Maine School Social Worker Secretly Gender-Transitioned 13-Year-Old Girl with Chest binder to flatten her breast.

[Valcazar]

This thread has gone beyond that incident, it's become a discussion about principle, whether parents should be informed or not.

Yes, I saw, which is why I am asking what principle people are supporting here.
Because it really seems the principle being supported is "parents have 100% control of their children's lives and decisions and the school's responsibility is to snitch on the kids to the parents and never go against a parents' wishes. There is no situation or circumstance that ever justifies not telling the parent everything."

I think that is an insane standard and I would like to think that is not what people are advocating.

 

[Valcazar]

Funny, in every post by you and toguy, the only consideration you give is to the child's right to privacy, the board's policy and defending the counselor.

Not once have the parents rights or their position been considered, not once.
Tells you everything about this agenda.
It's obvious you guys don't have kids, you have this hyper idealized view of younger kids and relationships that doesn't exist in the best of families. You have no clue and you want to jam your nonsense down every one else's throat.
You're turning parents into the adversary and isolating their kids from them and you wonder why there's an anti Trans push back.
Grow the fuck up.

You just said in the post before this one that this discussion was not about the specific incident anymore.
If you want to argue in this case the school fucked up argue that.
The problem is we have no good evidence of what actually happened in this case.
We only have an angry mom saying it was a conspiracy to groom her child and keep her in the dark.

Frank and toguy say that yes, there is room for policy in which a parent isn't told about something by a counselor and a school.
You seem to be arguing that no, there is never a circumstance in which that is true. Or maybe you are arguing only that when it comes to sexuality or identity, there is never a circumstance where that is true.

 

[Valcazar]

I believe most people accept the fact of sexual diversity but again, you're choosing to distract from the core issue of this discussion - whether parents/guardians should be informed of transitioning issues, dialogue, counseling, medical treatment with underage children.

OK - again.
Do you mean by this that there are no circumstances in which parents should not be informed or do you mean "the usual situation is that they should be informed"?

Because I don't think a single fucking person thinks parents should never be informed.

 

[Valcazar]

But with what due process does it makes it ok the violate a parents right to at least know when they inquire? A guardian of a child should be able to have information when they request it.

The manipulation of the law is being done here. They are not having neutral conversations with children. They are grooming them and hiding behind the law when the child reveals what is happening to the parent.

Ahh, and here we go with the "they are grooming" narrative.

Like I said earlier, that this is being framed specifically for the "The Evil Trans are Coming for Your Children with the Help of the Woke Elite" (probably the WEF or the Jews) isn't an accident.

Notice this article coming out at almost exactly the same time, but the other side of the country.

A Washington mom claims her school tried to ‘transition’ her ten-year-old daughter behind her back

A mother said her daughter was in “fifth grade” when the school therapist began secretly convincing her 10-year-old to “transition” into a new life as a boy.

www.foxnews.com

Read between the lines in that one, btw, and you might understand why I am very suspicious of the "they are refusing to talk to the parents and grooming the children" narrative.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

We don't know what happened.
We have what the mom said happened in that event and her demand that most of the administration be fired.

Very few facts are known here.



We don't know if anything you just said is true.

Are you willing to say that all claims from the parent is false?

 

[curr3n_c1000]

Ahh, and here we go with the "they are grooming" narrative.

Like I said earlier, that this is being framed specifically for the "The Evil Trans are Coming for Your Children with the Help of the Woke Elite" (probably the WEF or the Jews) isn't an accident.

Notice this article coming out at almost exactly the same time, but the other side of the country.

A Washington mom claims her school tried to ‘transition’ her ten-year-old daughter behind her back

A mother said her daughter was in “fifth grade” when the school therapist began secretly convincing her 10-year-old to “transition” into a new life as a boy.

www.foxnews.com

Read between the lines in that one, btw, and you might understand why I am very suspicious of the "they are refusing to talk to the parents and grooming the children" narrative.

I suggest you look up the word Grooming and get the real meaning. Then work from there.

You need to look in the mirror and say to yourself "read between the lines". The law is using children as a proxy to protect themselves.

Even when a child reveals the activities and waves their right to privacy, the school still will not release the information. This is not about child privacy, it about schools protecting themselves.

 

[toguy5252]

I suggest you look up the word Grooming and get the real meaning. Then work from there.

You need to look in the mirror and say to yourself "read between the lines". The law is using children as a proxy to protect themselves.

Even when a child reveals the activities and waves their right to privacy, the school still will not release the information. This is not about child privacy, it about schools protecting themselves.

Absurd.

 

[Valcazar]

Are you willing to say that all claims from the parent is false?

Why would I say that?
We don't know what happened.
I doubt very much every claim is false.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there wasn't a binder involved, for instance, or that the mother pulled the daughter from the school.

But we don't really have very good reason to believe that the parent's version of events is the whole truth, even if she isn't making things up out of nothing.

We just went through this exact same kind of thing with the "CRT panic", where parents told impassioned stories that were still mostly bullshit.

I suggest you look up the word Grooming and get the real meaning. Then work from there.

Why? You clearly don't want to use it according to its real meaning, so how is that going to help your discussion here?

You need to look in the mirror and say to yourself "read between the lines". The law is using children as a proxy to protect themselves.

You didn't read that second article at all, did you?

Even when a child reveals the activities and waves their right to privacy, the school still will not release the information.

Evidence for that?
Nothing like that is said in the video in the original post or either of the articles posted about the incident.
The mother demands the records, but there is nothing about the child waiving their right to privacy.
Where are you getting that from?

This is not about child privacy, it about schools protecting themselves.

Wait - is the debate you want now about whether and when counselor records should be sealed?

 

[curr3n_c1000]

I doubt very much every claim is false.

Well why is that?

 

[mellowjello]

You just said in the post before this one that this discussion was not about the specific incident anymore.
If you want to argue in this case the school fucked up argue that.
The problem is we have no good evidence of what actually happened in this case.
We only have an angry mom saying it was a conspiracy to groom her child and keep her in the dark.

Frank and toguy say that yes, there is room for policy in which a parent isn't told about something by a counselor and a school.
You seem to be arguing that no, there is never a circumstance in which that is true. Or maybe you are arguing only that when it comes to sexuality or identity, there is never a circumstance where that is true.

I think Frank and toguy can speak for themselves. They've made their positions very clear and that's what I responded to. Not sure why your intervening.

 

[mellowjello]

You just said in the post before this one that this discussion was not about the specific incident anymore.
If you want to argue in this case the school fucked up argue that.
The problem is we have no good evidence of what actually happened in this case.
We only have an angry mom saying it was a conspiracy to groom her child and keep her in the dark.

Frank and toguy say that yes, there is room for policy in which a parent isn't told about something by a counselor and a school.
You seem to be arguing that no, there is never a circumstance in which that is true. Or maybe you are arguing only that when it comes to sexuality or identity, there is never a circumstance where that is true.

Looks like your reading is selective. If you go back it should be clear, I'm not about to rehash with you.

 

[mellowjello]

Yes, I saw, which is why I am asking what principle people are supporting here.
Because it really seems the principle being supported is "parents have 100% control of their children's lives and decisions and the school's responsibility is to snitch on the kids to the parents and never go against a parents' wishes. There is no situation or circumstance that ever justifies not telling the parent everything."

I think that is an insane standard and I would like to think that is not what people are advocating.

.... snitching on kids to their parents? What are you in grade 6?

 

[curr3n_c1000]

Why? You clearly don't want to use it according to its real meaning, so how is that going to help your discussion here?

You didn't read that second article at all, did you?

Evidence for that?
Nothing like that is said in the video in the original post or either of the articles posted about the incident.
The mother demands the records, but there is nothing about the child waiving their right to privacy.
Where are you getting that from?



Wait - is the debate you want now about whether and when counselor records should be sealed?

You made a the claim "The Evil Trans are Coming for Your Children with the Help of the Woke Elite" because of my Grooming comment. I don't believe they are evil, just in this instance they are manipulative and self-serving.

I don't need to read the article. What do I need to know?

The child has spoken to the mother. Their is no privacy on the situation anymore. Are you agreeing that if the child and mother is on the same page, the information can be shared. Or does the school still have to uphold the policy?

My overall stance is there is no Due process to any of this. It's unconstitutional on the top level and unethical on the bottom. The only integrity in this practice is the part where they keep it hidden from the parent. It's basically "We're Transgender, we can do what we want.".

And Sam Roy was listed as a Social Worker, not a Counsellor. Until you show me anything that said he was a counsellor, please refer to him as a social worker.

 

[krealtarron]

And Sam Roy was listed as a Social Worker, not a Counsellor. Until you show me anything that said he was a counsellor, please refer to him as a social worker.

Its their attempt to give this college kid credibility.

 

[Valcazar]

Well why is that?

Because she comes across as someone angry and hurt and not someone who is making up a fictitious child that doesn't exist.

 

[Valcazar]

I think Frank and toguy can speak for themselves. They've made their positions very clear and that's what I responded to. Not sure why your intervening.

I'm intervening because people are throwing around lots of absolutist language and I don't think people actually have those absolutist positions.

Hence I am asking you (and Frank and toguy) as well to actually articulate your position and confirm or deny the absolutist position you seem to be expressing.

Looks like your reading is selective. If you go back it should be clear, I'm not about to rehash with you.

It really isn't clear to me, which is why I am asking you to articulate it simply.

You made a the claim "The Evil Trans are Coming for Your Children with the Help of the Woke Elite" because of my Grooming comment. I don't believe they are evil, just in this instance they are manipulative and self-serving.

I don't need to read the article. What do I need to know?

You need to know that this is an article about a different mother and a different child with a very similar story.
Do you not find that relevant?

The child has spoken to the mother. Their is no privacy on the situation anymore.

That's nonsense.
Did the child waive their privacy rights?
Did the child say "yes, I want my conversations with my social worker/counselor released to my parents"?
Maybe they did, but I have seen no evidence for it.
Are you literally saying that the child confirming the binder was given to them by the counselor means the child has waived their privacy rights?

Are you agreeing that if the child and mother is on the same page, the information can be shared. Or does the school still have to uphold the policy?

I think that if the child and parent both want the information to be shared, the school would be hard pressed to deny them.
I'm assuming we are talking about the formal notes about decisions made and why and so on.
If we are talking about the individual recordings of the sessions and so on, that might be dicier. (Again, if there is a united front about it and an accusation of unethical behavior that can be resolved by looking at them I would probably advocate for them to be released.)

My overall stance is there is no Due process to any of this.

What do you think "due process" means here?
Or are you saying that the school should be denied due process in this case?

It's unconstitutional on the top level and unethical on the bottom.

How is this "unconstitutional"?
I get that you think a decision about gender identity not involving the parents is unethical.
Again, I ask you to say how far that principle goes - do you believe all decisions made by a school are unethical if they don't involve the parent or do you believe there are decisions and actions that a school can take where not informing the parents would be ethical?

The only integrity in this practice is the part where they keep it hidden from the parent. It's basically "We're Transgender, we can do what we want."

Wait, what?
You think the school or Roy or whatever is relying on some sort of "Transgender people owe nothing to Cis people" principle here?

And Sam Roy was listed as a Social Worker, not a Counsellor. Until you show me anything that said he was a counsellor, please refer to him as a social worker.

My understanding is that the mother has asked for the notes of the sessions involving the previous counselor as well as Roy and that Roy was acting under the terms of a position as counselor.

If you think it is relevant that I call him social worker, sure, but I don't see much difference here unless you want to say that the license imparts specific privileges that the school is relying on that should not apply here.

 

[mellowjello]

I'm intervening because people are throwing around lots of absolutist language and I don't think people actually have those absolutist positions.

Hence I am asking you (and Frank and toguy) as well to actually articulate your position and confirm or deny the absolutist position you seem to be expressing.



It really isn't clear to me, which is why I am asking you to articulate it simply.



You need to know that this is an article about a different mother and a different child with a very similar story.
Do you not find that relevant?



That's nonsense.
Did the child waive their privacy rights?
Did the child say "yes, I want my conversations with my social worker/counselor released to my parents"?
Maybe they did, but I have seen no evidence for it.
Are you literally saying that the child confirming the binder was given to them by the counselor means the child has waived their privacy rights?



I think that if the child and parent both want the information to be shared, the school would be hard pressed to deny them.
I'm assuming we are talking about the formal notes about decisions made and why and so on.
If we are talking about the individual recordings of the sessions and so on, that might be dicier. (Again, if there is a united front about it and an accusation of unethical behavior that can be resolved by looking at them I would probably advocate for them to be released.)



What do you think "due process" means here?
Or are you saying that the school should be denied due process in this case?



How is this "unconstitutional"?
I get that you think a decision about gender identity not involving the parents is unethical.
Again, I ask you to say how far that principle goes - do you believe all decisions made by a school are unethical if they don't involve the parent or do you believe there are decisions and actions that a school can take where not informing the parents would be ethical?



Wait, what?
You think the school or Roy or whatever is relying on some sort of "Transgender people owe nothing to Cis people" principle here?



My understanding is that the mother has asked for the notes of the sessions involving the previous counselor as well as Roy and that Roy was acting under the terms of a position as counselor.

If you think it is relevant that I call him social worker, sure, but I don't see much difference here unless you want to say that the license imparts specific privileges that the school is relying on that should not apply here.

Nobody's reading your 15 volume dissertation on whatever.

 

[krealtarron]

I'm intervening because people are throwing around lots of absolutist language and I don't think people actually have those absolutist positions.

Hence I am asking you (and Frank and toguy) as well to actually articulate your position and confirm or deny the absolutist position you seem to be expressing.



It really isn't clear to me, which is why I am asking you to articulate it simply.



You need to know that this is an article about a different mother and a different child with a very similar story.
Do you not find that relevant?



That's nonsense.
Did the child waive their privacy rights?
Did the child say "yes, I want my conversations with my social worker/counselor released to my parents"?
Maybe they did, but I have seen no evidence for it.
Are you literally saying that the child confirming the binder was given to them by the counselor means the child has waived their privacy rights?



I think that if the child and parent both want the information to be shared, the school would be hard pressed to deny them.
I'm assuming we are talking about the formal notes about decisions made and why and so on.
If we are talking about the individual recordings of the sessions and so on, that might be dicier. (Again, if there is a united front about it and an accusation of unethical behavior that can be resolved by looking at them I would probably advocate for them to be released.)



What do you think "due process" means here?
Or are you saying that the school should be denied due process in this case?



How is this "unconstitutional"?
I get that you think a decision about gender identity not involving the parents is unethical.
Again, I ask you to say how far that principle goes - do you believe all decisions made by a school are unethical if they don't involve the parent or do you believe there are decisions and actions that a school can take where not informing the parents would be ethical?



Wait, what?
You think the school or Roy or whatever is relying on some sort of "Transgender people owe nothing to Cis people" principle here?



My understanding is that the mother has asked for the notes of the sessions involving the previous counselor as well as Roy and that Roy was acting under the terms of a position as counselor.

If you think it is relevant that I call him social worker, sure, but I don't see much difference here unless you want to say that the license imparts specific privileges that the school is relying on that should not apply here.

Instead of writing so much, is it that hard to just agree to the very reasonable position, that the parents responsible for their kids should be kept informed about everything regarding the kid in school? Instead we have people arguing "board rules", "child privacy rights" etc., The fact that we are even arguing about a parent of a 13 year old being kept out of the loop, is worrisome and shows you how people care more about political partisanship than the welfare of the kid. Its ludicrous.

 

[Valcazar]

Nobody's reading your 15 volume dissertation on whatever.

Fair.
Short version.

I think neither the parent nor the school gets 100% control and that there are going to be places where the two disagree what is in the best interests of the child.
Yes, the burden of justification when intervening without the parent or against the parent's wishes should be fairly high.

Instead of writing so much, is it that hard to just agree to the very reasonable position, that the parents responsible for their kids should be kept informed about everything regarding the kid in school?

As you can see from above, no, we disagree.
The default position should be that the parent is informed and included.
That does not mean always because there will be times when that is judged as inappropriate.

Instead we have people arguing "board rules", "child privacy rights" etc., The fact that we are even arguing about a parent of a 13 year old being kept out of the loop, is worrisome and shows you how people care more about political partisanship than the welfare of the kid. Its ludicrous.

The fact that you think a parent should be included at all times as if the child was not a real person is worrisome.

 

[curr3n_c1000]

You need to know that this is an article about a different mother and a different child with a very similar story.
Do you not find that relevant?

There are several articles about students transitioning back. Every situation is different

That's nonsense.
Did the child waive their privacy rights?
Did the child say "yes, I want my conversations with my social worker/counselor released to my parents"?
Maybe they did, but I have seen no evidence for it.
Are you literally saying that the child confirming the binder was given to them by the counselor means the child has waived their privacy rights?

Yes, the child chose to disclose the details of the meetings. There is no privacy on the child's side anymore.

The only privacy the school is upholding now is their own. They are self-service.

I think that if the child and parent both want the information to be shared, the school would be hard pressed to deny them.
I'm assuming we are talking about the formal notes about decisions made and why and so on.
If we are talking about the individual recordings of the sessions and so on, that might be dicier. (Again, if there is a united front about it and an accusation of unethical behavior that can be resolved by looking at them I would probably advocate for them to be released.)

But here we are with the school denying them.

What do you think "due process" means here?
Or are you saying that the school should be denied due process in this case?

What I mean is how are they coming to all these conclusions on policies and law against parents? How is that fair and who's to say at what length this goes to?

How is this "unconstitutional"?
I get that you think a decision about gender identity not involving the parents is unethical.
Again, I ask you to say how far that principle goes - do you believe all decisions made by a school are unethical if they don't involve the parent or do you believe there are decisions and actions that a school can take where not informing the parents would be ethical?

You can't just violate a parents rights. At the end of the day who is responsible for them?

If you transition a child behind a parents back and something goes wrong, what do you say to the parent? "Oops, My Bad!"???

Wait, what?
You think the school or Roy or whatever is relying on some sort of "Transgender people owe nothing to Cis people" principle here?

I don't even know what this means.

My understanding is that the mother has asked for the notes of the sessions involving the previous counselor as well as Roy and that Roy was acting under the terms of a position as counselor.

The child went from one social worker to another. He is still employed as a social worker there.