about clearly discriminatory bills." If anything, it feels more like a "gotcha" from other people trying to say that I should immediately assume we are talking about the bills when... They weren't mentioned in the topic title. I guess that's my bad for reading the title and first post at face value?

Because you're applying the opening post to very specific scenarios instead of the broad stroke that it was intended to be.

"What if a girl has sex at school with another girl"

"What if a boy sexually assaults his male classmates"

Those aren't simply cases of the school reporting that the kids are gay/trans because there is an incident that prompted the parent's involvement.

NoxObscuras posted...

Because you're applying the opening post to very specific scenarios instead of the broad stroke that it was intended to be.

"What if a girl has sex at school with another girl"

"What if a boy sexually assaults his male classmates"

Those aren't simply cases of the school reporting that the kids are gay/trans because there is an incident that prompted the parent's involvement.

Not to mention, those are also assumptions :-P. And, educated. logical thought progression is not assumption...

NoxObscuras posted...

Because you're applying the opening post to very specific scenarios instead of the broad stroke that it was intended to be.

"What if a girl has sex at school with another girl"

"What if a boy sexually assaults his male classmates"

Those aren't simply cases of the school reporting that the kids are gay/trans because there is an incident that prompted the parent's involvement.

Of which case, the response is still "not necessarily."

That's how universal statements work. If there are counterexamples to it, then that obviously means that making a broad statement is not for the best. There are sweeping statements that can easily be made that are wrong.

Having a bill that forces a school to report a child for being gay / trans is a wildly different story from "schools reporting to parents that their kid is gay/trans is abuse."

Like I'm not really understanding why me throwing out a hard C is met with vitriol. I'm not undecided on the bills, but in general? I'm not putting a C or D for because that is literally dependent on the situation.

ejolson posted...

Not to mention, those are also assumptions :-P

It's not. But of course, nothing stops a mad dog from snarling. Because you clearly didn't read what I had said. Reality isn't an assumption.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


As a parent who is engaged and who is actively raising their child. So many of the parental rights folks are not and never will be.

ArtiRock posted...

Of which case, the response is still "not necessarily."

That's how universal statements work. If there are counterexamples to it, then that obviously means that making a broad statement is not for the best. There are sweeping statements that can easily be made that are wrong.

Having a bill that forces a school to report a child for being gay / trans is a wildly different story from "schools reporting to parents that their kid is gay/trans is abuse."

Like I'm not really understanding why me throwing out a hard C is met with vitriol. I'm not undecided on the bills, but in general? I'm not putting a C or D for because that is literally dependent on the situation.

It's not. But of course, nothing stops a mad dog from snarling. Because you clearly didn't read what I had said. Reality isn't an assumption.

It definitely is an assumption. You say you know about the bills but don't put two and two together regarding the topic and the fact that it is the current events sub? Like come on man...why so dense?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It is however, more of an indicator of the direction that society is going.

ejolson posted...

It definitely is an assumption. You say you know about the bills but don't put two and two together regarding the topic and the fact that it is the current events sub? Like come on man...why so dense?

This literally is a post that actually doesn't make sense. "I didn't assume but I know the bills exist so I should assume that this topic is about the bills because I know they exist."

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Does not matter. I live in a red state and if I was a teacher, there is no way in hell I would tell the parents.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

See? I don't know, because you'd think since it's apparently addressing the bills it would be???

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I agree we shouln't either as I am in agreement that it should never happen. Unfortunately, the red/right amongst our society has basically brought those considerations upon themselves by their politics and behavior.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The topic. I'm lost as to what you're confused on.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I get what he's saying. As an absolute, the topic statement is technically incorrect, or one you should "deny". As there's a chance that a school "outing" a child to their parents could actually help the child by adding support they didn't know they had at home.

But it's also something the school has zero business doing.

Before the conversation went off the rails, I think the point he was trying to make that a school outing a child to their parents will not 100% lead to abuse or the family acting in a negative manner towards the child.

bigblu89 posted...

As an absolute, the topic statement is technically incorrect, or one you should "deny"

No, it isn't. End of story.

If you support schools outing kids you need to never work with kids.

The very idea is discriminatory and targets a highly vulnerable and marginalized minority to keep them in the closet and suppressed. Yes, this is a form of abuse and systemic discrimination.

It sends a very clear message to the students: if youre trans, you are not safe here and we dont respect you.

It's abuse of power. It's abuse of trust. And it's potentially enabling domestic abuse at home.

Abuse probably isn't the best word for it, but in the absence of anything better I'll say C. Too many parents aren't receptive to LGBT-ness still, so schools finding out and telling parents is at some point going to incur harm to the student.

RuneterranSnap posted...

No, it isn't. End of story.

If you support schools outing kids you need to never work with kids.

That statement above and the statement in the topic title are two different statements though.

I 100% agree with you that a school has no business outing a child to their parents.

But you can't say that with certainty that a school outing a child to a parent will have a negative affect on the child, so much so that it could be considered abuse.

That's like saying "getting hit with a baseball hurts" is a 100% absolute, when there's 100 variables that can have someone come to a different conclusion.

bigblu89 posted...

That statement above and the statement in the topic title are two different statements though.

I 100% agree with you that a school has no business outing a child to their parents.

But you can't say that with certainty that a school outing a child to a parent will have a negative affect on the child, so much so that it could be considered abuse.

That's like saying "getting hit with a baseball hurts" is a 100% absolute, when there's 100 variables that can have someone come to a different conclusion.

As a policy, it will 100% lead to harm to students. Just because one kid got lucky doesnt meant the next one will too

CSCA33 posted...

As a policy, it will 100% lead to harm to students. Just because one kid got lucky doesnt meant the next one will too

It will lead to harm to SOME student. One could argue an overwhelming majority. Which is why I said:

bigblu89 posted...

I 100% agree with you that a school has no business outing a child to their parents.

BUT...

It will not be detrimental 100% of the time. That's all I'm saying.

AloneIBreak posted...

Abuse probably isn't the best word for it, but in the absence of anything better I'll say C. Too many parents aren't receptive to LGBT-ness still, so schools finding out and telling parents is at some point going to incur harm to the student.

This is how I feel. There's gotta be a better word for it.

HairyQueen posted...

It's abuse of power. It's abuse of trust. And it's potentially enabling domestic abuse at home.

Very much this^

bigblu89 posted...

It will not be detrimental 100% of the time. That's all I'm saying.

Nobody in this topic is saying it will be harmful 100% of the time. Stop wasting everyone's time. You are arguing against something that nobody is saying. You and that other user are so hyperfocused on your pedantry that you're coming across much much worse than you realize.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

AGAIN, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

BUT...

There could be cases where outing a child could help them.

I STILL 100% AGREE THAT SCHOOLS HAVE ZERO BUSINESS OUTING A CHILD TO THEIR PARENTS, OR ANYONE ELSE.

bigblu89 posted...

It will lead to harm to SOME student. One could argue an overwhelming majority. Which is why I said:

BUT...

It will not be detrimental 100% of the time. That's all I'm saying.

You shoot somone in the head, they're not gonna die 100% of the time, all I'm saying.

HairyQueen posted...

Nobody in this topic is saying it will be harmful 100% of the time. Stop wasting everyone's time. You are arguing against something that nobody is saying. You and that other user are so hyperfocused on your pedantry that you're coming across much much worse than you realize.

OK. You're right.

I'm done.

Goodbye.

LordRazziel posted...

You shoot somone in the head, they're not gonna die 100% of the time, all I'm saying.

https://www.wistv.com/story/6717639/fl-man-wakes-with-headache-finds-bullet-in-his-head/