US Politics XXXVII: hiiiii Kevin, I’m your biggest fan!

[Hewson]

I wish guns had vaginas.

Or perhaps we should arm all vaginas with guns.

 

[Hewson]

It looks like state standards vary a ton across the country. Via parents.com:

California seems to mandate 7th grade (or earlier depending on local decisions).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...n=4.&title=2.&part=28.&chapter=5.6.&article=2.

I don't think sex ed has much to do a with the bill in Florida.
You're conflating 2 different issues.
It restricts "health education" (which is far broader than sex education, includes a whole variety of things including the dangers of smoking and the like) and also prohibits girls from asking questions about menstruation. It's archaic.

 

[Bluer White]

Oh, I get the distinction you and MrsS are making. Here's the full link to the parents.com snippet I posted earlier. It's much more in context with the Florida House bill, than the California legislation link posted.

https://www.parents.com/kids/education/sex-education-in-schools-heres-what-your-kid-is-learning/

By the way I'm not in favor of the FL House bill as it's being described either.

 

[Irvine511]

sort of along these lines, it's easy to see the GOP -- especially if DeSantis is the nominee, even if he probably won't be -- run in 2024 along the lines of "parental rights." it really gets the socially conservative base whipped up in a frenzy, ready to shoot cans of bud light with their AR-15's. it's at the core of "don't say gay" and the anti-drag bills and the "don't say period" bills in numerous former slave states.

here's an analysis and dissent:

The “parental rights” movement is not new, but it is enjoying a resurgence. Adherents say they’re protecting children from harm, broadly defined. After an art teacher at a Florida charter school showed students a picture of Michelangelo’s David, parental complaints forced out the principal. Members of Moms for Liberty call for book bans across the country; books with LGBT content are at special risk of removal. The architects of state bans on gender-affirming care for minors say, falsely, that children are at risk from predatory physicians and activists. A “gender cult” destroys families, claimed conservative commentator Matt Walsh. “The child they held as a baby and raised and gave their lives to and loved and still love becomes, suddenly, unrecognizable,” he said. “I would rather be dead than have that happen to my kids.” The real sin isn’t that trans youth will suffer but that the parental grip might loosen.

Conservative interest in the child extends beyond a traditional hostility to LGBT people. In March, Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Republican, signed a bill into law that makes it easier for companies to hire children under 16 years old. More states may follow, as Terri Gerstein, the director of the Harvard Law School Labor and Worklife Program’s State and Local Enforcement Project, pointed out in the New York Times. Bills that would allow “14- and 15-year-olds to work in meatpacking plants and other dangerous jobs in Iowa as part of training programs and 16- and 17-year-olds to take jobs at construction sites in Minnesota are under consideration,” Gerstein wrote, noting that the bills coincide with a rise in dangerous child-labor violations. Not long after Republicans sought to put more children to work in Arkansas, Republicans in North Dakota killed a bill that would have expanded a free-lunch program for children from low-income families. “I can understand kids going hungry, but is that really the problem of the school district? Is that the problem of the state of North Dakota? It’s really a problem of parents being negligent with their kids,” said State Senator Mike Wobbema. His message was clear enough. A hungry child is not a collective responsibility but a private failing on the part of the parents.

It’s possible to draw a line between Wobbema’s remarks, the push for child labor, and the right’s attacks on trans children. In each case, conservatives betray a conviction that a child is the property of parents. Because parents own their children, they can dispose of the child as they see fit. They can deny them evidence-based medical care. They can put a child to work. They can make sure a child is sheltered from the dangers of a serious education. When a child goes hungry, that’s because a parent isn’t caring for their property — and what a person does with their property is their right.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/children-are-not-property.html#comments

what say you, parents? should you be informed if your child dresses in the opposite gender at school unbeknownst to you? if your child kisses someone of the same sex in the high school hallways? gets an abortion? wants puberty blockers?

it's safe to say that almost all parents want what's best for their children ... but how much authority do/should parents have over their children? where is the line drawn? do you have the right to withhold potentially life-saving knowledge from your children? medical care? do pull them out of art history classes when nudity might be present? do shield them from exposure to walks of life you might abhor? to make them go to work when they are 13?

where do your rights end and your child's rights begin?

 

[Hewson]

what say you, parents? should you be informed if your child dresses in the opposite gender at school unbeknownst to you? if your child kisses someone of the same sex in the high school hallways? gets an abortion? wants puberty blockers?

it's safe to say that almost all parents want what's best for their children ... but how much authority do/should parents have over their children? where is the line drawn? do you have the right to withhold potentially life-saving knowledge from your children? medical care? do pull them out of art history classes when nudity might be present? do shield them from exposure to walks of life you might abhor? to make them go to work when they are 13?

where do your rights end and your child's rights begin?

Simply put, if the child is a minor, then yes the parents should be informed of most things. Especially something like puberty blockers or anything medical. That's an absolute. Parent and child can then discuss things and make informed decisions together.

As for stuff like pulling them from art history or similar...a bit of a grayer area, but parents should be informed. My kid had a couple times when they would show R rated movies in school (something to do with the curriculum, usually a historical film, he also took AP Spanish and had a monthly Spanish language movie night)before the kids were 17 and a permission slip was sent home (and we signed no problem), same for when he was taking health (not sex ed BW) class in both middle school and as a sophomore in high school. Letter explaining curriculum and permission slip sent home. Permission slip signed and returned.
If a parent has any objection (usually religious belief, but whatever their reason), then yes they should be able to opt out of certain things for their child. Might not please the child, but they should have the option. Most parents would be fine with their high school age kids seeing David images in art. There will be a percentage who won't but if the child is underage, they should retain the right to make that decision. If the kid has turned 18, different story.

 

[Irvine511]

If a child dresses differently at school and/or asks to go by a different name, should parents be informed? What if a kid asks for them not to be informed?

Should parents be able to op their kid out of any content — let’s say literature — on the basis of, say, queer content? Of if, say, books written by black authors make their white child feel uncomfortable/guilty?

What becomes a legitimate basis for parental objection? Is it nothing more than “because I say so”?

 

[Irvine511]

And is “parental rights” an effective political strategy?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think it clearly works as a political strategy. The irony is truly sick though, considering the fact that kids don't even have the right to be safe in schools any more. Especially in Florida which is now permitless carry.

But get those parents all riled up about books, gay people, transgender people, Nike, Bud Light, and whatever else.

Othering people for the sake of fear mongering for personal gain is disgusting. See also Donald Trump, sure works for him. It's so manipulative and it's scary how many people fall for it.

 

[Bluer White]

Simply put, if the child is a minor, then yes the parents should be informed of most things. Especially something like puberty blockers or anything medical. That's an absolute. Parent and child can then discuss things and make informed decisions together.

As for stuff like pulling them from art history or similar...a bit of a grayer area, but parents should be informed. My kid had a couple times when they would show R rated movies in school (something to do with the curriculum, usually a historical film, he also took AP Spanish and had a monthly Spanish language movie night)before the kids were 17 and a permission slip was sent home (and we signed no problem), same for when he was taking health (not sex ed BW) class in both middle school and as a sophomore in high school. Letter explaining curriculum and permission slip sent home. Permission slip signed and returned.
If a parent has any objection (usually religious belief, but whatever their reason), then yes they should be able to opt out of certain things for their child. Might not please the child, but they should have the option. Most parents would be fine with their high school age kids seeing David images in art. There will be a percentage who won't but if the child is underage, they should retain the right to make that decision. If the kid has turned 18, different story.

Very well said. And obviously not a political strategy in there.

The discussion of where the line should be drawn for parental rights is a very good one, and won't ever end. It shouldn't end.

Never going to be a perfect system across every state.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think a high schooler getting a permission slip to watch a rates R movie is a bit ridiculous, and the notion that any entity could stop them (parent or not) is ridiculous. We draw lines where we have to, not where we want to.

Some people aren’t adults until they’re like 25 these days. Others have their shit figured out at 16. We choose 18 to draw a line, but that arbitrary line is still arbitrary, and what we use it for is the debate.

I think a lot of this is predicated on the idea that the parent knows what’s good for the child. That’s sometimes true, sometimes not. As you get closer to that arbitrary line, you should probably be developing some level of independence.

Now… where I think the parent is absolutely in the right is “my house, my rules.” As in, if the parent thinks something along the lines of “you can’t play video games here,” well, the home is a shared space and the parent is the one responsible for it. Anyways, don’t misconstrue this. The age to see a rated R movie is 17 and not 18, and I think things like that should be more common.

We don’t really have a recipe for success for the transition from childhood to adulthood in this country. There’s generally a societal “all or nothing” with going to college. We don’t prepare people in advance and guide them. We make them commit their financial lives before they’re mature enough to do so. The worst part about that (student loans) is how much the parent comes into play AFTER the child turns 18. One thing I could never get passed was how an 18-22 year old in undergrad is expected to report their parents’ income on their FAFSA, and that determines if they get federal student financial aid, yet that parent has no legal obligation to support the child anymore (and “they don’t want to” isn’t grounds for adultchild emancipation in this process).

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

“Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime. And he told the truth about troops being on the ground in Ukraine and a lot more,” Greene, a member of the Homeland Security Committee,*said on Twitter. "Ask yourself who is the real enemy?”

 

[LuckyNumber7]

just remember all the conversation about presidential mishandling of classified documents as you watch this case play out. While it’s not the same thing (as this appears to be a case of ego and obvious, clear cut intent), just remember, this guy was immediately arrested and is due felony charges.

At the very least, idiotic handling combined with dishonesty gets you fired from your job 100% of the time.

 

[Hewson]

I think a high schooler getting a permission slip to watch a rates R movie is a bit ridiculous, and the notion that any entity could stop them (parent or not) is ridiculous. We draw lines where we have to, not where we want to.

Anyways, don’t misconstrue this. The age to see a rated R movie is 17 and not 18, and I think things like that should be more common.

.

My example was from when my son was 14 years old, they watched a couple R rated movies for his history class freshman year. ( I specifically remember Mississippi Burning being one and having a discussion with my son about the movie and its subject matter afterwards) I don't see any issue with getting permission from parents to show movies which are intended for 17 and older to 14 & 15 year olds. Not "ridiculous", just common sense to let parents know. None of the kids were denied permission and removed from the room, but you still need to alert parents when kids are that age.

 

[Hewson]

“Jake Teixeira is white, male, christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime. And he told the truth about troops being on the ground in Ukraine and a lot more,” Greene, a member of the Homeland Security Committee,*said on Twitter. "Ask yourself who is the real enemy?”

The real enemy is pretty clear, and her initials are MTG.

 

[Irvine511]

I think puberty blockers aren’t going to happen without parents, since that’s health care — but social transition or being out at school is different. Should schools have to tell parents that their child goes by a different name at school.

When I was in high school, there were a group of kids who didn’t want to watch “Cuckoo’s Nest” in psych because of the language. I guess that was fine — they did an alternate assignment. That was student initiated.

Needing a permission slip to look at renaissance sculpture and painting seems insane. Like John Ashcroft covering up bare-breasted statues.

But everyone gets an AR-15.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Everyone gets an AR15 underage illegally and gets to travel across state lines to create a circumstance of armed conflict

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I remember needing a permission slip to watch a documentary about the Holocaust, can't remember if it was in junior high or high school. It was quite graphic in terms of actual footage, just as it should be. That documentary had such an impact on me. It's completely different than reading about the Holocaust in history books.

Of course these days some people don't even want kids to be taught about the Holocaust in school, and that is frightening.

When I worked in an elementary school a few years ago there was a male student who wore dresses to school. I don't know if all parents were informed, and I don't see why they would need to be? As far as how it would affect their kids, well I imagine some kids might have questions? It's an opportunity for parents to be involved in teaching their kids acceptance of others who aren't exactly like them, and I think that should be done by parents at home at a young age. In school, in college, in the workplace it's a necessary skill. You're not going to live in a homogeneous bubble world.

As staff we were told just that he was a boy who dressed that way and the school and other students just treated him like every other kid. I know nothing about what bathroom he used or any such thing, that's one of the usual outrage/faux outrage issues.

All I ever witnessed was that he was such a well behaved and polite child and I didn't witness any inappropriate behavior towards him. If I had it would have been part of my job to report it, same as any other inappropriate behavior.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I believe parents should be made aware of what is happening with their children at school. Yes - including if they're going by a different name or identity. A parent has a right to know what their children are doing, and what they're being taught.

They do not, however, have a right to dictate what the curriculum is.

If you'd prefer a different curriculum, do your research on the type of private school that aligns with your beliefs, and send your kid there. But even then - the curriculum is decided by the school. It can be shared in advance so there's no questions, but parents can't be meddling in the day to day curriculum of education. That's insanity.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I believe parents should be made aware of what is happening with their children at school. Yes - including if they're going by a different name or identity. A parent has a right to know what their children are doing, and what they're being taught.

They do not, however, have a right to dictate what the curriculum is.

If you'd prefer a different curriculum, do your research on the type of private school that aligns with your beliefs, and send your kid there. But even then - the curriculum is decided by the school. It can be shared in advance so there's no questions, but parents can't be meddling in the day to day curriculum of education. That's insanity.

If your 9 year old is going by a different name? Sure.

If your 16 year old is going by a different name? I don’t know. It sounds all well in good when you’re a good parent and you provide a good home for your child, but that’s not every parent. Some people need freedom of expression at school to escape their homes. There needs to be some age at which you let go of some oversight.

Example: at some age you stop seeing your child naked. They are granted privacy and independence in the bathroom.

At some point (not 18) that child is (or should be) developing independence and identity and that shouldn’t be stifled.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If your 9 year old is going by a different name? Sure.

If your 16 year old is going by a different name? I don’t know. It sounds all well in good when you’re a good parent and you provide a good home for your child, but that’s not every parent. Some people need freedom of expression at school to escape their homes. There needs to be some age at which you let go of some oversight.

Example: at some age you stop seeing your child naked. They are granted privacy and independence in the bathroom.

At some point (not 18) that child is (or should be) developing independence and identity and that shouldn’t be stifled.

i'm very onboard with parenting towards independence. probably more so than my wife - but that's another conversation for another day.

i get what you're saying - but at the same time - i feel like there will always be some level of oversight - even beyond 18.

if my child is going through something like this - i'd like to know, so i can help them. and let's be real - i'd probably already have an idea. there's also the increased danger that is unfortunately still associated with LGBTQ+ teens - risk of abuse, risk of physical violence, higher risk of suicide. these are things a parent should be aware of. so yes - i think a parent should be informed.

now there are also issues where it's being hidden from a parent because of an abuse situation. if there's a fear of abuse at home - no matter the circumstances - there should be a conversation had between the school, the parents, and the appropriate authorities.

 

[mikal]

if my child is going through something like this - i'd like to know, so i can help them. and let's be real - i'd probably already have an idea. there's also the increased danger that is unfortunately still associated with LGBTQ+ teens - risk of abuse, risk of physical violence, higher risk of suicide. these are things a parent should be aware of. so yes - i think a parent should be informed.

This is why I'd still like to be informed all they up to them being 18.

 

[iron yuppie]

At some point (not 18) that child is (or should be) developing independence and identity and that shouldn’t be stifled.

Agreed with this. Where I work, the student has the opportunity to state how they want to be identified at school and how they want to be identified to their parents - so if they are not out yet at home, faculty don't accidentally reveal it in communication with families. And that's the right policy. How someone comes out to family members is their own choice and no one else's.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I can see the argument - but let's be honest here. Unless the parent is completely absent in their parenting? If the child is identifying as female at school and male at home? The parents are going to find out, and in relatively short order.

I think there can be exceptions carved out here for guidance counselors or school psychiatrists

 

[Irvine511]

Unfortunately, not all parents are safe.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Unfortunately, not all parents are safe.

well - part of the duty of teachers/guidance counselors/etc. is to identify children who are being abused at home. they receive this training regularly for a reason. it's honestly not foolproof - but it is lightyears better than when we were young.

i get that there are no easy answers here. but as long as the parent is the legal guardian they do have a right to know what is going on with their child.

they do not have a right to dictate what teachers are teaching in the classroom, especially in public schools. they do, however, have the right to move the child to a school of their choosing - provided they can afford it.

 

[mikal]

I can see the argument - but let's be honest here. Unless the parent is completely absent in their parenting? If the child is identifying as female at school and male at home? The parents are going to find out, and in relatively short order.

I think there can be exceptions carved out here for guidance counselors or school psychiatrists

The signs are usually pretty obvious at home. For example, my 1 year old dog chooses to only hump me and he chose a princess blanket at home. I'm not going to turn a blind eye and wait for a call from his boarding/daycare. I love him no matter what he chooses.

 

[BEAL]

I think puberty blockers aren’t going to happen without parents, since that’s health care — but social transition or being out at school is different. Should schools have to tell parents that their child goes by a different name at school.

When I was in high school, there were a group of kids who didn’t want to watch “Cuckoo’s Nest” in psych because of the language. I guess that was fine — they did an alternate assignment. That was student initiated.

Needing a permission slip to look at renaissance sculpture and painting seems insane. Like John Ashcroft covering up bare-breasted statues.

But everyone gets an AR-15.

Everyone but the transgenders

https://twitter.com/alex_roarty/status/1646964809529806856?s=46&t=7qdYZNgiKjw76N1iFrMMAw

 

[Irvine511]

Is Trump going to investigate straight white middle aged men taking T as well? Or just trans men.

 

[clerks]

He's not going to do anything he says.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

In other news, today I learned Interference is banned on Qatar Airways.



So insecure