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.

  • Th4tGuyII
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    I mean I’m reading the same thing they did and it’s not that unfavourable an interpretation of what you said.

    If anything this comment only doubles down on it. You’ve already assumed the kids are going to be homeless, rather than the point I was making that there are times where this law will 100% conflict with a teacher’s safe-guarding duty, yet they will be forced by law to endanger the child anyway.

    • MasterOBee Master/King
      link
      -11 year ago

      f anything this comment only doubles down on it. You’ve already assumed the kids are going to be homeless,

      I didn’t assume that, the person I was replying to gave me that scenario.

      Gotta read the chain homie.

      • Th4tGuyII
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        I am the guy you were replying when you said that “homie”

        I gave you that question. It wasn’t a scenario where a child is already homeless, it was that the implications of this law would drive children in that situation into homelessness.

        Your reply to that there was thrte should be programs to help them, which you elaborate to mean the homeless. You’ve told me you’re so attached to this idea that you’ve already discounted the option of withholding this information for the sake of a child’s safety and wellbeing, which tells me enough about what you think.

        • MasterOBee Master/King
          link
          11 year ago

          You’re seriously arguing that children losing access to their homes and families homeless is fine because “there are programs to help them out”!

          I responded to this statement.

          You’re telling me that this statement doesn’t mention children losing access to their homes?

          Come on, man.

          • Th4tGuyII
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            You should learn to read your own words. As a direct reply to that person, you said:

            Your interpretation of my saying that we should invest in programs to help out the homeless use, as instead me saying it’s fine is a reflection on your poor reading comprehension.

            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.

            • MasterOBee Master/King
              link
              11 year ago

              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.

              made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless

              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.

              • Th4tGuyII
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                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.

                • MasterOBee Master/King
                  link
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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”

                  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 and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.

                  You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.

                  • Th4tGuyII
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    You not understanding that it’s severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don’t have empathy.

                    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.

                    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.

                    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.

                    You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.

                    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.