Parents are outraged at teacher for being transgendered

[CaptainChewbacca]

Unfortunately, fundies think kids can handle nothing, and understand nothing. That is not a comical exaggeration, this is pretty much literally the way they think about social and sexual issues. That's why their approach to all things sexual is to "protect" children from learning anything about it, as if learning is a disease.

Sometimes I wonder how I managed to grow up as a devout Christian with an open-minded, analytical approach for life. Paradoxes seem to come up in my life a lot more than I would expect for an average person.

At any rate, its better for a child to work this stuff out NOW, otherwise they'll be confused as hell when the gay guy in their highschool wears a dress on halloween.

Did the OP say what grade this was?

[Kanastrous]

At any rate, its better for a child to work this stuff out NOW, otherwise they'll be confused as hell when the gay guy in their highschool wears a dress on halloween.

No doubt their parent will teach them that, like anyone who celebrates the Devil's holiday of Halloween, drag-wearing men will one day be collecting their candy, in Hell.

[General Zod]

Did the OP say what grade this was?

Only that it was an elementary music class.

[CaptainChewbacca]

At any rate, its better for a child to work this stuff out NOW, otherwise they'll be confused as hell when the gay guy in their highschool wears a dress on halloween.

No doubt their parent will teach them that, like anyone who celebrates the Devil's holiday of Halloween, drag-wearing men will one day be collecting their candy, in Hell.

How widespread IS the 'halloween = devil' thing? I currently attend the most fundamentalist church I've ever been to in my life, and one of the biggest events on the church calendar is the halloween carnival. Sure, they don't CALL it 'halloween', but the kids wear costumes and get candy, plus there's jack-o-lanterns and hay rides. The only limitation is that adults not wear costumes that would be 'inappropriate' around the kids (i.e. too gory or risque). Is it more of a midwest thing, or what?

Only that it was an elementary music class.

Ok, if its a music class, that's a bit different, and its even worse for the kids. An elementary school usually only has 1 music teacher (sometimes 2, for winds and strings), and if you've got a 6th grader that knew Ms. Smith from 1st grade up till now, it would be VERY jarring for that kind of sudden change. That's why (to me) its even MORE important that this not be hidden from the kids, but presented in a way they can deal with. Plus, if you pull your kids out of the music class, there's not another music class for them to go TO, you're just taking away their creative/artistic outlet.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If we're talking about the beginning of the 'dressing differently' period, then I believe that some kind of context or explanation ought to be developed, for the kids in the class.

I expect adults to handle this sort of thing, no comments, no problems. I think children could find it sufficiently confusing, or even disturbing, that it's desirable to frame it, for them.

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.

Unfortunately, fundies think kids can handle nothing, and understand nothing. That is not a comical exaggeration, this is pretty much literally the way they think about social and sexual issues.

I like to sit in on one of my friend's undergrad ethics classes (with the professors permission) and we have been discussing gay marriage these past few days. The topic came up where a class of first graders in California went on a field trip to their teachers lesbian wedding (hey, if you had an opportunity to take your students to an historic moment in civil rights history wouldnt you take it?) and the fundies in the class tried to argue that seeing a lesbian wedding would "confuse" the kids.

They're 6. What is to confuse? A six year old, unless you have raised them that dogmatically, wont care and can easily understand what a lesbian is.

Of course then the idiot went on a rant about it contradicting what he was trying to teach his kids, to which I responded that the state has a vested interest in ensuring that the kids known gay people are human beings and have rights.

And now to numbnuts

I don't need to provide evidence. It's in the article. It is being assumed that they are being bigots. I'm am not saying that they should be bigots or that it's good for them to be bigots. I'm saying that if they are they have a right to.

No. They dont. Rights are not absolute, and in fact do not even exist as concrete things. At best they are useful rules of thumb that should guide our actions when making decisions. But the state, the children (and not just the ones being pulled from class), and the teacher have "rights" to.

The teacher has a right that overrides the parents not be discriminated against. The children have a right to an education, and moreover should they end up being trans in the future they have a right to a society and peer group that does not think them inhuman monsters. What kind of message does being pulled from class like this send to a small child? The message is that the teacher, because he went from a she to a he, is a monster that should not be near children. How do you think these kids will grow up?

The state has a vested interest in making sure that GLBT people are not harmed by their fellow citizens, and this logically extends to making sure that bigotry is not learned.

I'm just saying that as parents they have a right to do it and other things they think are best for their kid, within reason.

Key words: Within Reason

I think they did what they did because they are ignorant of what a transgendered individual really is and felt uncomfortable with their child/children being around one. Dislike, ignorance, and aversion do not automatically mean hate.

Yeah, they actually do. People are idiots and pretty automatically fear and hate what they dont understand. I am sorry you are ignorant of basic human psych.

And in the context of the article they stated that they removed their children from the class because they weren't informed about something that was A) public and B) out of the ordinary. Therefore I'm not going to infer their reason and use it as part of my argument.

Go get a functioning brain. You cant possibly sit there with a straight face and tell me that you are not going to infer their exact reasons. Do you honestly think that these parents would have responded any differently had they gotten the info in a newsletter?

Fuck off you disingenuous little twat.

They can be as discriminatory as they please, they just have to do it within the bounds of the schools rules and not make a ruckus.

Well they certainly made a fucking ruckus

I'm not advocating disclosing private medical records.

Except that you did in your first fucking post

But the honorific change was public because the students knew, the administration obviously knew, and probably most of the folks who regularly dealt with the school knew. Releasing information that's already public (but not necessarily well distributed) isn't a violation of someones rights.

The law according to the lawyers, says differently.

See the above. Also, as a side note for my own understanding, why is GID considered a disorder?

Because of the emotional pain and suffering that comes with essentially being in a body that does not match your mind.

As I said I'm trying not to assumed anything. Whether this is the regular procedure for tg individuals is inconsequential. It appeared, as stated in the article, as being a sudden and unexpected change.

I am sorry, but a trained monkey knows how to pull information from other sources to evaluate an article. The fact that you cannot or will not do this speaks volumes.

[Kanastrous]

a class of first graders in California went on a field trip to their teachers lesbian wedding (hey, if you had an opportunity to take your students to an historic moment in civil rights history wouldnt you take it?) and the fundies in the class tried to argue that seeing a lesbian wedding would "confuse" the kids.

They're 6. What is to confuse? A six year old, unless you have raised them that dogmatically, wont care and can easily understand what a lesbian is.

I think that a person whom the children have known as a woman, who reappears as a man - not wearing a costume, or playing a game, but *really* having changed genders - is a different thing to grasp, than the idea that two women (or two men) can choose to make the same commitments that the children might have previously only seen between mixed-gender couples. It's like the difference - to a little boy, for example - putting on a little girl's dress, versus becoming a little girl.

There's a very uncomfortable tension between the teacher's rightful expectation that his gender identity is his business, as is the medical treatment he's chosen to address it, and the expectation that children confronted with an unusual and jarring change-in-identity on the part of someone in loco parentis should be shepherded through understanding what's going on. I don't see any part of this as needing to address the parents' feelings; as adults who should know better they are welcome to go screw themselves. But kids - for whom this could be unpleasantly confusing - deserve some hand-holding. And anything they're told, had better come from the school system or the teacher himself; it seems clear that these parents shouldn't be granted the only word on the matter.

Of course then the idiot went on a rant about it contradicting what he was trying to teach his kids, to which I responded that the state has a vested interest in ensuring that the kids known gay people are human beings and have rights.

Can't argue, with that.

[Vendetta]

I think that a person whom the children have known as a woman, who reappears as a man - not wearing a costume, or playing a game, but *really* having changed genders - is a different thing to grasp, than the idea that two women (or two men) can choose to make the same commitments that the children might have previously only seen between mixed-gender couples. It's like the difference - to a little boy, for example - putting on a little girl's dress, versus becoming a little girl.

But then, since the children then went home and told their parents about it, exactly this kind of explanation was provided to the children, and it's the parents who have gotten in a snit about it.

[Darth Wong]

Hand-holding is absolutely the wrong thing to give these kids. What they need is a simple matter-of-fact explanation, not some bullshit where people try to tell them how they're supposed to interpret it.

"If you must know, Mr. Smith was born as a girl, but he has since had medical surgery to make himself into a man. They made an artificial penis and attached it to him, so he could become a man."

There, done. There's no need for long-winded dissertations on the meaning of gender or sexuality. People say kids need to be hand-held through this process because they are afraid the kids won't be able to "handle" it, which is a lie. What they're really afraid of is that the parents won't be able to handle it, because they don't know how to talk frankly with their kids about things like that. They can't just say it matter-of-factly; they have to cover it with so many layers of moral valuation that they can't just say it straight.

[CaptainChewbacca]

What's really insane about this thread is that someone is actually arguing that people have a RIGHT to bigotry. Guess what: you don't.

You have the right to an OPINION, and you can even have PREFERENCES. But, to be a functioning, productive, non-slowtarded member of society you have to show tolerance and acceptance toward your fellow man, because they accept you're a slowtarded douchebag. Bigotry is intolerance of those you dislike, and actively discriminating against them. You don't have a right to take your baggage out on others.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There's a very uncomfortable tension between the teacher's rightful expectation that his gender identity is his business, as is the medical treatment he's chosen to address it, and the expectation that children confronted with an unusual and jarring change-in-identity on the part of someone in loco parentis should be shepherded through understanding what's going on. I don't see any part of this as needing to address the parents' feelings; as adults who should know better they are welcome to go screw themselves. But kids - for whom this could be unpleasantly confusing - deserve some hand-holding. And anything they're told, had better come from the school system or the teacher himself; it seems clear that these parents shouldn't be granted the only word on the matter.

Yeah, there is a bit of hand holding required. But once they get over the "bwaaaa?" moment, little kids are pliable enough that they wont care. They will incorporate it into their minds and not have a problem unless someone makes it a problem like their parents did. Now they have been told what a trassexual is, and they have also been told that it makes their parents REALLY uncomfortable. Which is bad for everyone

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hand-holding is absolutely the wrong thing to give these kids. What they need is a simple matter-of-fact explanation, not some bullshit where people try to tell them how they're supposed to interpret it.

"If you must know, Mr. Smith was born as a girl, but he has since had medical surgery to make himself into a man. They made an artificial penis and attached it to him, so he could become a man."

There, done. There's no need for long-winded dissertations on the meaning of gender or sexuality. People say kids need to be hand-held through this process because they are afraid the kids won't be able to "handle" it, which is a lie. What they're really afraid of is that the parents won't be able to handle it, because they don't know how to talk frankly with their kids about things like that. They can't just say it matter-of-factly; they have to cover it with so many layers of moral valuation that they can't just say it straight.

Well it is a little more complex than that, and I think the kids can handle the added complexity. You might have to put it in terms they can relate to. But saying something along the lines of

"Sometimes a person is born a girl on the inside, but a boy on the outside. So your teacher had surgery to fix the problem" is perfectly within the bounds of what even a six year old can grasp.

[Darth Wong]

Hand-holding is absolutely the wrong thing to give these kids. What they need is a simple matter-of-fact explanation, not some bullshit where people try to tell them how they're supposed to interpret it.

"If you must know, Mr. Smith was born as a girl, but he has since had medical surgery to make himself into a man. They made an artificial penis and attached it to him, so he could become a man."

There, done. There's no need for long-winded dissertations on the meaning of gender or sexuality. People say kids need to be hand-held through this process because they are afraid the kids won't be able to "handle" it, which is a lie. What they're really afraid of is that the parents won't be able to handle it, because they don't know how to talk frankly with their kids about things like that. They can't just say it matter-of-factly; they have to cover it with so many layers of moral valuation that they can't just say it straight.

Well it is a little more complex than that, and I think the kids can handle the added complexity. You might have to put it in terms they can relate to. But saying something along the lines of

"Sometimes a person is born a girl on the inside, but a boy on the outside. So your teacher had surgery to fix the problem" is perfectly within the bounds of what even a six year old can grasp.

Actually, you're making a common mistake among non-parents or poor parents: assuming that they give a damn just because you would, and assuming that if they do, they would want an answer from you. Those kids who are curious and who want your opinion will ask follow-up questions like "why would someone do that" and then you can try to answer them. The rest of the kids will either save the question for home or just ask to be excused so they can play soccer or something.

I remember when my kids first asked what "homosexual" means. I was expecting it to be a long conversation, but it wasn't. A few back-and-forth questions and it was over: they shrugged and asked what was for dinner.

[Vendetta]

Actually, you're making a common mistake among non-parents or poor parents: assuming that they give a damn just because you would, and assuming that if they do, they would want an answer from you. Those kids who are curious and who want your opinion will ask follow-up questions like "why would someone do that" and then you can try to answer them. The rest of the kids will either save the question for home or just ask to be excused so they can play soccer or something.

I remember when my kids first asked what "homosexual" means. I was expecting it to be a long conversation, but it wasn't. A few back-and-forth questions and it was over: they shrugged and asked what was for dinner.

In a school environment they have to go for a pretty much "one size fits all" announcement though because it'll probably be announced to either whole classes or at morning assembly, and that needs to be a bit handholdy for the slow kids.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'll defer to people with more immediate experience, but doesn't Gender Reassignment surgery usually follow a period during which the patient lives in the clothing, identity, etc of their future physical gender?

Correct, though it works differently for transmen. Often, because (unlike vaginoplasty, which is excellent in quality), construction of a new penis sucks hard (there is plenty of sensate material to construct a vagina out of in a MTF patient--in a FTM patient, there's nowhere to get the spongy stuff in the penis from) and is enormously expensive--try 30k minimum and usually 40 - 50k for the surgery. So the state governments (I consider this to be discriminatory against transwomen, for the record) let them change their official birth sex with any kind of surgery at all--i.e., mastectomy, which is what I suspect this is about, especially since a mastectomy is much easier to get than vaginoplasty and cheaper so the "real life test" isn't as rigorously followed.

Also, transmen have the advantage of not needing long and brutally painful facial hair removal (I've had almost a hundred hours of having electrified needles stuck into my face, at the highest settings permissable, for up to 4 hours at a time with a single break in the middle. I dare anyone on the board to prove they have better pain tolerance than me by getting that done to themselves--I'll get my electrologist to sign a form saying I don't even whimper, because it's true. But I digress). Instead, they just taking testosterone, and they get facial hair and a drop in their voice very quickly, both of which help them to pass fairly easily. Also the facial features will tend to naturally become more masculine, whereas in transwomen dealing with facial appearance means ripping your face off and putting it back on after a bone-saw has sculpted through your skull and left titanium plates over the weak spots. So it balances out; whereas you can more or less create a perfectly normal but sterile female body, creating a male body is much, much harder, and ultimately the construction of a functional penis is damn near impossible, and costs twice as much or more than GRS. So he's got a rather sucky life, to put it mildly, and these shits aren't making it any better.

Note that cost is a serious issue here, so yeah, I suspect that it was just a mastectomy. Teachers don't make that much money in the US, and even I have already spent more than thirty thousand dollars on transitioning, now heading in the general direction of thirty-five thousand, and I'll need to shell out another 20k for GRS (or more, with inflation). Which I could have had, in terms of psychiatric authorizations, this summer, but the money isn't there. We should have enough to pay for it for me at the same time I graduate from college with my Nuke E. degree--December of 2011--entailing a 2 - 3 month gap between my graduating and any employment, but I don't think that will hurt to much.

That's a good lesson for you: A lot of the more freakish looking transpeople aren't simply flamboyant crossdressers or whatnot, they're people who are too goddamned poor to afford any kind of surgeries, and who are being pressured by their therapists into going into the real-life test and so on anyway. A lot of the women in that "shemale" porn, for that matter, aren't there because they're sick perverts but because they don't have any other way to make enough money to afford surgeries. Hell, the only reason I avoided that is because I'm ruthless enough to fuck my parents over as hard as they fucked me over, and because Mayabird, bless her heart, volunteered to throw her lot in with me.

So just remember that when you read these articles. This is someone (referring to the good fellow in the article) who was born 50,000 USD in debt, more or less, and has had to deal with that financial burden as the necessary cost of dealing with their fundamental neurophysical issues on top of all the depression and paranoia and anxiety and so on that being transgendered usually brings about due to the sheer amount of hate society dumps on you. And now parents want to keep their kids away from you like you're a child molester (which is really what they're thinking about this guy, we all know it. As far as fundies are concerned, transexuals are all paedophiliac molesters who wear dresses so they can go diddle little girls in the women's restroom. I think guys like this tend to just break their brains even worse, though, since transmen don't really quite fit that easy definition, though I suppose they figure he's after their sons or something).

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I won't deny that it is most likely that they are bigots. I'm saying they have a right to do what they did.

Most likely? What possible room for doubt is there? If they removed their children because the teacher was black or atheist would you still have any kind of doubts?

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.

They are being discriminatory about the who teaches their children. It is not an attack unless they encouraged other parents to do the same or complained to the administration about the teachers employment.

You have absolutely no idea how fundie hate mongers think, do you? I can almost guarantee the gossip whores would be spreading this like a wildfire.

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.

But I do believe they have a right to make the decision they made and that the school should have informed them because the change was suddent and rather extraordinary.

Why? What business is it of the parents? Quite frankly the school has no reason whatsoever to inform parents of any major medical procedure their teachers have.

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.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

If we're talking about the beginning of the 'dressing differently' period, then I believe that some kind of context or explanation ought to be developed, for the kids in the class.

I expect adults to handle this sort of thing, no comments, no problems. I think children could find it sufficiently confusing, or even disturbing, that it's desirable to frame it, for them.

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.

[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?

[Ford Prefect]

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.

I must apologise to everyone else because there's more than enough bashing going on here, but are you actually retarded enough to think that if the school were to break the law and tell all the parents of students 'Miss Smith will now be Mister Smith' that twenty three children would not have been pulled out of the class? Are you actually suggesting that the parents' outrage was at not being informed? Did you drink bleach before you can to this assumption? Because it should be criminal to actually be this stupid. Their outrage, you insipid moron, is at the fact that the teacher of their children is transgendered, and as bigots, they are afraid of their children being in close contact with this person. If you were actually thinking, this would have appeared obvious, but instead you choose to harp on about how parents have the right to discriminate against people they don't like. Oh, you haven't actually said that, but if you were thinking, you would have realised that this is what you are actually promoting. Maybe you should step back a moment and look a little more closely at your 'arguments'.

And just to reiterate, the parents had no right to be informed about this teacher's personal life. The school was under no obligation to inform parents of this teacher's change in gender. I want to say dura lex, sed lex, except this law is not harsh. It is, however, quite clear: the school would have violated the man's privacy by revealing to parents any information regarding the change.

[Kanastrous]

If we're talking about the beginning of the 'dressing differently' period, then I believe that some kind of context or explanation ought to be developed, for the kids in the class.

I expect adults to handle this sort of thing, no comments, no problems. I think children could find it sufficiently confusing, or even disturbing, that it's desirable to frame it, for them.

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.

Nope, sorry, adults do not receive the same treatment appropriate for children.

No matter how childish their behavior when they don't get their way.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

I don't need to provide evidence. It's in the article. It is being assumed that they are being bigots. I'm am not saying that they should be bigots or that it's good for them to be bigots. I'm saying that if they are they have a right to.

No. They dont. Rights are not absolute, and in fact do not even exist as concrete things. At best they are useful rules of thumb that should guide our actions when making decisions. But the state, the children (and not just the ones being pulled from class), and the teacher have "rights" to.

The teacher has a right that overrides the parents not be discriminated against.

You just stated that rights are not absolute. The right of the teacher not to be discriminated does not extend to parents who choose to discriminate who teaches their kid. Are you now suggesting that should the parents not want to have their kid in the class, they should be forced to allow it?

The children have a right to an education, and moreover should they end up being trans in the future they have a right to a society and peer group that does not think them inhuman monsters.

Agreed.

What kind of message does being pulled from class like this send to a small child? The message is that the teacher, because he went from a she to a he, is a monster that should not be near children. How do you think these kids will grow up?

That is not my concern. I'm not worried about the good or bad nature of the parents actions. I'm addressing their right as parents to determine what goes on with their kid.

The state has a vested interest in making sure that GLBT people are not harmed by their fellow citizens, and this logically extends to making sure that bigotry is not learned.

Agreed. But in the context of learning bigotry the states job is to unlearn it or teach that bigotry is wrong in the public school context. They can not force people to not be bigots nor of biogted individuals to not want or try and rear their children to be bigots. What you are advocating by extension is the state controlling how people parent.

I'm just saying that as parents they have a right to do it and other things they think are best for their kid, within reason.

Key words: Within Reason

I do not think it unreasonable for them to remove their child from class. Were they to teach them that tg individuals were actually monsters that needed to be killed or somesuch nonsense that would most assuredly be outside of reason. However in the context of the article all they did was take their kid out of class.

I think they did what they did because they are ignorant of what a transgendered individual really is and felt uncomfortable with their child/children being around one. Dislike, ignorance, and aversion do not automatically mean hate.

Yeah, they actually do. People are idiots and pretty automatically fear and hate what they don't understand. I am sorry you are ignorant of basic human psych.

Not in all instances.

And in the context of the article they stated that they removed their children from the class because they weren't informed about something that was A) public and B) out of the ordinary. Therefore I'm not going to infer their reason and use it as part of my argument.

Go get a functioning brain. You cant possibly sit there with a straight face and tell me that you are not going to infer their exact reasons. Do you honestly think that these parents would have responded any differently had they gotten the info in a newsletter?

Do I believe that they are bigots? Probably. I'm not going to make that inference part of my argument because it wasn't mentioned in the article.

They can be as discriminatory as they please, they just have to do it within the bounds of the schools rules and not make a ruckus.

Well they certainly made a fucking ruckus.

I'm not advocating disclosing private medical records.

Except that you did in your first fucking post

Do not put words in my mouth. Do not say something I didn't nor infer from my statement something other than what I explicitly wrote. My quote for you in full since you can't fucking read.

I think that after the change at which point it'd out in the open the school could have said something to the affect of "One of our teachers Ms. Soandso will now be referred to as Mr. Soandso" without diving into massive details.

But the honorific change was public because the students knew, the administration obviously knew, and probably most of the folks who regularly dealt with the school knew. Releasing information that's already public (but not necessarily well distributed) isn't a violation of someones rights.

The law according to the lawyers, says differently.

Show me where publishing public information is illegal (and I mean true information, not a lie) about someone and I'll concede.

Would the school get in trouble if they said one of their teachers had brown hair?

See the above. Also, as a side note for my own understanding, why is GID considered a disorder?

Because of the emotional pain and suffering that comes with essentially being in a body that does not match your mind.

I'm not going to address more of that now so as not to derail the thread, but I am curious for more.

As I said I'm trying not to assumed anything. Whether this is the regular procedure for tg individuals is inconsequential. It appeared, as stated in the article, as being a sudden and unexpected change.

I am sorry, but a trained monkey knows how to pull information from other sources to evaluate an article. The fact that you cannot or will not do this speaks volumes.

I don't know that much about tg other than the fact that it's not terribly common. If what you say is true isn't it possible that that process could have taken place over the summer?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

What's really insane about this thread is that someone is actually arguing that people have a RIGHT to bigotry. Guess what: you don't.

You have the right to an OPINION, and you can even have PREFERENCES. But, to be a functioning, productive, non-slowtarded member of society you have to show tolerance and acceptance toward your fellow man, because they accept you're a slowtarded douchebag. Bigotry is intolerance of those you dislike, and actively discriminating against them. You don't have a right to take your baggage out on others.

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.

[General Zod]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

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.

I must apologise to everyone else because there's more than enough bashing going on here, but are you actually retarded enough to think that if the school were to break the law and tell all the parents of students 'Miss Smith will now be Mister Smith' that twenty three children would not have been pulled out of the class? Are you actually suggesting that the parents' outrage was at not being informed? Did you drink bleach before you can to this assumption? Because it should be criminal to actually be this stupid. Their outrage, you insipid moron, is at the fact that the teacher of their children is transgendered, and as bigots, they are afraid of their children being in close contact with this person. If you were actually thinking, this would have appeared obvious, but instead you choose to harp on about how parents have the right to discriminate against people they don't like. Oh, you haven't actually said that, but if you were thinking, you would have realised that this is what you are actually promoting. Maybe you should step back a moment and look a little more closely at your 'arguments'.

And just to reiterate, the parents had no right to be informed about this teacher's personal life. The school was under no obligation to inform parents of this teacher's change in gender. I want to say dura lex, sed lex, except this law is not harsh. It is, however, quite clear: the school would have violated the man's privacy by revealing to parents any information regarding the change.

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

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

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

Nope, sorry, adults do not receive the same treatment appropriate for children.

No matter how childish their behavior when they don't get their way.

I cut out chewbacas bit because I think it exceeded the 3 inter quote limit.

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