Apparently Christian dogma takes precedence over doing harm
to vulnerable students.
In August, the Loudoun County, Virginia school board implemented policies to protect transgender students. Those policies comply with Virginia law. Furthermore, the policies conform to medical science.
A school board meeting was held last night. On the agenda were items related to a shortage of school bus drivers and teacher compensation. Right wing Christian activists decided that it was time, yet again, to air their grievances over pronouns. In advance of the meeting, the school board announced that only county residents would be permitted to comment.
Daily Wire polemicist Matt Walsh has a problem. The Church informs Mr. Walsh that transgender persons cannot exist due to a passage in ancient texts. That settles it — at least for Walsh. All of the evidence to the contrary must not exist.
Furthermore, a mountain of peer-reviewed research must be the musings of godless Marxists (or whatever fever dream fantasy Walsh conjures up, … today).
Walsh is so distraught over treating kids with kindness that he rented a home in the county so that he could publicly comment at the meeting. Indeed he organized a rally in advance of the meeting so that the MAGA morons could air their grievances.
Before I get into this further, I have a basic question:
No one is asking any of these people to alter their beliefs. No one is soliciting their approval. Furthermore addressing people as they choose to be addressed is expected in polite society. Doing so does not express approval.
“… the woman is an ignoramus. Monica Gill stated that “forcing these radical ideologies under the guise of policies that harm students has to stop. They are acting like the debate is already over.”
One teacher in the district, Laura Morris, has resigned and is suing the school board via Alliance Defending Freedom. Two teachers had already joined that suit.
Tuesday evening, in front of the school board headquarters, two more teachers said that they were joining the lawsuit. Seriously, grown ups require a court to tell them that it’s okay to be obtuse and bigoted. A court could find that it is compelled speech but that is not the point.
Trans kids who are supported in their gender thrive. Trans kids who are not supported in their gender experience increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. Who, in their right mind, would intentionally cause children to suffer?
Mat Walsh, devoted Christian that he is, has no problem bullying children in defense of the faith. Laura Morris admitted that she opposes “… political ideologies that do not square with who I am as a believer in Christ.”
Most infuriating is teachers claiming that their bigotry protects other children; Monica Gill is one of those. Here she is at the rally. I do not know who is responsible for the backdrop lacking only the phoniness of a rainbow flag:
The message is that cisgender children need to be protected from, … something when they and teachers addressing trans kids politely. It is insane and conjures up images of the Mad Hatter:
Moreover, the woman is an ignoramus. Monica Gill stated that “forcing these radical ideologies under the guise of policies that harm students has to stop. They are acting like the debate is already over. They’ve chosen one side in this debate. They have specifically decided that teachers have to use pronouns that students specify without any kind of substantiating evidence.”
“Does Monica Gill actually think that a kid is going to pretend to be transgender in order to suffer abuse and ridicule from morons like her?”
This imbecile has no business teaching. She doesn’t make much sense since there is — obviously — no policy falsely characterized as something intended to harm students. Moreover, what debate does this idiot want?
The science regarding the benefits of addressing trans kids with preferred pronouns is settled. Not doing so does violence to those kids.
Furthermore, a “debate” over school policy would amount to a comparison of benefits in contrast to consequences. The benefits of treating a vulnerable minority with kindness are obvious. What message does Gill’s intended cruelty send to other students.
Where the hell are the detriments? What Ms. Gill and Matt Walsh seek is Christian Privilege. “I don’t like this policy because …” Because of what exactly? Superstition? Moreover, when did not agreeing with policy license anyone to deviate from said policy?
I am sure that there are many policies that some teachers don’t like. However, the workplace is disrupted if everyone can pick and choose which policies they will obey and which they will not obey.
“… every trans youth has at least one tax-paying parent who expects their child to be treated with respect in public schools.”
Furthermore, in a stretch to assign secular logic to a religious objection, Gill says that there is a lack of “substantiating evidence.” So a transgender child needs to provide a note from their doctor that they are transgender in order to be treated with respect? The fact that the kid is presenting in accordance with their gender identity is insufficient?
Does Monica Gill actually think that a kid is going to pretend to be transgender in order to suffer abuse and ridicule from morons like her? Does she believe that the kid wakes up in the morning and, after breakfast, ponders their gender identity and concludes “today I think that I will be female?”
Matt Walsh is obviously irrational. How else does one explain his renting a house outside of his residence in order to make a transphobic speech in a public forum intended to discuss bus drivers and teachers’ salaries when the commentary pertains to a policy decision that was made more than a month ago? Who is Walsh trying to impress with this stunt?
There are a few things that I know to an absolute certainty:
- The use of preferred pronouns makes gender-expansive kids healthier.
- Transgender kids are already especially vulnerable and fragile.
- Gender identity is not a choice.
- Not using preferred pronouns or deadnaming a trans child are deliberate acts that cause children to suffer; possibly to the point of self-harm. It amounts to the intentional inducement of minority stress.
- Abusing a transgender kid is not going to change their gender identity.
- A gender-affirming policy in public schools has no effect, whatsoever, on cisgender students.
- Any effect that gender affirmation has on teachers is due to choices that the teacher makes.
“… a ‘debate’ over school policy would amount to a comparison of benefits in contrast to consequences. The benefits of treating a vulnerable minority with kindness are obvious.”
The common refrain that I have heard is that the teacher is being forced to lie to the student. In that case the lie is based upon Christian dogma. Dogmatists accept the doctrine as incontrovertible truth regardless of evidence to the contrary.
First of all, teaching and interacting with children based on religious beliefs is improper. Frankly it is dangerous. Imagine the Jewish teacher telling students that their parents are committing a grave sin when they serve ham or shrimp. Do these same people want Muslim teachers to interact with kids based on their faith? I doubt it.
Secondly, claiming that the teacher is lying to the student suggests that the student is being harmed. That is an obvious bit of spectacular stupidity.
Third, no harm attaches itself to the teacher. They are not forced to abandon deeply held religious beliefs. If they have a gender-diverse child they are free to damage them with religious ignorance. However, every trans youth has at least one tax-paying parent who expects their child to be treated with respect in public schools. Is that not a reasonable expectation?