Parents are outraged at teacher for being transgendered

[General Zod]

If it is illegal to make more public information that is already public, then show me the law and I will concede.

Show me the law where schools have an obligation to tell the parents these things, any more than they have an obligation to inform them their teachers are black, Jewish or Atheist.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The parents didn't. They took their kids out of the class. If they started harassing the teacher, trying to get the teacher fired and so on than they'd be out of line. Making the request to be informed wasn't off either because it dealt with what was going on with their kids.

You don't think being told 'I don't feel you are fit to be in a room with my child' isn't damaging to Mr. Smith? Or that it doesn't hurt his career? A request to be informed MAY have been warranted, but medical information (even OBVIOUS medical information) cannot, under law, be disclosed to the public without the express written permission of the person to whom the information pertains.

If it is illegal to make more public information that is already public, then show me the law and I will concede.

While the fact that he had started living as a man was obvious, it was not a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, nor were the specifics of the surgery. Your insistence that the information WAS public is idiotic. As to the laws on the matter, since you can't find it yourself, HIPAA PDF file.

Go on, split more hairs.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

No I would not. I would find their reaction a bit more acceptable if they hadn't had much contact with either group and would class them as ignorant vs outright bigots.

Have you even bothered looking at a dictionary lately? You seem to be saying they aren't either of those things with clearly no idea what these words actually mean.

Yes I have. I read your quote. They probably are bigoted though I think that it stems more from ignorance than actual innate hatred.

Okay now where does it say that the people are fundamentalist Christians? Where does it say that they are trying to monger hate against the teacher? Who are these "gossip whores"? Are they in the school, because if they were they'd probably already know about the change. Are they other parents of students of the teacher? Because if they are they would probably know the same things their kids do and would be part of the parents removing their kids from the class.

The fact that they're living in a suburban environment and hate the fact that their children's teacher is now a tg (you have to be an idiot if you think it's genuinely about them not being informed) is rather damning that they're more than likely fundie Christian douchebags. The article doesn't have to say shit, their reactions are more than sufficient.

Okay now you're being an idiot. It says nothing about them being christian. There are many behaviors that these parents have that also are seen in a lot of people who happen to be fundies but just because these people are doing the same thing, it doesn't mean they are fundies too.

I did not suggest that the school divulge the fact that the teacher had had a procedure. Just that the teacher would be called Mr. instead of Ms. Please attack my actual argument instead of one you think I said.

Don't be retarded. The parents would be demanding to know why the gender has changed in the name and demand to know how this happened. There is no other way to explain it without divulging the procedure.

You like to project and assume don't you? I'm not saying for the school to explain it. That is against the law (as far as I know). I was suggesting exactly what I suggested and I'm not going to repeat myself 8 times for 5 different people because they want to misquote me.

[Kanastrous]

If it were all adults than it wouldn't matter. But these adults are the parents of the children receiving this information.

Which does not grant them any special interest in, or access to, this person's private medical information.

[ArcturusMengsk]

No I would not. I would find their reaction a bit more acceptable if they hadn't had much contact with either group and would class them as ignorant vs outright bigots.

Weren't you the same asshole who onceuponatime argued that the 'pro-life' movement isn't really about controlling a woman's sexual habits?

Indeed and I have since come to realize that the movement mostly deals tries to do that instead of actually being concerned about pre-natal and neo-natal health. See my coming responses in the abortion thread.

And you've obviously learned not a fucking thing from that particular debacle, since you're still quick to defend the primates that share the lowest branch on the trunk of the genealogical tree with you. I think it's high-time all you socially conservative fuckheads got taken out behind Frank Nixon's woodshed, and maybe you'd see your old Uncle Spiro out there on the way.

There is no difference between that issue and this: you still seem to feel that the 'Right to Privacy' as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade (and let us not forget that the purpose of that ruling above all was to establish definitively just such a right; the right to choose is simply an extrapolation therefrom). Therein lies your problem - you're a nosy rat-bastard who just can't keep your nose out of other people's genitalia, for fear you might miss a whiff of the old rottencrotch. Hence you defend these other elements of the life-unworthy-of-life, because they share your particular fetish, and it's only becoming of us to defend our brothers-in-arms no matter how primitive they might be.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

The parents didn't. They took their kids out of the class. If they started harassing the teacher, trying to get the teacher fired and so on than they'd be out of line. Making the request to be informed wasn't off either because it dealt with what was going on with their kids.

You don't think being told 'I don't feel you are fit to be in a room with my child' isn't damaging to Mr. Smith? Or that it doesn't hurt his career? A request to be informed MAY have been warranted, but medical information (even OBVIOUS medical information) cannot, under law, be disclosed to the public without the express written permission of the person to whom the information pertains.

It wouldn't be any more damaging that the fact that the teacher was tg. I'm glad that you are saying that the request may have been (though I feel it more definitely so) warranted, because that's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

As for the expressed medical info, it's not medical info that someone who is called Ms. went to Mr. You are publishing public non-medical information about someone to the parents of their student. If though the title used by a teacher is considered medical info, by all means I concede.

If it is illegal to make more public information that is already public, then show me the law and I will concede.

While the fact that he had started living as a man was obvious, it was not a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, nor were the specifics of the surgery. Your insistence that the information WAS public is idiotic. As to the laws on the matter, since you can't find it yourself, HIPAA PDF file.

Go on, split more hairs.

Wow thanks for giving me actual information. I did not know that doing so was illegal. I concede that disclosing any information about someones health is illegal without their permission. It'd be great though if that had been my argument in the first place.

[General Zod]

Yes I have. I read your quote. They probably are bigoted though I think that it stems more from ignorance than actual innate hatred.

Bigotry stems from ignorance, you idiot. What's so hard about calling a duck a duck?

Okay now you're being an idiot. It says nothing about them being christian. There are many behaviors that these parents have that also are seen in a lot of people who happen to be fundies but just because these people are doing the same thing, it doesn't mean they are fundies too.

I'll give you three guesses as to the dominant religion in California and general suburbia of that state. I'll also give you three guesses as to which faction bigots of this stripe generally lean to. Quite frankly I fail to see how they can be anything other but bigoted Christian douchebags.

You like to project and assume don't you? I'm not saying for the school to explain it. That is against the law (as far as I know). I was suggesting exactly what I suggested and I'm not going to repeat myself 8 times for 5 different people because they want to misquote me.

This is my feeling as well, especially if a student was expecting all summer to be in Ms. Smith's class, and perhaps has even met Ms. Smith before, and then all of a sudden its Mr. Smith. They need to present the transition to the children in a way that they can handle it, without an abrubt change they don't understand.

I agree whole heartedly with this and that in addition to explaining to the children, they should give the same courtesy to the parents.

Don't start lying now. Parents do not need to be coddled and filled in on all the particulars of a teacher's transition.

[CaptainChewbacca]

It wouldn't be any more damaging that the fact that the teacher was tg. I'm glad that you are saying that the request may have been (though I feel it more definitely so) warranted, because that's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

Oh, sure, it might have helped, at least to give parents a heads-up. The thing is, though, absolutely NOBODY can send out that notification without Mr. Smith's permission, and he has absolutely no obligation to do so, because he (rightly) doesn't think its anyone's business.

As for the expressed medical info, it's not medical info that someone who is called Ms. went to Mr. You are publishing public non-medical information about someone to the parents of their student. If though the title used by a teacher is considered medical info, by all means I concede.

Wow, you ARE splitting hairs. Here's how that memo would look:

Dear Students and Parents,

Our school's music director, Miss Smith, has begun living life as a man and will now be referred to in all official school correspondance as Mr. Smith.

^That, right there, is a disclosure of personal information and leaves the school IMMENSELY open to legal action by Mr. Smith. Which is why the school rightly didn't do any such thing without his permission.

Wow thanks for giving me actual information. I did not know that doing so was illegal. I concede that disclosing any information about someones health is illegal without their permission. It'd be great though if that had been my argument in the first place.

Your argument is that the school can somehow discuss the gender identity of a faculty member without their permission and without getting into medical or personal issues, even ones which are visibly obvious upon interaction with that faculty member.

Such an argument is wholly without merit, and the more you repeat it the dumber you look.

[Qwerty 42]

It's interesting to note that, at least in my college, you don't even learn the gender of your professors until you walk in the classroom. I just got "Preti" and "Bilsky," not any gender associated.

[Kanastrous]

Here's how that memo would look:

Dear Students and Parents,

Our school's music director, Miss Smith, has begun living life as a man and will now be referred to in all official school correspondance as Mr. Smith.

^That, right there, is a disclosure of personal information and leaves the school IMMENSELY open to legal action by Mr. Smith.

The above statement doesn't actually look that problematic to me. Anyone walking through the school, or encountering Mr. Smith on public, would be immediately aware that this person is dressing/living as a man; heck, the transition is very much about making exterior match interior, right? The above statement isn't telling anyone anything they wouldn't know, just from glancing at Mr. Smith in his new role as a man.

Now, disclosing any medical, financial, or psychological aspect of the transition, would be off-limits. That's privileged information. But informing people that they next time they meet this Smith person, he'll outwardly be a 'he' rather than a 'she' seems fair: it's something that Mr. Smith has gone to great expense and risk, to achieve.

[Kanastrous]

For what voting district?

[Kanastrous]

^ that was a reply made in a totally different thread. How it got there, I can't say. Please delete.

[General Zod]

Now, disclosing any medical, financial, or psychological aspect of the transition, would be off-limits. That's privileged information. But informing people that they next time they meet this Smith person, he'll outwardly be a 'he' rather than a 'she' seems fair: it's something that Mr. Smith has gone to great expense and risk, to achieve.

Why should the school have to do anything? If the parents attend parent/teacher conferences at all the teacher can just inform them in person rather than letting the parents find out second hand, the school risk disclosing sensitive information and the parents working themselves into hysterics.

[Justforfun000]

The first analogy I thought of, and I do believe someone in this thread also brought it up was that if the teacher got married and Changed their name from Mrs. Meadows to Mrs. Tackleberry. would this be an important bit of information that warranted a special memo to the parents before this 'change' was sprung on the students?

I can totally understand the parent's reaction. Even a liberal person like myself would be slightly thrown if my child came home and said "No daddy, Miss Jones is now Mr. Jones." It's fairly uncommon, and something of this nature can hit you sideways. Most people of adult age are aware of the existence of transgendered people, but rarely come across them in their general circle of acquaintances and so your 6 year old daughter describing a situation at school that directly impacts on their life, and by the extension of such a thing.. your life, will test your real life responses to the issues of bigotry.

However the difference between myself and people that actually hide behind the excuse that they "just weren't told", is that I would be momentarily thrown....think about it and go "hell...the world is really changing rapidly. TG's have come a long way.". Then I would do my best to answer any questions they have and explain that this is a newer battle of civil rights that causes strong reactions among people. But ultimately, it's not a bad thing and it's irrelevant to their teaching capabilities and so she should be kindly open minded and not judge.
The people who are deeply disturbed by any gender related issues, whether homosexual or surgical, always screech about their supposed right to control what their children are taught or exposed to. But the problem with this attitude is that they are not basing their objections on a fair judgment of harmful or undesirable situations for their children, they are just JUDGING. They don't like the concept of transgendered, so they condemn it. All the PC bullshit excuses in the world do not exonerate what is essentially a demonstration of bigotry.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Now, disclosing any medical, financial, or psychological aspect of the transition, would be off-limits. That's privileged information. But informing people that they next time they meet this Smith person, he'll outwardly be a 'he' rather than a 'she' seems fair: it's something that Mr. Smith has gone to great expense and risk, to achieve.

The entire process is medical AND psychological, and therefore isn't the school's business beyond changing the name on his paycheck. As has been said in the thread, when Mr. Smith meets with students and parents, it is HIS choice to reveal or not reveal the nature of his gender identity and transition. Your way may seem 'fair' to the families of students, but it isn't fair to Mr. Smith.

What part of this aren't you getting? Personal privacy should only be superceded by the well-being of the students. The parents are trying to make the case that the well-being of their children is (or would be) harmed by Mr. Smith's gender transition and nondisclosure of the transition. They have to make that case, and right now you're saying they shouldn't have to make a case, and Mr. Smith should open his life to public scrutiny because it MIGHT make parents feel better about him.

[Ford Prefect]

If it is illegal to make more public information that is already public, then show me the law and I will concede.

You know what, I think I will, even though it is outside of my area of study (which is to say Australian law). Let's start with the California Constitution, article 1, section 1: 'All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy'. Further, under the Public Records Act section 6254, information such as 'personnel, medical or similar files' may be withheld if it 'would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'. As held in Sims vs. Central Intelligence Agency, this 'was developed to protect intimate details of personal and family life, not business judgments and relationships'. Further, it was held that the personnel exception in section 6254 relates primarily to 'marital status, legitimacy of children, identity of fathers of children, medical conditions, welfare payments, alcoholic consumption, family fights, reputation, and so on', which can easily be applied to Note that the Sims case is federal in nature, according to American Civil Liberties Union Foundation vs. Deukmejian 1982 'these federal cases may be used to to illuminate the interpretation of its California counterpart'. I have only used Sims, but there are other federal cases relating to the Freedom of Information Act, such as Robles vs. EPA which cites Getman v. N.L.R.B. 1971, which in turn holds that intimate details of a highly personal nature are under the blanket of exception.

[Ford Prefect]

GHETTO: I really should add that as this topic deals with American law, it is well outside what little expertise I have. As such, while I'm fairly sure that my post is broadly accurate, there are undoubtedly minutae which I have failed to account for.

[Kanastrous]

Now, disclosing any medical, financial, or psychological aspect of the transition, would be off-limits. That's privileged information. But informing people that they next time they meet this Smith person, he'll outwardly be a 'he' rather than a 'she' seems fair: it's something that Mr. Smith has gone to great expense and risk, to achieve.

The entire process is medical AND psychological, and therefore isn't the school's business beyond changing the name on his paycheck. As has been said in the thread, when Mr. Smith meets with students and parents, it is HIS choice to reveal or not reveal the nature of his gender identity and transition. Your way may seem 'fair' to the families of students, but it isn't fair to Mr. Smith.

What part of this aren't you getting? Personal privacy should only be superceded by the well-being of the students. The parents are trying to make the case that the well-being of their children is (or would be) harmed by Mr. Smith's gender transition and nondisclosure of the transition. They have to make that case, and right now you're saying they shouldn't have to make a case, and Mr. Smith should open his life to public scrutiny because it MIGHT make parents feel better about him.

It's tough to see how altering your physical gender isn't 'opening your life to public scrutiny' - strictly regarding your gender identity - in the same way that it's difficult to see how you could wear a bright red shirt, and expect that no one will notice that you are wearing a bright red shirt.

Again, I'm not suggesting that any records, bills, medical assessments, patient charts - whatever parts of the process you care to note - are anyone's business besides the patient's, and their medical caregivers. Only that some minor help in absorbing the transition is due young children at the school.

[Kanastrous]

^ ghetto edit - of course this applies only to children who knew you, pre-reassignment. No one else would have even a 'let's clarify this for the kids' excuse, for referring to that person's pre-op identity.

[General Zod]

It's tough to see how altering your physical gender isn't 'opening your life to public scrutiny' - strictly regarding your gender identity - in the same way that it's difficult to see how you could wear a bright red shirt, and expect that no one will notice that you are wearing a bright red shirt.

Should teachers inform parents when they get nose jobs or face lifts as well? How about lipo suctions? Those aren't exactly something you can hide but I fail to see why gender identity would be any fundamentally different. As far as I'm aware those are protected by medical privacy laws too.

[Kanastrous]

It's tough to see how altering your physical gender isn't 'opening your life to public scrutiny' - strictly regarding your gender identity - in the same way that it's difficult to see how you could wear a bright red shirt, and expect that no one will notice that you are wearing a bright red shirt.

Should teachers inform parents when they get nose jobs or face lifts as well? How about lipo suctions? Those aren't exactly something you can hide but I fail to see why gender identity would be any fundamentally different. As far as I'm aware those are protected by medical privacy laws too.

Somehow it seems like going from (for example) woman-with-a-hooked-nose to woman-with-a-straight-nose is a different matter, than going from woman-to-man.

Maybe that's just subjective.

[CaptainChewbacca]

It's tough to see how altering your physical gender isn't 'opening your life to public scrutiny' - strictly regarding your gender identity - in the same way that it's difficult to see how you could wear a bright red shirt, and expect that no one will notice that you are wearing a bright red shirt.

So TG people are not entitled to privacy, then?

Again, I'm not suggesting that any records, bills, medical assessments, patient charts - whatever parts of the process you care to note - are anyone's business besides the patient's, and their medical caregivers. Only that some minor help in absorbing the transition is due young children at the school.

Some help MAY be due, yes. HOWEVER, that help legally CANNOT be given by the school without the EXPRESS PERMISSION of the person in question.

DO YOU COMPREHEND THIS? Y/N

[Kanastrous]

and - sorry for another ghetto edit - I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE RELEASE OF ANY INFORMATION PROTECTED BY PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY!!!!!

I'm talking about a very obvious visible difference pre-op vs post-op (assuming, of course, that there *is* one).

Not the same thing.

[Vendetta]

Wow thanks for giving me actual information. I did not know that doing so was illegal. I concede that disclosing any information about someones health is illegal without their permission. It'd be great though if that had been my argument in the first place.

Then you didn't read the OP article very well, in which it states that the school took legal advice and were advised not to reveal the information.

[Justforfun000]

Kanastrous Wrote:

Maybe that's just subjective.

I think you nailed it there. It's a bit of a mind fuck, granted, but that doesn't justify a different standard being applied.