Teachers will be forced to tell parents that their child is questioning their gender even if the young person objects under new guidance for schools in England, the equalities minister has indicated.
Teachers will be forced to tell parents that their child is questioning their gender even if the young person objects under new guidance for schools in England, the equalities minister has indicated.
I responded to this statement.
You’re telling me that this statement doesn’t mention children losing access to their homes?
Come on, man.
You should learn to read your own words. As a direct reply to that person, you said:
You literally say in this comment that what you were saying to me is that “we should invest in professional to help out the homeless”.
Tell me in what universe that doesn’t interprete as you having already made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless than let a teacher have discretion of a safeguarding agent.
You said the kids will be homeless.
I responded saying that there should be programs for that.
I used your scenario, and responded to it. That’s how conversations work.
You’re trolling or literally haven’t read a word I typed. If you didn’t understand that I literally wrote that there should be social programs to help homeless youth, you seriously need some reading help.
The scenario I made is that there are kids who could be made homeless via this law.
I was heavily implying that it is a dangerous downstream ramification of that law, and is a reason to not have a law like that which forces universal non-discretion.
Rather than say something like “oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn’t enact laws that will potentially render children homeless”
You basically said “whelp, they’re going to be homeless, we should invest in programs that help the homeless”
You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.
This is why I said you were so attached to that idea that you’d already discounted the idea of safeguarding and discretion to prevent them from being homeless, because you did, possibly without even realising it.
It isn’t me reading too deep or not enough, it’s literally the first thing you said.
Again, read your own words, or at the very least read mine FFS.
I responded that we should improve programs to help the youth.
I understand the problem you’re presenting, because I have empathy. You not understanding that it’s severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don’t have empathy. I understand your side and have a different way of wanting to deal with it that avoids the problems I see with government employees having side secrets with my 8 year old.
You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.
Well that’s certainly an accusation.
Are you sure about that, as you don’t seem to empathise with the idea that most children do not cope well with losing their home, and that not losing their home is the ideal solution.
It’s not about just having a “side secret”. It’s about rendering a safe space where children don’t feel afraid of being who they are, when they don’t have that option at home.
Bare in mind that this isn’t even about direct disclosures. Every teacher would be obligated to report, so the child even acknowledging that fact anywhere in the school could be enough.
It makes it much easier for the teachers/school to offer resources to that child when that child isn’t actively afraid of disclosing that information.
Even in the majority of situations where the parents aren’t potentially abusive, it could even just allow the child to not be forcibly ousted until they’re ready or more certain of their mindset.
Key word in that was might.
In your world you dealt with it by rendering them homeless then picking up the pieces afterwards. That’s the worst outcome, at least in my mind.
You’ve shown it.
Once again, you have a presumption of parental evilness in every scenario. I showed in my last message how to tackle this problem without involving teachers and going outside their scope.
It literally is. If your child became religious and had meetings every day with a pastor for a few hours and the pastor wouldn’t tell you what they talked about, are you comfortable with that?
So you don’t trust organizations set up to deal with youth homelessness, you also think that should be a burden on the teachers?
Come on man, what the hell are you even saying.
I’m the one defending + kids from being made homeless, you’re defending parents spying on their kids.
If this were something criminally liable, jailable, that sort of thing, I’d see where you’re coming from. But I’m certainly not comfortable with the idea of any children, even if it were only a handful being rendered homeless for the sake of their parent’s identity politics.
Because the parents who would use this information for abuse are the ones I (and many others in this thread) are worried this law will empower.
And I’m rather bothered that your solution is to throw up your hands and say “nothing we could’ve done” while throwing the child into the frying pan, then letting the authorities know once they’ve already been burnt.
Considering the general reputation of priests for child molestation, I wouldn’t be comfortable with my child meeting everyday with them anyway.
But that aside, you understand it wouldn’t just be the teacher(s) involved, there are other steps to safeguarding resources if the child needed them, teachers are just the first step.
Again, you’re acting as though the child and teacher are having constant secret 1 on 1 sessions, where the teacher is telling your child what to do. The reality of the matter is that teachers are the first step in safeguarding, and if they find this information out, it would be their job to refer the child to relevant resources, or even to a school therapist.
You’re the one who wants to burden teachers by forcing them have to reveal sensitive information that they know could lead to abuse. No teacher wants to be up at night thinking they could be directly responsible for introducing a child into an abusive situation.
That’s such a disingenuous question.
Of course I trust there are good organisations to help with homelessness, but that’s not the point.
If there’s an option to not let it get to the point of needing to rely on those organisations, then we should do just that. If that means giving a teacher (and their school) the right not to disclose sensitive information to parents they suspect may abuse it, I’m comfortable with that.
I’m saying your approach is callous. Willing to put children into abusive situations for the sake of satisfying helicopter parents who think surveillance is a better solution than building up a trusting home environment.