Teachers will be forced to tell parents that their child is questioning their gender even if the young person objects under new guidance for schools in England, the equalities minister has indicated.
Teachers will be forced to tell parents that their child is questioning their gender even if the young person objects under new guidance for schools in England, the equalities minister has indicated.
You do understand that there are parents who would make their children homeless (or worse) over issues of sexuality and gender right?
Is it that important to be able to snoop on every facet of your child’s life that you support turning what should’ve been a safespace for children who find themselves in the above scenario into yet another place they’re forced to hide.
Also, if you’re at the point where you’re resorting to using the law to force secrets out of your children, rather than having them trust you enough to just tell you, you should probably question your relationship with your children.
And there should be programs for these youths to help them out.
You want government employees determining whats okay for the kids, but have parents take any repercussions. Either parents are responsible for their kids decisions, or teachers, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Therapists have an obligation for confidentiality, teachers are public servants, they should serve the tax payers.
Exactly how are these kids meant to find out about these programs to help them if there’s literally nobody they know that they’re allowed to disclose this information to without their parents immediately finding out about it?
You say “government employee” like as though it’s a tax collector you’re putting in charge of these kids.
At least in the UK, teachers have to undergo a lot of safe-guarding training before they’re even allowed to teach. They’re supposed to protect your child’s safety, even from you if required. That’s serving the tax-payer, and this law jeopardises their ability to do so in that scenario.
Yes, because children (without the aid of parents) can afford a therapist. That’s your worst take so far.
Also, you missed the second part there where you can bypass all of this by simply fostering an environment where your child feels safe to tell you this in the first place. If your child isn’t telling you something that fundemental about themselves, it’s because they don’t feel safe to do so.
Holy shit. You’re seriously arguing that children losing access to their homes and families homeless is fine because “there are programs to help them out”!
Posters, like we have in a lot of government buildings, saying ‘if you’re experiencing home insecurity, use this resource’
Fucking easy, dude. Once again, you make it seem so special that it’s the + community experiencing homelessness. It doesn’t matter, they’re people too. Straight kids experiencing homelessness and + community need the same thing - a roof over their head.
Are they not government employees?
I agree with this and it’s the same in the U.S. Once again - it’s to defend against abuse by parents, whether it’s a straight cis male or a trans woman. We don’t need special rules - abuse is abuse.
Schools have therapists and counselors.
I agree. I don’t think it’s up to government agents to self determine this situation in the family, though. If teachers suspect abuse, they’re obligated to report it.
Firstly, I made that comment before you elaborated on the idea that your “programs” referred to programs to help the homeless. Of course that kind of generalised “hone insecurity” helpline is going to be available, but why do we have to start from the idea of them getting kicked out in the first place.
As I’ve said in other comments, you are so committed to the idea that all parents must know all to such an extent that you don’t even consider the possibility that many children could be saved from homelessness simply by discretion offered by a teacher as a safeguarding agent.
You’re right that LGBT+ kids aren’t special in regards to being homeless, but this conversation right here, right now isn’t about that. You’re just pulling an “All Lives Matter” on this conversation as if that’s some epic comeback.
They are government employees, bur acting like all government employees are exactly the same is again a really bloody stupid take.
Again, teachers are trained not just to teach, but to safeguard your children from all sorts of things.
And yet by ousting a child like this to their parents by force of law, like you’re supporting, you throw that child into a potentially abusive situation that could’ve been avoided.
It’s like handing the school bully a stack full of blackmail on a student and expecting them not to abuse it.
Therapists and Counselors that they have to be referred to by their teachers or parents, the exact people they won’t tell because they can’t trust them.
EDIT - Actually there’s one other bit I didn’t think about typing this. Not all disclosures are deliberate. A teacher could overhear this and now be obligated to bring hell down upon a child without them being aware of what’s coming, which I’d argue is even worse. No therapists or councillors are gonna help with that.
So you’d rather it get to the point of abuse before a teacher can do something about it?
It’s not even just about self-evaluation - if a child disclosed this to a teacher under the belief they would be safeguarded, the teacher would be legally obligated to say it to the parents even if that child told the teacher the exact nature of their family dynamics and the potential abuse this information could lead to.
Tell you what, it must be great living in your world of black and white where you never have to consider the downstream ramifications your broad generalisations produce.
Because y’alls argument is always ‘these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!’ and making that some sort of gotcha, like I’m pro-homeless youth.
And, as I’ve said, that’s outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.
As I’ve said and you apparently can’t grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They’re on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?
It doesn’t matter if they’re the same. They’re government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.
If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?
Teachers have a job, and they’re pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren’t there to keep secrets from parents.
“I want a therapist” - see, don’t need to say anything about wanting to be called LaQuanda instead of Jimmy. This is really fucking basic stuff, dude. You just want an excuses to have teachers take on the role of parenting for these kids, without having the actual responsibility for them. That’s worse for educators, and parents.
You can literally say that about any abuse situation. I can’t file a domestic abuse charge on my partner because I missed a bill payment and I think one day she may slap me because of it.
That’s what you’re doing. You just think anytime there’s a kid who doesn’t tell his parent something, it must be abusive. Teachers aren’t responsible for their students lives, parents are. Stop trying to make it so these government agents don’t respond to the taxpayers wants and actively fight against the people they’re supposed to serve.
You act like that’s a purely hypotherical situation I’m popping out if my ass. There are children in this situation, where this will happen, and your solution is to render them homeless. At least in this situation, you are pro-homeless youth.
And that’s because teachers do have a lot of duties outside the scope of teaching, including safeguarding.
And I think that’s where things differ between us. I think the school (not just the teacher) should be allowed to withhold that information if they believe it would endanger that child.
I’m not trying to carve out a special case for LGBT+, this law that has brought on this discussion is entirely about a law the affects specifically the T part of that community, so of course the conversation will drift that way, because that’s how conversations work.
You seem to think I’m happy letting it get to the point of abuse, when the option to not do so is there. That you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Also, in the event there was a piece of information in the same vein that potentially could introduce abuse to a straight child in the same way, I would also want the school to practice discretion about it.
The safeguarding duty is serving the tax-payer. It is preventing abuse where there is reason to suspect that the disclosure of certain information could create an abusive situation.
You say “secret meetings” as though the teachers are going out shopping with them to buy opposite gendered clothes and putting them on HRT. There are much better resources than than what a teacher can and should offer, but that’s not possible if you don’t render an environment where the child has a chance to ask for them.
In the event of a broken leg, yes, a first-aid qualified teacher would provide first-aid to the child, then let paramedics take over from there. In that situation, obviously discretion is not going to be required because it’s not a sensitive issue.
And in the event of cancer, I’d hope the parents have an active enough involvement in their child’s life that their teachers find out they’ve got cancer before they do. A teacher wouldn’t be diagnosing such, as that is outside the scope of their job.
Again, they’re their to protect your child. If that means protecting them from you, then yes, that is and should be in the scope of their job. Besides which, it isn’t them alone that would do this. It would be up the school as well, as a teacher does have the duty to report it to the school so that resources can be given.
Apparently this is too long a conversation, so I’m going to have to split this in two.
If you think “I want a therapist” will get the kid a therapist with nothing else said or done, I think it’s you that’s naive. Even if it’s a school’s therapist, those resources are limited in scope, and assessment of need would be carried out.
It’s true that this would be more confidential, but I am surprised that you’re up for this considering this is another government employee quite literally having secret meetings with your child, and would still result in you not being told anything.
I think you and I both know that’s not the same, nor carries the same weight as potentially being abused and kicked out of your home due to being ousted as LGBT+.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that disclosing that information could lead to abuse, and not disclosing it wouldn’t, I’d much rather those “government employees” err on the side of not waiting until they’ve introduced a child into an abusive situation before doing something about it.
I don’t think anytime a child doesn’t want their parent to be told something it is abusive. What I don’t want is a law that creates a situation where the above is true, and makes the situation worse.
I’m pinpointing on this as an example, because it’s a realistic scenario that points out that a universal disclosure law isn’t a good idea if you actually want to protect children, because it isn’t always the just outside world that could harm them.
They aren’t fighting against the people they’re supposed to serve. Their ability is foster the people of the future, and that includes safeguarding them from harm, including that introduced by the child’s parents.
Plus, are you forgetting that these children will one day be those very tax-payers, who may very well be thankful that their school acted in their best interest?
So you think school therapists aren’t good enough? Yet you think the teachers know more about how it will affect the student? Which is it, are the schools competent or not?
0 difference. Cops can’t arrests my spouse because they assume that she might one day abuse me.
Instead of encouraging lying to parents, why not try to improve abuse and homeless programs? Why don’t you advertise them in school? Giant posters “do you think you’re being abuse? Talk to a school counselor to get information on resources”
Boom. This is fucking easy dude. You just want excuses for government employees to override the parenting of parents, without any evidence besides a teachers subjective observations and rash conclusions.
What if it makes it better? A kid that’s questioning gender have much higher suicide rates, what if the teacher withholds this information, and the kid commits suicide. That’s on the teacher, is that what you want? Parents have that responsibility, not teachers. You want teachers to have the say, without any of the repercussions.
Once again, that’s not their duty. Their duty is educate the children how the people in the state and district desire.
You have this impression that government agents should be the ones determining the culture of the future. Paired with the government forcing us to give them our children for 8 hours a day 5 days a week or else they take our children from us.That’s inherently dangerous and anti-liberal.
Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist’s list is years long.
I do think the schools therapist is a good outlet, but a schools therapist can’t do much to solve accidental disclosures. The moment a teacher eavesdrops on the student talking about it outside a therapy, it’s still game over for them.
What are you on about??
The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child, and should use that foresight to prevent abuse as part of their safeguarding duties.
First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.
Secondly, if you had reasonable suspicion to think that your wife might abuse you or kick out of the house based on something about you that has almost no almost no effect on her, then I don’t think you’d appreciate it if your friends went behind you back an told her, thereby endangering you, would you?
The fundemental gap between us rears it’s ugly head again. You’re willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I’m not.
Improve those programs to help people who can’t avoid that scenario, but there is still a responsibility to prevent that scenario from occurring. You’re not a very good safeguarder if not only do you not react until the damage is already done, but you bring it about in the first place.
I’ll put it this way, I’d rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.
Besides which, could abusive parents not make the same argument of the services meant to stop them?
On the Venn diagram of parents who a school may view as candidates to abuse their children over this if made aware of this information, and parents that would help guide their children through this process, I suspect the overlap to be minute.
Yet again, it is. The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation where they are legally required to enable abuse is abhorrent.
It us their duty to report concerns to the school, who should then make the decision whether it is safe to tell the parents. Teachers should not be given that burden of being put into a situation where they have to potential enable abuse.
I’m not suggesting they should be determining the culture of the future. But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.
If that includes allowing a student to show a part of their persona that they cannot show at home, for as long as it is not endangering others at the school, then the strong arm of the law shouldn’t be striking it down.
The fact that you want the government to intervene to take that away from teachers screams far more dangerous and anti-liberal to me, just saying
Also, I’m just about done with this argument, so this will be my last reply on this topic. Feel free to slander me as you like in your next reply.
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.
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.
I didn’t assume that, the person I was replying to gave me that scenario.
Gotta read the chain homie.
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.
I responded to this statement.
You’re telling me that this statement doesn’t mention children losing access to their homes?
Come on, man.
You should learn to read your own words. As a direct reply to that person, you said:
You literally say in this comment that what you were saying to me is that “we should invest in professional to help out the homeless”.
Tell me in what universe that doesn’t interprete as you having already made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless than let a teacher have discretion of a safeguarding agent.
Dude, I’ve read a bunch of your comments at this point. I know where you stand and it’s disgusting. Don’t try to blame that on reading comprehension.
I’m pro-investing into programs to help homeless use.
If you’re against that, I don’t know what to tell you. I pray one day you will find empathy and also support increased funding to house them.