I'm fairly okay with the LGBT community. Sexual orientation isn't really a thing I care about. I agree that transgender people should be treated with respect. That being said, I do have one question on the topic: Why is it expected that when a transgender person changes their name that we must use it?

Now, don't get me wrong, if they legally have their name changed I'm going to call them that name. What I'm talking about is a person that just decides they want to be called "Jill" instead of "John" one day. No legal papers, no official change, just their decision. Apparently in some jurisdictions this is the law and you can open yourself up to liability if you refuse to comply. Even school districts are being told to comply with any age of child, and they are not allowed to notify parents. In some places these "unofficial, but enforceable" name changes go so far as to effect employment records (I'm sure that makes records easy to sort through).


I am definitely for equality. I expect this of all people. I don't care who you are or what your personal identity is, I shouldn't have to face legal ramifications for calling you your legal name. Until that point it isn't your name, it's an alias. Is it too much to ask for names to be changed legally?

Do you care about or respect a person?
Is doing what they have requested during a difficult time in their life going to cause you any actual harm?

If yes and no, then just do the decent thing.

Unless you're filling out their paperwork, and it's a working relationship, how someone asks to be addressed is a favor they are asking of you. It's your gift back if you wish to respect them.

If it's not legally changed to be your name then it's just a nickname. What you're describing strikes me as being akin to punishing people for calling somebody "William" when he prefers to be known as "Bill."

It also strikes me as wholly unnecessary. We already have laws against harassment, both in and out of the workplace. If somebody is deliberately calling you a name that you've repeatedly asked people not to use then that person is quickly going to cross the line from being rude to be harassing and trigger an intervention by Human Resources or the authorities.

Has there been a raft of cases regarding this? Anything prominent?

Or is this just something that has come up?

BC has this correct I think. What harm does it do to actually use a persons preferred name?

Names are only useful when they are a common reference.
The farce that was Prince changing his name to a bloody symbol and being referred to as 'the artist formerly known as Prince' highlights how a name is used to refer to an individual and remove confusion.

It doesn't get easier on a personal level. I have called a friend by his surname forever. When he married a woman with a daughter and took her name so that they could all share a surname I was touched and still consider it an excellent choice.

I still have to consciously force my lips to say the new name when I refer to him.

I expect it's more distressing when the new name represents a complete rejection of reality.

The punishment, and changes to official paperwork are what I am mostly perturbed about. If someone is honestly transitioning, and decides that their name will eventually be "Sue" I have no problems temporarily calling them that until it is official.

I do have a problem in changing their employee records and payroll information before being "official". I also don't like that people can face disciplinary action for slipping up on the name change.

I also see this as a double standard. I knew a guy once that was named Charles Daniel Raper. His father was also "Charles", so they just called him Dan, and it is what he preferred. He signed his checks "C. Dan Raper". However, our LGBT friendly employer insisted that "Charles" be on his nametag. Transitioning people got to choose the name on their nametag.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Has there been a raft of cases regarding this? Anything prominent?

Or is this just something that has come up?

BC has this correct I think. What harm does it do to actually use a persons preferred name?

I can think of lots of ways it can harm things lol. I've worked in high danger jobs, safety and as leading hand and a manager.

I'm assuming there are some cases, rumours, anecdotes or stories where people have been punished in an official capacity for misnaming or misgendering people who have not changed name on paper.

To break down: Why is it expected that when a transgender person changes their name that we must use it?
One we have covered is respect and kindness to this person.

However to look at it further: Why might the person not legally change their name (yet)?

In many cases, changing a name legally would put that person in a dangerous situation. It would mean there is a clear discrepancy between their body and their name.
Transgender people do not just pop out of the ground, walk into a clinic and step out with a new chassis.
There are years and years of steps in between for average people who do not have cash to pull on and expedite their transition.
Many people have to divide their lives into "out" (for example, home) and "stealth" (work, school and medical).

There is fear. Fear of how they may be treated at work.
Fear that basic needs like medical treatment being denied or mishandled due to prejudice on the part of the care giver. There are many many cases of this that are well documented if you scrape the surface.

There is also uncertainty. Your entire life has been building you to be this one gender. Changing your name or even committing to being trans, it often feels like it's 90% correct. The tiny voice of years and years of every other influence is going "hey, but..."

So you are not obligated to do anything. But it helps someone going through immense amounts of inner difficulty, if you afford them that one thing.

I also see this as an absolutely abusable policy. Technically, if school children are allowed to decide what they will be called, you must do it for everyone, or you are in violation of Title 9.

That means that there will eventually be someone who "identifies as a 1990's Eddy Murfy character" and insists on being called "Prince Akeem Joffie of Zamunda". It's like a Tribe Called Quest, you have to say the whole thing. Legally speaking, they would have to accommodate them.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm fairly okay with the LGBT community. Sexual orientation isn't really a thing I care about. I agree that transgender people should be treated with respect. That being said, I do have one question on the topic: Why is it expected that when a transgender person changes their name that we must use it?

Now, don't get me wrong, if they legally have their name changed I'm going to call them that name. What I'm talking about is a person that just decides they want to be called "Jill" instead of "John" one day. No legal papers, no official change, just their decision. Apparently in some jurisdictions this is the law and you can open yourself up to liability if you refuse to comply. Even school districts are being told to comply with any age of child, and they are not allowed to notify parents. In some places these "unofficial, but enforceable" name changes go so far as to effect employment records (I'm sure that makes records easy to sort through).


I am definitely for equality. I expect this of all people. I don't care who you are or what your personal identity is, I shouldn't have to face legal ramifications for calling you your legal name. Until that point it isn't your name, it's an alias. Is it too much to ask for names to be changed legally?

Do you use shortened names (Ellie for Eleanor, or Jake for Jacob, or Bob for Robert)? Those aren't their legal names.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I'm assuming there are some cases, rumours, anecdotes or stories where people have been punished in an official capacity for misnaming or misgendering people who have not changed name on paper.

To break down: Why is it expected that when a transgender person changes their name that we must use it?
One we have covered is respect and kindness to this person.

However to look at it further: Why might the person not legally change their name (yet)?

In many cases, changing a name legally would put that person in a dangerous situation. It would mean there is a clear discrepancy between their body and their name.
Transgender people do not just pop out of the ground, walk into a clinic and step out with a new chassis.
There are years and years of steps in between for average people who do not have cash to pull on and expedite their transition.
Many people have to divide their lives into "out" (for example, home) and "stealth" (work, school and medical).

There is fear. Fear of how they may be treated at work.
Fear that basic needs like medical treatment being denied or mishandled due to prejudice on the part of the care giver. There are many many cases of this that are well documented if you scrape the surface.

There is also uncertainty. Your entire life has been building you to be this one gender. Changing your name or even committing to being trans, it often feels like it's 90% correct. The tiny voice of years and years of every other influence is going "hey, but..."

So you are not obligated to do anything. But it helps someone going through immense amounts of inner difficulty, if you afford them that one thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on board with you when it comes to the respect angle. I'm fine with calling someone their new name if they are intent on changing it. I will disagree about the School and Work angles though. They are being forced to change their records to a non-legal name. How is that NOT outing a person? How are they facing less discrimination by having official records changed before legally changing their name?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm fairly okay with the LGBT community. Sexual orientation isn't really a thing I care about. I agree that transgender people should be treated with respect. That being said, I do have one question on the topic: Why is it expected that when a transgender person changes their name that we must use it?

Now, don't get me wrong, if they legally have their name changed I'm going to call them that name. What I'm talking about is a person that just decides they want to be called "Jill" instead of "John" one day. No legal papers, no official change, just their decision. Apparently in some jurisdictions this is the law and you can open yourself up to liability if you refuse to comply. Even school districts are being told to comply with any age of child, and they are not allowed to notify parents. In some places these "unofficial, but enforceable" name changes go so far as to effect employment records (I'm sure that makes records easy to sort through).


I am definitely for equality. I expect this of all people. I don't care who you are or what your personal identity is, I shouldn't have to face legal ramifications for calling you your legal name. Until that point it isn't your name, it's an alias. Is it too much to ask for names to be changed legally?

Do you use shortened names (Ellie for Eleanor, or Jake for Jacob, or Bob for Robert)? Those aren't their legal names.

While you are technically correct, Will is accepted as a form or abbreviation of William. Jackie is NOT a shortened form of William. Also, if I walked up to "Will" and called him William, I would not face punishment from the HR department.

I think you need to give us some broader information about what you're describing, cuda.
Is this a particular state or county, or country based thing?

Edit: You probably need to update your topic post to clarify this, because it does read like "why do this generally", and you are asking about a very specific scenario which is unfamiliar to most of us.

It is allowable by law to change your name.
Last name changes after marriage already set this precedence.
It makes sense to change your name after physically changing to your gender identity.
I am unsure how a change of name can be an imposition on the OP.
It is hard enough on the individual going through these changes.
<edit> If someone requests to be called a certain name like an abbreviated form, again this is no big deal.
For some strange reason I would be more comfortable calling a female "Barb" rather than "Bob", I guess it is a "traditional" naming convention.

 =Angel= wrote:
Names are only useful when they are a common reference.
The farce that was Prince changing his name to a bloody symbol and being referred to as 'the artist formerly known as Prince' highlights how a name is used to refer to an individual and remove confusion.

It doesn't get easier on a personal level. I have called a friend by his surname forever. When he married a woman with a daughter and took her name so that they could all share a surname I was touched and still consider it an excellent choice.

I still have to consciously force my lips to say the new name when I refer to him.

I expect it's more distressing when the new name represents a complete rejection of reality.

Prince did that so that he could break out of a recording contract that he considered to be unfair. He didn't do it just for a lark, there was a specific goal he was trying to accomplish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)#Artistry

Pseudonyms

In 1993, during negotiations regarding the release of The Gold Experience, a legal battle ensued between Warner Bros. and Prince over the artistic and financial control of his musical output. During the lawsuit, Prince appeared in public with the word "slave" written on his cheek.[205] He explained that he had changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol to emancipate himself from his contract with Warner Bros., and that he had done it out of frustration because he felt his own name now belonged to the company.[206][207]

Prince sometimes used pseudonyms to separate himself from the music he had written, produced, or recorded, and at one point stated that his ownership and achievement were strengthened by the act of giving away ideas.[92] Pseudonyms he adopted, at various times, include: Jamie Starr and The Starr Company (for the songs he wrote for The Time and many other artists from 1981 to 1984),[208][209] Joey Coco (for many unreleased Prince songs in the late 1980s, as well as songs written for Sheena Easton and Kenny Rogers),[210] Alexander Nevermind (for writing the song "Sugar Walls" (1984) by Sheena Easton),[211] and Christopher (used for his song writing credit of "Manic Monday" (1986) for the Bangles).[212]

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I think you need to give us some broader information about what you're describing, cuda.
Is this a particular state or county, or country based thing?

90% sure it will be a country based thing. I know here in Aus you cant be legally penalised for using a persons legal given name and you couldn't get any employee details changed without a legal name change being done first.

Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I also see this as an absolutely abusable policy. Technically, if school children are allowed to decide what they will be called, you must do it for everyone, or you are in violation of Title 9.

That means that there will eventually be someone who "identifies as a 1990's Eddy Murfy character" and insists on being called "Prince Akeem Joffie of Zamunda". It's like a Tribe Called Quest, you have to say the whole thing. Legally speaking, they would have to accommodate them.

When I was in school, the first day the teachers would do roll call to get our names. While doing roll call they would ask us what we went by. "David, do you go by Dave? Davey? What do you prefer?" They asked everybody this. A lot of kids in my class used their middle name because we had 2-3 Matts, 2-3 Jessicas, etc. So school children already go through this.

Also, that is a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm fairly okay with the LGBT community. Sexual orientation isn't really a thing I care about. I agree that transgender people should be treated with respect. That being said, I do have one question on the topic: Why is it expected that when a transgender person changes their name that we must use it?

Now, don't get me wrong, if they legally have their name changed I'm going to call them that name. What I'm talking about is a person that just decides they want to be called "Jill" instead of "John" one day. No legal papers, no official change, just their decision. Apparently in some jurisdictions this is the law and you can open yourself up to liability if you refuse to comply. Even school districts are being told to comply with any age of child, and they are not allowed to notify parents. In some places these "unofficial, but enforceable" name changes go so far as to effect employment records (I'm sure that makes records easy to sort through).


I am definitely for equality. I expect this of all people. I don't care who you are or what your personal identity is, I shouldn't have to face legal ramifications for calling you your legal name. Until that point it isn't your name, it's an alias. Is it too much to ask for names to be changed legally?

If you're old like me this isn't an issue. I won't remember your name in the first place.

While common courtesy should say use their name if you remember it, I may be incorrect but I've heard of no law requiring you to call someone by their name. I doubt thats constitutional AT ALL under the First Amendment.
"Hey Jill"
"My name is Jack"
"Hey Dick Bag"

I really don't see the big deal. I have a stister/brother in law currently going through this, though she's still "unofficial" as she's only 16 and can't have the operation yet.

The kindness goes both ways. I'll agree to call you whatever you want to be called, but don't persecute me if I slip up and call you something else. It's an accident, not malice.

OP, I really don't see how this is that big of a deal. If you are indeed "punished by HR", you could always tell them it was an accident. Unless it repeatedly happened, I don't see this being a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:
Names are only useful when they are a common reference.
The farce that was Prince changing his name to a bloody symbol and being referred to as 'the artist formerly known as Prince' highlights how a name is used to refer to an individual and remove confusion.

It doesn't get easier on a personal level. I have called a friend by his surname forever. When he married a woman with a daughter and took her name so that they could all share a surname I was touched and still consider it an excellent choice.

I still have to consciously force my lips to say the new name when I refer to him.

I expect it's more distressing when the new name represents a complete rejection of reality.

Prince did that so that he could break out of a recording contract that he considered to be unfair. He didn't do it just for a lark, there was a specific goal he was trying to accomplish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)#Artistry

Pseudonyms

In 1993, during negotiations regarding the release of The Gold Experience, a legal battle ensued between Warner Bros. and Prince over the artistic and financial control of his musical output. During the lawsuit, Prince appeared in public with the word "slave" written on his cheek.[205] He explained that he had changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol to emancipate himself from his contract with Warner Bros., and that he had done it out of frustration because he felt his own name now belonged to the company.[206][207]

Prince sometimes used pseudonyms to separate himself from the music he had written, produced, or recorded, and at one point stated that his ownership and achievement were strengthened by the act of giving away ideas.[92] Pseudonyms he adopted, at various times, include: Jamie Starr and The Starr Company (for the songs he wrote for The Time and many other artists from 1981 to 1984),[208][209] Joey Coco (for many unreleased Prince songs in the late 1980s, as well as songs written for Sheena Easton and Kenny Rogers),[210] Alexander Nevermind (for writing the song "Sugar Walls" (1984) by Sheena Easton),[211] and Christopher (used for his song writing credit of "Manic Monday" (1986) for the Bangles).[212]

Thank you. Learned this recently (within the last month or so) and it bothers me when people give Prince crap for it. It was actually a smart move for a musician strangled by a contract (look at Ke$ha's recent problems with her contract).

 d-usa wrote:
Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

I'm interesting in seeing more info on this too. It sounds like school boards literally letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that schools want to help students be themselves and all that but letting kids arbitrarily change their names would be crazy. Our kids decided years ago when they were in preschool that they liked to change their names to "Bunny" and "Queen Ester" when they played pretend but I wouldn't want the school system to start officially referring to our son as Bunny. At some point you would need parents to sign off on it, I would think, and hopefully that would work as a bulwark against abuse and silliness of the policy.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[

When I was in school, the first day the teachers would do roll call to get our names. While doing roll call they would ask us what we went by. "David, do you go by Dave? Davey? What do you prefer?" They asked everybody this. A lot of kids in my class used their middle name because we had 2-3 Matts, 2-3 Jessicas, etc. So school children already go through this.

.

There is a HUGE jump between calling "David" Dave or using a legal middle name and changing a name outright. Also, when "Davey's" records are looked at in the office it will still state "David Wilson Carson", not Jackie Anne Carson. This is the policy in some school districts and in some professional aspects.


As I stated in a previous post, my biggest gripe is about officially changing records BEFORE a legal name change. Hypothetically, if a woman came to me and said, "Cuda, I plan on getting married in a year, but I want to use my fiancé's last name now", I'd have the same reaction.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[

When I was in school, the first day the teachers would do roll call to get our names. While doing roll call they would ask us what we went by. "David, do you go by Dave? Davey? What do you prefer?" They asked everybody this. A lot of kids in my class used their middle name because we had 2-3 Matts, 2-3 Jessicas, etc. So school children already go through this.

.

There is a HUGE jump between calling "David" Dave or using a legal middle name and changing a name outright. Also, when "Davey's" records are looked at in the office it will still state "David Wilson Carson", not Jackie Anne Carson. This is the policy in some school districts and in some professional aspects.


As I stated in a previous post, my biggest gripe is about officially changing records BEFORE a legal name change. Hypothetically, if a woman came to me and said, "Cuda, I plan on getting married in a year, but I want to use my fiancé's last name now", I'd have the same reaction.

Do you have any source of this actually happening?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

I'm interesting in seeing more info on this too. It sounds like school boards literally letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that schools want to help students be themselves and all that but letting kids arbitrarily change their names would be crazy. Our kids decided years ago when they were in preschool that they liked to change their names to "Bunny" and "Queen Ester" when they played pretend but I wouldn't want the school system to start officially referring to our son as Bunny. At some point you would need parents to sign off on it, I would think, and hopefully that would work as a bulwark against abuse and silliness of the policy.

It actually gets worse. Not only do the parents not get a say in the matter, the schools are legally forbidden to tell them about it. The parents could be sending "John" to school every morning, only to have "J-shank" be his official in-school name. When parent teacher conferences come about, teachers must talk about "John's" progress and never mention the term "J-shank".

 cuda1179 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

I'm interesting in seeing more info on this too. It sounds like school boards literally letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that schools want to help students be themselves and all that but letting kids arbitrarily change their names would be crazy. Our kids decided years ago when they were in preschool that they liked to change their names to "Bunny" and "Queen Ester" when they played pretend but I wouldn't want the school system to start officially referring to our son as Bunny. At some point you would need parents to sign off on it, I would think, and hopefully that would work as a bulwark against abuse and silliness of the policy.

It actually gets worse. Not only do the parents not get a say in the matter, the schools are legally forbidden to tell them about it. The parents could be sending "John" to school every morning, only to have "J-shank" be his official in-school name. When parent teacher conferences come about, teachers must talk about "John's" progress and never mention the term "J-shank".

What state/school district is using this policy? That sounds crazy.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

I'm interesting in seeing more info on this too. It sounds like school boards literally letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that schools want to help students be themselves and all that but letting kids arbitrarily change their names would be crazy. Our kids decided years ago when they were in preschool that they liked to change their names to "Bunny" and "Queen Ester" when they played pretend but I wouldn't want the school system to start officially referring to our son as Bunny. At some point you would need parents to sign off on it, I would think, and hopefully that would work as a bulwark against abuse and silliness of the policy.

It actually gets worse. Not only do the parents not get a say in the matter, the schools are legally forbidden to tell them about it. The parents could be sending "John" to school every morning, only to have "J-shank" be his official in-school name. When parent teacher conferences come about, teachers must talk about "John's" progress and never mention the term "J-shank".

And who does this hurt?

Spurious examples aside, if calling someone a name helps their confidence, and doesn't disrupt anyone's day, why does it matter?

Now saying a teacher cannot tell a parent that they're child is trans, that's another matter, and not the point you originally presented.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

I'm interesting in seeing more info on this too. It sounds like school boards literally letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that schools want to help students be themselves and all that but letting kids arbitrarily change their names would be crazy. Our kids decided years ago when they were in preschool that they liked to change their names to "Bunny" and "Queen Ester" when they played pretend but I wouldn't want the school system to start officially referring to our son as Bunny. At some point you would need parents to sign off on it, I would think, and hopefully that would work as a bulwark against abuse and silliness of the policy.

It actually gets worse. Not only do the parents not get a say in the matter, the schools are legally forbidden to tell them about it. The parents could be sending "John" to school every morning, only to have "J-shank" be his official in-school name. When parent teacher conferences come about, teachers must talk about "John's" progress and never mention the term "J-shank".

3rd time: Got any source?

You have all this insider knowledge, so it should be able to give us a link to the policy, or at the very least the district where this is legally happening right now.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Do we have a source on these prevalent school policies?

I'm interesting in seeing more info on this too. It sounds like school boards literally letting the inmates run the asylum. I understand that schools want to help students be themselves and all that but letting kids arbitrarily change their names would be crazy. Our kids decided years ago when they were in preschool that they liked to change their names to "Bunny" and "Queen Ester" when they played pretend but I wouldn't want the school system to start officially referring to our son as Bunny. At some point you would need parents to sign off on it, I would think, and hopefully that would work as a bulwark against abuse and silliness of the policy.

It actually gets worse. Not only do the parents not get a say in the matter, the schools are legally forbidden to tell them about it. The parents could be sending "John" to school every morning, only to have "J-shank" be his official in-school name. When parent teacher conferences come about, teachers must talk about "John's" progress and never mention the term "J-shank".

And who does this hurt?

Spurious examples aside, if calling someone a name helps their confidence, and doesn't disrupt anyone's day, why does it matter?

Now saying a teacher cannot tell a parent that they're child is trans, that's another matter, and not the point you originally presented.

This really just feels like Cuda is using this as a reason to justify "I don't want to call you by whatever name you want". I really can't see any of these so called consequences happening. This really feels like a Simpson's "Think about the children!!" moment

 jreilly89 wrote:

This really just feels like Cuda is using this as a reason to justify "I don't want to call you by whatever name you want". I really can't see any of these so called consequences happening. This really feels like a Simpson's "Think about the children!!" moment

I agree.

We got a nice little rant in the opening post, examples of this happening in schools and jobs, tails about kids deciding all kind of names and teachers being prohibited from telling their parents, people getting in trouble with HR at school. What we don't get is any proof of any of this, no name of companies, no names of school districts, no policies, not even a link to examiner.com or other shady "news" sources.

Considering that there is no actual news to discuss, I think we are probably better off following the MOD advice after the other recent trans-issues threads got locked and just leave the topic alone.

Frankly if no decent sources are posted the thread should be locked and the OP warned.

It really depends on the district and the principal- my wife had someone who was identifying as the opposite sex in her class, and made a call home- to discover that the parents absolutely did not want their kid called that, whatever the kid was saying.

I've also had several students who would behave well if they were granted a ridiculous nickname- one of my students wanted to go by 'King' this year, and had better behavior as long as I called him that.

Honestly, if they behaved and did their work I would call them whatever they wanted, as long as it didn't have any drug references, or negative connotations. I drew the line at someone who wanted to be called Stoned.

Warned for what. It was a discussion of a topic.

I'm looking for the news article now. I have my computer set to delete all history and cache files when Explorer is closed.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[

When I was in school, the first day the teachers would do roll call to get our names. While doing roll call they would ask us what we went by. "David, do you go by Dave? Davey? What do you prefer?" They asked everybody this. A lot of kids in my class used their middle name because we had 2-3 Matts, 2-3 Jessicas, etc. So school children already go through this.

.

There is a HUGE jump between calling "David" Dave or using a legal middle name and changing a name outright. Also, when "Davey's" records are looked at in the office it will still state "David Wilson Carson", not Jackie Anne Carson. This is the policy in some school districts and in some professional aspects.


As I stated in a previous post, my biggest gripe is about officially changing records BEFORE a legal name change. Hypothetically, if a woman came to me and said, "Cuda, I plan on getting married in a year, but I want to use my fiancé's last name now", I'd have the same reaction.

There really isn't. It is not a huge jump at all, it is just something else they want to be called. When somebody is named David and they want to be called Dave, their legal name is still David. They just want to be called Dave. Same with trans people until they have it changed officially.

Also, it is not an issue with personnel records. All records have SSN in them so you can access them. Any time I call to get any information from past employers, I have to provide my SSN. Same with anything involving the government. You do not ever change your SSN.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[
Also, it is not an issue with personnel records. All records have SSN in them so you can access them. Any time I call to get any information from past employers, I have to provide my SSN. Same with anything involving the government. You do not ever change your SSN.

Not all records have a SSN on them. Not everyone has a SSN. There is no legal requirement you ever get one, and in fact an employer can NOT discriminate against you for not having one. Not only that, but depending on where you work, even those WITH a SSN might not be accessible. Many employers will keep that information "need to know" for liability reasons.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[
Also, it is not an issue with personnel records. All records have SSN in them so you can access them. Any time I call to get any information from past employers, I have to provide my SSN. Same with anything involving the government. You do not ever change your SSN.

Not all records have a SSN on them. Not everyone has a SSN. There is no legal requirement you ever get one, and in fact an employer can NOT discriminate against you for not having one. Not only that, but depending on where you work, even those WITH a SSN might not be accessible. Many employers will keep that information "need to know" for liability reasons.

In what is probably the least followed rule ever by anyone, your SSN isn't supposed to be used as a unique identifier anyway (if I recall correctly).

I object to the notion that whatever the government has down for you on their rolls is your True Name. Who gets to decide what you are called? Some combination of you and the people with whom you associate. If you ask to be called XYZ and the people around you refuse, I suppose you have to consider their reasons. Seems to me to be a very case-by-case sort of thing. But as far as generalizations go, I don't see why we're talking about "having" to call a trans person by their preferred name - no more than you "have" to help an eldster across the street or hold the door open for a lady. No one make you act with courtesy. But of course if you make a reputation for yourself as a cad, so be it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Warned for what. It was a discussion of a topic.

For what is called "false concern": Unfounded views and anecdotes for the instigation of a discussion that the poster knows will bring negative views, like flies to poop.
AKA lighting the fuse and not having to lay the groundwork if you wish people to argue for and against a contentious issue.

While I'm not sure that's what happened, or whether cuda just isn't as articulate in the first post as required to make his point.

At the very least it isn't a poop and scoot post yet. More poop and continue to prod.

To do OPs homework:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5727/chicago-public-schools-now-forcing-students-use-amanda-prestigiacomo

As reported by some very right wing news sources.

It seems the situation is blown out of proportion.

I'm glad they included with relish

Plus, Johnny—I mean Gabrielle—can use the girls' locker-room and restroom, too.

Let's take the trans issue out of the equation for a moment. What would you think of a bunch of kids calling a boy (who identifies as a boy) "she" and "her"? If a teacher saw that happening, what would be the appropriate thing for the teacher to do?

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Warned for what. It was a discussion of a topic.

For what is called "false concern": Unfounded views and anecdotes for the instigation of a discussion that the poster knows will bring negative views, like flies to poop.
AKA lighting the fuse and not having to lay the groundwork if you wish people to argue for and against a contentious issue.

While I'm not sure that's what happened, or whether cuda just isn't as articulate in the first post as required to make his point.

Horse gak. You're advocating censorship on a topic you don't like. This is the OT. There are lots of serious and non serious topics presented without any framework.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Let's take the trans issue out of the equation for a moment. What would you think of a bunch of kids calling a boy (who identifies as a boy) "she" and "her"? If a teacher saw that happening, what would be the appropriate thing for the teacher to do?

Handle the situation of course for the lack of courtesy and bullying. We're on the same page Manchu.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Warned for what. It was a discussion of a topic.

For what is called "false concern": Unfounded views and anecdotes for the instigation of a discussion that the poster knows will bring negative views, like flies to poop.
AKA lighting the fuse and not having to lay the groundwork if you wish people to argue for and against a contentious issue.

While I'm not sure that's what happened, or whether cuda just isn't as articulate in the first post as required to make his point.

Horse gak. You're advocating censorship on a topic you don't like. This is the OT. There are lots of serious and non serious topics presented without any framework.

I was not saying the topic should be closed. I was giving the reasoning for it being a bad topic.

Personally I think shutting a topic means that it closes avenues of discussion for both sides, and is damaging as much as it is helpful.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Warned for what. It was a discussion of a topic.

For what is called "false concern": Unfounded views and anecdotes for the instigation of a discussion that the poster knows will bring negative views, like flies to poop.
AKA lighting the fuse and not having to lay the groundwork if you wish people to argue for and against a contentious issue.

While I'm not sure that's what happened, or whether cuda just isn't as articulate in the first post as required to make his point.

Horse gak. You're advocating censorship on a topic you don't like. This is the OT. There are lots of serious and non serious topics presented without any framework.
.

We frequently have censored topics here, as a former MOD I am sure you are aware of that. We have had Orlando, we often have guns and abortion on a temporary list after shutting down the latest shitposting thread that resulted from the topic, and it hasn't been that long since the last shutdown of a trans-topic thread with instructions to leave the topic alone for a while.

Now, it has been a little bit since that thread was locked, so there may be a legitimate discussion about wether or not the topic can be breached again if there is a relevant story to be talked about. But the opening post appeared to be a simple case of "why should I have to call them what they want to be called? Oh, I guess there may be some policies somewhere I don't like that I won't link to". Without an actual story attached to the topic, it seems to be posted solely to create discord in light of a recent closure of a similar topic. At best it's still a circle jerk of right wing "news" websites being outraged about an issue 2 months ago that we are now talking about for "reasons".

 Manchu wrote:
Let's take the trans issue out of the equation for a moment. What would you think of a bunch of kids calling a boy (who identifies as a boy) "she" and "her"? If a teacher saw that happening, what would be the appropriate thing for the teacher to do?

Depends on how the boy takes it. If the boy prefers it or is fine with it, then no harm no foul. If it causes distress, then that would come under guidelines for bullying.

 Selym wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Let's take the trans issue out of the equation for a moment. What would you think of a bunch of kids calling a boy (who identifies as a boy) "she" and "her"? If a teacher saw that happening, what would be the appropriate thing for the teacher to do?

Depends on how the boy takes it. If the boy prefers it or is fine with it, then no harm no foul. If it causes distress, then that would come under guidelines for bullying.

What if the boy is named Sue?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Let's take the trans issue out of the equation for a moment. What would you think of a bunch of kids calling a boy (who identifies as a boy) "she" and "her"? If a teacher saw that happening, what would be the appropriate thing for the teacher to do?

Handle the situation of course for the lack of courtesy and bullying. We're on the same page Manchu.

Sure, I was actually just starting a thought experiment - I think the above situation is clear and it would also be, all other things being equal, clear to me that kids referring to a trans boy as "she" and "her" could be the same kind of bullying. I am less clear on how ideological neologisms like "zhir" fit in ... at first blush, I don't think anyone should be expectd to adopt those phases.

I can't even pronounce those phrases, but I don't actually talk to most people using their names (I wasn't joking about the memory thing).

 Manchu wrote:
I am less clear on how ideological neologisms like "zhir" fit in ... at first blush, I don't think anyone should be expectd to adopt those phases.

IMO they don't fit in at all. We already have a perfectly good gender-neutral pronoun: "they". It's much better to tell the grammar nazis to STFU about how "'they' isn't singular", acknowledge that it is commonly used that way even outside of needing a gender-neutral pronoun, and stop trying to invent a dozen different alternatives that most people aren't aware of.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Let's take the trans issue out of the equation for a moment. What would you think of a bunch of kids calling a boy (who identifies as a boy) "she" and "her"? If a teacher saw that happening, what would be the appropriate thing for the teacher to do?

Handle the situation of course for the lack of courtesy and bullying. We're on the same page Manchu.

Sure, I was actually just starting a thought experiment - I think the above situation is clear and it would also be, all other things being equal, clear to me that kids referring to a trans boy as "she" and "her" could be the same kind of bullying. I am less clear on how ideological neologisms like "zhir" fit in ... at first blush, I don't think anyone should be expectd to adopt those phases.

I've only ever encountered zhir and xe on paper. And even then, very uncommonly.
However a lot of mid-transition people use Mx as a title, and banks, passports and other places recognise this title. It's on many bank cards, for example. I have no idea how to pronounce that, I think at that stage you just progress to the first name.

I am a teacher and have a young pupil who is transgender. I appreciate that I work in a different country to the op, so policy here will be different. X requested the school's support as they undergo dressing as the inclined sex, using a gender appropriate name and using the changing facilities of the inclined sex. It took a lot of negotiation, and some of X's requests where compromised on, but by no means granted, including the desired name. A none gender specific name close to their real name was agreed upon.

Schools function best when there is a close dialogue between parents and teachers, especially in sensitive cases like this. I can't imagine a policy that would grant pupils that much power, whilst undermining that vital communication.

 JamesY wrote:
A none gender specific name close to their real name was agreed upon.

Gosh I honestly feel that is too much of a compromise, unless there was something objectionable about the name itself (i.e, more than that it is a feminine name).

 Manchu wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
A none gender specific name close to their real name was agreed upon.

Gosh I honestly feel that is too much of a compromise, unless there was something objectionable about the name itself (i.e, more than that it is a feminine name).

Yeah, I can maybe understand having to compromise on other things, but why should the name be subject to compromise? Any name is as good as any other, and if the parents had the kid's name legally changed to the feminine one you'd obviously have to use it. This seems like a case of compromise for the sake of compromise, not a compromise that needed to happen.

The child in question is very young, so it is more to help manage the transition. As time has passed and it is becoming clearer that they are genuinely transgender, more concessions have been made, and the name will be something that is revised and a fuller gender specific name allowed. You have to consider what would happen if it transpired to be confusion on the child's behalf, or if experience of approximating the inclined sex revealed to them that they feel even less comfortable than they did before. A non gender specific name is easier to "retreat" from, without inviting a million questions from a hundred other inquisitive, curious or malicious school children.

 JamesY wrote:
The child in question is very young, so it is more to help manage the transition.

Why do you think that you have any right to make those decisions? That's something the child and their parents should be in charge of. Your job as a school employee is to use whatever name they tell you to use.

You have to consider what would happen if it transpired to be confusion on the child's behalf, or if experience of approximating the inclined sex revealed to them that they feel even less comfortable than they did before.

What would happen is that the child would go back to using their old name, or a different name. That is a thing that could happen, but you have no right to decide what name the child will use, or that the risk of feeling like the name isn't appropriate anymore is more important than the immediate desire to have it. That is something the child, with help from their parents, gets to decide.

A non gender specific name is easier to "retreat" from, without inviting a million questions from a hundred other inquisitive, curious or malicious school children.

Then do your job and keep order in your classroom. The child should not be forced to use a different name just because it makes it easier for you to keep the other kids from misbehaving.

@peregrine I do my job very well thank you. Pandering to people is not the same as protecting their best interests. Your ego seems larger than your understanding of the realities of safely guiding vulnerable children through very difficult and life altering circumstances. Based on that, I will decline to discuss it further with you.

Back it up a tad, Peregrine. Nowhere did JamesY say that he set the policy. That isn't how things work here.
These are explanations that we are not even entitled to, so I'm just grateful for the insight.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Back it up a tad, Peregrine. Nowhere did JamesY say that he set the policy. That isn't how things work here.
These are explanations that we are not even entitled to, so I'm just grateful for the insight.

Indeed, we are all bound by policy set by those above. I am fortunate enough to work in a school where policies are set for the right reasons. Peregrine is also assuming agreement between child and parents on what name is to be used. In most cases I have had any information on (which in fairness I could count on one hand), there is no such unity. Parents are often unsure on what to do, want to write it off as a phase, or are outright embarrassed and want to pretend it isn't happening. It is a mine field of potential conflicts and uncertainties, at an age that is already full of them, which is why so much guidance is given by trained professionals to help make the transition as easy as possible. No decision is made or request denied/met half way for the sake of any thing other than the child's welfare.

 d-usa wrote:
To do OPs homework:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5727/chicago-public-schools-now-forcing-students-use-amanda-prestigiacomo

As reported by some very right wing news sources.

It seems the situation is blown out of proportion.

I wish my school had such a policy. I would want to be called "Ya Hui" and use the girl's bathroom please, because I am actually a Chinese girl.


(Note: "Ya Hui" sounds like Russian for "I am a dick")

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you think that you have any right to make those decisions?

Agreed! The school system is negotiating with parents over the authenticity of their children being trans? This is one of those moments where England seems like it's on a planet in some other solar system.

In England, whilst a child is at school, the school is legally responsible for them, and so does have a voice in such decision making, not in terms of dictating to parents, but in working with them for the child's best interests. For some pupils, the school cares more about the pupils than the parents. As I said, many parents aren't on board with transgender feelings in their children, so the school is actually helping the child by assisting the parents in coming to terms with it gradually, and acting as a mediator between them.

Ignorance is clearly bliss around here, and it seems many people don't appreciate that not being able to imagine a good reason for a decision in a case they know so little about isn't the same thing as there not being one.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do you think that you have any right to make those decisions?

Agreed! The school system is negotiating with parents over the authenticity of their children being trans? This is one of those moments where England seems like it's on a planet in some other solar system.

But... That's not what was described.
A school worked with a family to protect their very young child from potential bullying and future issues. Nowhere did JamesY say "I chose the child's name." or that the child had their chosen name dismissed.

And at least the school acknowledged and assisted, and put a plan in place. Can you say that every American school would do the same, if we're going to throw countries around?

 d-usa wrote:
To do OPs homework:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5727/chicago-public-schools-now-forcing-students-use-amanda-prestigiacomo

As reported by some very right wing news sources.

It seems the situation is blown out of proportion.

That's not the article I was looking for....but it's close. I was sure that the school I was reading about was from Sacramento. As right-leaning as the Daily Wire might be, since they are quoting directly from the new guidelines it's pretty strait forward and we can make our own decisions. Quite frankly, if someone made me use the pronoun "ze" or face repercussions I'd be a little offended.

Okay - let's lay it out then:

- a child puts in a request to the school about the name they preferred to be called

- the school informs the parents of this request

- the school negotiates with the parents on behalf of the child about what the child will be called at school

Do I have that right?

@manchu no way near.

So what happens then?

Please, to the extent possible, lay out the process - then we can get to the underlying values.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To do OPs homework:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5727/chicago-public-schools-now-forcing-students-use-amanda-prestigiacomo

As reported by some very right wing news sources.

It seems the situation is blown out of proportion.

That's not the article I was looking for....but it's close. I was sure that the school I was reading about was from Sacramento. As right-leaning as the Daily Wire might be, since they are quoting directly from the new guidelines it's pretty strait forward and we can make our own decisions. Quite frankly, if someone made me use the pronoun "ze" or face repercussions I'd be a little offended.

So, the crux of your argument is, "their comfort makes me uncomfortable"? Just making sure I've got this right.

 Peregrine wrote:
We already have a perfectly good gender-neutral pronoun: "they". It's much better to tell the grammar nazis to STFU about how "'they' isn't singular", acknowledge that it is commonly used that way even outside of needing a gender-neutral pronoun, and stop trying to invent a dozen different alternatives that most people aren't aware of.

As a resident grammar nazi, "they" as plural is only a very recent development made by academics who wanted to make language more specific by, uh, getting rid of a useful use of a word, for some reason- probably elitism or the same BS reasoning that put the "s" in island. The reason "they" is often used as the ambiguous singular is because it was for most of its history. So, whoever they are who say you can't, I say

On topic, Buttery's hit the nail on the head, repeatedly. It's no harder than a nickname, and the supposed disparity/double-standard/whatever unfairness seems to be either manufactured or blown out of proportion.

There isn't a step by step process, there are too many factors to consider, too many possible agencies involved, to be able to give an x-y-z explanation.

The values that underpin the process in each case are respect and compassion for the child, or at least they have been in every instance I have seen.

Consider this as an example though of the kind of conversation I was referring to, with names obviously changed;

Frank: I'd like to be called Francesca.

Mother: No ****ing way! You'll get ripped to shreds if you start calling yourself that! It's bad enough you want to wear a skirt.

Child protection officer: Well, on the doctor's advice, wearing a skirt will help Frank understand the feelings that we are discussing, which will help determine the best course of action later. However, like your mum has said, Francesca might be a bit too much all at once, for you and for the other pupils to adjust too. How would you feel about maybe "Fran" for a little while, and then when you have gotten used to the other changes, and your friends have too, we'll talk again about taking a couple more steps?"

I'll be clear that I am not a cpo, and so may not have conveyed the conversation in the exact manner that they would conduct it, but it is enough to give an insight into how such a conversation would go.

I'm more interested in when/how a child protection officer - or any government agent - gets involved in the first place.

Because not all children have parents who care about them. When that happens, someone has to ask questions about who is caring for the child, and making sure that someone has their best interests at heart.

Edit cpo is a school employee who will liaise with whatever agency is appropriate to ensure that the child is being looked after. They will get involved if anyone brings up a cause for concern and find out more. Most cause for concerns are nothing. Some aren't though. That's when other things start happening depending on the case.

Sure, I understand why there are government agencies tasked with protecting the welfare of children generally. The question is - how does such an agency get involved in a situation where a (potentially?) trans child wants to be called something different from the name under which they were presumably registered at school?

Depends, if the child went to a doctor first, they might refer them to a counsellor, and the school would be notified and appropriate action put into place. If the child makes a disclosure at school, the cpo would notify and refer to relevant agencies.

Edit if both parents and pupil where in agreement on changing the registered name, then the school would act differently to if the pupil wanted X and the parents wanted Y.

I'll skip anything to do with NHS as that opens another can of worms (our systems being so different) regarding access and privacy. Let's just consider what you described as "making the disclosure at school." What does that mean? Is this a matter of a teacher drawing a conclusion from observations of the child and reporting to the CPO? Or does the child have to go to the CPO? I guess we should limit the discussion to the initial example, which was apparently a fairly young child.

A disclosure is when the child initates a dialogue on issues of a sensitive nature. I'll spare you the trained response, but say a child were to tell me that their dad beats them, I would then pass that disclosure to the cpo, without any attempt to investigate myself or illicit more information than the child gave themselves. The cpo would then make contact with the child. In an extreme case, the child would be taken straight to them.

In matters of child welfare, teachers do not draw conclusions (if they are doing their job properly), but we do report any thing that concerns us to the pastoral team. Say I see a bruise on Johnny's arm when he takes his blazer off. I let pastoral know. Might be nothing serious, I don't know so I think no more about it. Johnny's history teacher notices that he frequently comes to school smelling bad. They report it. Might just be puberty. The teacher on dinner duty notices that he hasn't brought any lunch with him for a week and reports it. Maybe he ate it at break time. We don't draw conclusions, but when everyone reports possible concerns, pictures start to come together, and sometimes questions need asking, and the pastoral team would discuss the concerns with the cpo. Might turn out to be nothing, but it might be that the child is being neglected at home, which wouldn't have been discovered without those concerns being mentioned, or the child saying something themselves.

Edit as for the specific case I mentioned I don't know how the cpo first got involved, as the teacher I only received the sensitivity training and action plan for the case, so I knew what was allowed and what wasn't, what language to use etc. Just the need to know.

OK thanks - so once the CPO is involved, that is when the negotiations begin? Or does the CPO involve some other office? Also, is rhe CPO a school employee?

Again, case by case, but normally as they are the ones trained to handle such discussions and the appropriate action to take after.

Yes they are employed by the school, but normally accountable to the governors rather than the senior leadership (i.e. the head) to ensure that accusations against staff are properly investigated and not swept beneath the carpet.

Alright so now we come to the negotiation: the student suggests a name and the CPO makes a counteroffer? What hsppens if the student refuses?

I'm not a cpo so I can't say for certain.

Pupils do not have an entitlement to be called whatever they chose though. The school will work with them as much as possible to find a compromise that both are satisfied with if one can be found.

I feel like I have exhausted this to death. I have no real interest in commenting further on it. All the best.

 Manchu wrote:
Alright so now we come to the negotiation: the student suggests a name and the CPO makes a counteroffer? What hsppens if the student refuses?

tell the CPO to get bent, where in their job description do they get to go around and name kids? if the kid wants to be called jill, and the CPO won't call the kid jill, that seems like a form of harassment to me and the opening for a lawsuit.

if richard wants to be called dick, no one bats an eye. but if richard wants to be called jill people think it's optional and will still call them richard.

this isn't rocket science, the cops have been doing it for ages. Put a "AKA" line on the forms and be done with it if there's a need to do so.

How do you get dick from richard anyways???

Sure, cheers - sounds pretty dystopian to me. I am especially skeptical that the process is in the best interests of the students. I appreciate your efforts at providing context, however.

 JamesY wrote:
Child protection officer: Well, on the doctor's advice, wearing a skirt will help Frank understand the feelings that we are discussing, which will help determine the best course of action later. However, like your mum has said, Francesca might be a bit too much all at once, for you and for the other pupils to adjust too. How would you feel about maybe "Fran" for a little while, and then when you have gotten used to the other changes, and your friends have too, we'll talk again about taking a couple more steps?"

This makes more sense then what it sounded like you were talking about originally, where the child wants one name and the school wants them to keep their existing name, so the child has to compromise with the school and get a different name. However, I still feel like this is probably pandering too much to bigoted parents at the expense of the child.

Well given that the essence of dystopia is a place you don't want to be, yeah, if the cpo is involved, something is wrong. That isn't a fault of the school, or an issue with school procedure. The school is trying to help the child out of a bad place. Your skepticism surely comes from your own experiences and opinions, and has nothing to do with the realities of what I have described. Some kids have problems that home can't deal with. For some kids, home is the problem. They are fortunate that there is a structure in place at school to help them if they need it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Child protection officer: Well, on the doctor's advice, wearing a skirt will help Frank understand the feelings that we are discussing, which will help determine the best course of action later. However, like your mum has said, Francesca might be a bit too much all at once, for you and for the other pupils to adjust too. How would you feel about maybe "Fran" for a little while, and then when you have gotten used to the other changes, and your friends have too, we'll talk again about taking a couple more steps?"

This makes more sense then what it sounded like you were talking about originally, where the child wants one name and the school wants them to keep their existing name, so the child has to compromise with the school and get a different name. However, I still feel like this is probably pandering too much to bigoted parents at the expense of the child.

Well the parents are the parents ultimately, for better or worse, so their opinions matter. You also can't pander too much to children, especially when you have potentially thousands in one institution. That's why compromises are, unfortunately, often a necessity. It isn't schools stubbornly trying to "win" something, although a lack of contextual information (that obviously a school cannot provide) may make it seem so.

 JamesY wrote:
Your skepticism surely comes from your own experiences and opinions,

LOL well sure. That would be a truism. But yes, having spent time in and around family law practice and domestic violence cases as an attorney, my experiences have indeed left me skeptical of the capacity and motivation of government actors to identify and pursue the best interests of children and/or abuse victims.

 JamesY wrote:
and has nothing to do with the realities of what I have described.

I learned all I know about the process from your description. It isn'tmuch, I grant.

 JamesY wrote:
Well the parents are the parents ultimately, for better or worse, so their opinions matter.

They shouldn't, in some cases.

You also can't pander too much to children, especially when you have potentially thousands in one institution.

Why not? What horrible consequences could happen if children are allowed to choose which names to use? This seems like a situation where even a little bit of common sense will cover the "I am not comfortable with this name and want a different one" without getting into any absurd slippery slope ideas of thousands of children changing their names ever 15 minutes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Well the parents are the parents ultimately, for better or worse, so their opinions matter.

They shouldn't, in some cases.

They are the parent of the child. There is not, ever, going to be a time where the parent 'Should not have a say in the choices of their child.' A parent should make all of the decisions for the child until they are 18, just because the parent does know best, a child would still be learning the basics of life, and they would learn said basics, from the actions of their parents. What would happen, if the child sees that their parents don't give didly-squat about their kids, let them run around on the streets like many parents do today? How would the kids incorporate this behaviour? They would adopt it into their own lives, and god forbid, do the exact same to their kids. Parents should Always have a say in the matter no matter what the matter is. And I have no clue where you were trying to go with that statement.

You also can't pander too much to children, especially when you have potentially thousands in one institution.

Why not? What horrible consequences could happen if children are allowed to choose which names to use? This seems like a situation where even a little bit of common sense will cover the "I am not comfortable with this name and want a different one" without getting into any absurd slippery slope ideas of thousands of children changing their names ever 15 minutes.

But as JamesY said in his original post, they rolled with the name until they realized the kid was actually transgender, and not just going through some phase that kids usually go through. If kids just want to change their names to completely random things, such as Frank becomes Adolf, and then Adolf becomes Gustapo, and then Gustapo becomes Stalin, in a short period of time, their parents will be told, then them, and the CPO will have a civilized chat with the child about how serious a subject the child is toying with, and hopefully get them to stop.

Of course though, this is in Australia, so I have little to no idea what happens in the States compared to here, so correct me if I am wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Well the parents are the parents ultimately, for better or worse, so their opinions matter.

They shouldn't, in some cases.

Your arguing about a separate issue there, i.e, bad parenting.

You also can't pander too much to children, especially when you have potentially thousands in one institution.

Why not? What horrible consequences could happen if children are allowed to choose which names to use? This seems like a situation where even a little bit of common sense will cover the "I am not comfortable with this name and want a different one" without getting into any absurd slippery slope ideas of thousands of children changing their names ever 15 minutes.

"little bit of common sense" again, separate argument, especially with the prevalence of people being sued due to not using common sense and the increase in laws removing the chances of using "common sense".

 Sgt. Vanden wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Well the parents are the parents ultimately, for better or worse, so their opinions matter.

They shouldn't, in some cases.

They are the parent of the child. There is not, ever, going to be a time where the parent 'Should not have a say in the choices of their child.'

Alienation of parental rights is a thing, you know. And not exactly a rare one.

 Sgt. Vanden wrote:
A parent should make all of the decisions for the child until they are 18

You should check up on your own laws. A child has an automatic right to medical privacy in NT from 14 on, and 16 in NSW and SA. That's similar to the rest of the western world.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To do OPs homework:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5727/chicago-public-schools-now-forcing-students-use-amanda-prestigiacomo

As reported by some very right wing news sources.

It seems the situation is blown out of proportion.

That's not the article I was looking for....but it's close. I was sure that the school I was reading about was from Sacramento. As right-leaning as the Daily Wire might be, since they are quoting directly from the new guidelines it's pretty strait forward and we can make our own decisions. Quite frankly, if someone made me use the pronoun "ze" or face repercussions I'd be a little offended.

So, the crux of your argument is, "their comfort makes me uncomfortable"? Just making sure I've got this right.

Um.... no. As I've all ready stated in this thread, I have no problem calling someone by their new name if there is a solid intent to change their name legally in the near future. I also have no problem using the new pronoun. In theory, for those that prefer no gender, I would also accept using "they" as a singular pronoun. What I am unwilling to accommodate are the rules listed in the linked article. Children can each choose their own pronoun from a list of made-up words, or make one up of their own. So, potentially, there could be a dozen new gender-inspecific pronouns that aren't actually part of the language, that students and teachers alike both have to learn AND use...... or else.

 Sgt. Vanden wrote:
They are the parent of the child. There is not, ever, going to be a time where the parent 'Should not have a say in the choices of their child.' A parent should make all of the decisions for the child until they are 18, just because the parent does know best, a child would still be learning the basics of life, and they would learn said basics, from the actions of their parents. What would happen, if the child sees that their parents don't give didly-squat about their kids, let them run around on the streets like many parents do today? How would the kids incorporate this behaviour? They would adopt it into their own lives, and god forbid, do the exact same to their kids. Parents should Always have a say in the matter no matter what the matter is. And I have no clue where you were trying to go with that statement.

Nope. Let's look at an even more extreme example: parents that refuse medical treatment for religious reasons and try to pray away life-threatening problems. In that case we are entirely justified in saying that the parents lose their right to a vote on the subject and give the child the necessary treatment. And I have no sympathy for the parents who have their opinions ignored. An adult has the right to be suicidally stupid, they don't have the right to kill their children with their stupidity.

Now, parental rights get a little more complicated with other subjects, but this seems to be a case that is on the straightforward side. If a transgender child's parents are being bigoted s about it then their opinions should be ignored and their children should be taken away if that's what is necessary to protect them.

But as JamesY said in his original post, they rolled with the name until they realized the kid was actually transgender, and not just going through some phase that kids usually go through. If kids just want to change their names to completely random things, such as Frank becomes Adolf, and then Adolf becomes Gustapo, and then Gustapo becomes Stalin, in a short period of time, their parents will be told, then them, and the CPO will have a civilized chat with the child about how serious a subject the child is toying with, and hopefully get them to stop.

Yes, and there's the common sense I mentioned. Your example has nothing to do with the idea of a child changing their name once for a reason they can explain.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt. Vanden wrote:
But as JamesY said in his original post, they rolled with the name until they realized the kid was actually transgender, and not just going through some phase that kids usually go through. If kids just want to change their names to completely random things, such as Frank becomes Adolf, and then Adolf becomes Gustapo, and then Gustapo becomes Stalin, in a short period of time, their parents will be told, then them, and the CPO will have a civilized chat with the child about how serious a subject the child is toying with, and hopefully get them to stop.

Yes, and there's the common sense I mentioned. Your example has nothing to do with the idea of a child changing their name once for a reason they can explain.

 Manchu wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Your skepticism surely comes from your own experiences and opinions,

LOL well sure. That would be a truism. But yes, having spent time in and around family law practice and domestic violence cases as an attorney, my experiences have indeed left me skeptical of the capacity and motivation of government actors to identify and pursue the best interests of children and/or abuse victims.

Understandable if you have spent so much time dealing with the consequences of when it goes wrong. I haven't had to have much contact with outside agencies on matters of child welfare, so haven't seen it happen myself. I'd say 95% of teachers are drawn to the profession to help and develop children, so we tend to prioritize their interests far more than others might, although it is true that the job does batter that out of many.

So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

That hasn't been tried in an actual court.

If the religious institution is serious enough, notice them for trespassing. It gets around any such law.*


*Frazzled is not advocating this. Just thinking of one solution. Another of course is not care as the statistical likelihood of it being an issue is effectively nil.

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

A) Anything named "The Federalist" is obviously unbiased. B) someone's making a church feel bad? OH NO

Something about the First Amendment being violated by the government...

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

The author's hyperbole aside (totalitarian? really?), all the law does seem to do is formalize that LGBT persons are protected from hate speech in the same manner as other minorities.

If anyone has a different reading of this, I'd like to know.


edit: fix quote derp

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities.

Wrong.

From the actual information quoted by the article:

DO E S T H E L A W P R O H I B I T
G E N D E R - S E G R E G A T E D
R E S T R O O M S ?
No. It is still legal in Iowa for businesses to maintain
gender-segregated restrooms. The new law does require,
however, that individuals are permitted to access
those restrooms in accordance with their gender
identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth. And,
just as non-transgender individuals are entitled to use
a restroom appropriate to their gender identity without
having to provide documentation or respond to invasive
requests, transgender individuals must also be
allowed to use a gender-identity appropriate restroom
without being harassed or questioned.
DO E S T H E L A W P R O H I B I T S E X
- S E G R E G A T E D L O C K E R R O O M S
A N D L I V I N G F A C I L I T I E S ?
No. Iowa law does not prohibit places of public accommodation
from maintaining separate facilities for the
different sexes, so long as they are comparable. The
new law does require, however, that individuals are
permitted to access those facilities in accordance with
their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at
birth, without being harassed or questioned.
DO E S THI S L AW A P P L Y TO
CHU R CHE S ?
Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections
do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any
religion-based qualifications when such qualifications
are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where
qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious
purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions.
(e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or
a church service open to the public).

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

A) Anything named "The Federalist" is obviously unbiased. B) someone's making a church feel bad? OH NO

If your that against biases, I guess no one should ever quote the Huffington Post ever again. Also, bigoted against religion much?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities.

Wrong.

I guess I should have stated that Churches are not longer able to segregate bathrooms according to the definition of their faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

The author's hyperbole aside (totalitarian? really?), all the law does seem to do is formalize that LGBT persons are protected from hate speech in the same manner as other minorities.

If anyone has a different reading of this, I'd like to know.


edit: fix quote derp

The state isn't recognizing that it doesn't have the authority to violate the First Amendment, they can't limit speech, and they are limiting religious expression. They have also set up a system of punishment that is hard to disprove. While not total totalitarianism it is on the path there.

Also, hate speech against any minority or gender or sexual orientation IS legal and protected. Just as long as it doesn't promote violence.

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

I personally don't like the Westborro Baptist Church. I think they are basically scum of the earth. I do however support their ability to peacefully say anything they want. Quashing any train of thought is basically an abomination to a free society, perhaps even more so when it is linked to religious discussion.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

I personally don't like the Westborro Baptist Church. I think they are basically scum of the earth. I do however support their ability to peacefully say anything they want. Quashing any train of thought is basically an abomination to a free society, perhaps even more so when it is linked to religious discussion.

I don't think they are very peaceful about it.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

I personally don't like the Westborro Baptist Church. I think they are basically scum of the earth. I do however support their ability to peacefully say anything they want. Quashing any train of thought is basically an abomination to a free society, perhaps even more so when it is linked to religious discussion.

I don't think they are very peaceful about it.

They're not peaceful but they're not violent either. That's their schtick they are loud obnoxious rude people and they try to provoke violent reactions against them so they can sue people for money.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

I personally don't like the Westborro Baptist Church. I think they are basically scum of the earth. I do however support their ability to peacefully say anything they want. Quashing any train of thought is basically an abomination to a free society, perhaps even more so when it is linked to religious discussion.

I don't think they are very peaceful about it.

They're not peaceful but they're not violent either. That's their schtick they are loud obnoxious rude people and they try to provoke violent reactions against them so they can sue people for money.

As much as I hate to say it, being a complete idiot and saying socially ridiculous things is their right. Remember, you don't have a right to NOT be offended, regardless of what college social justice warriors tell you.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

I personally don't like the Westborro Baptist Church. I think they are basically scum of the earth. I do however support their ability to peacefully say anything they want. Quashing any train of thought is basically an abomination to a free society, perhaps even more so when it is linked to religious discussion.

I don't think they are very peaceful about it.

They're not peaceful but they're not violent either. That's their schtick they are loud obnoxious rude people and they try to provoke violent reactions against them so they can sue people for money.

As much as I hate to say it, being a complete idiot and saying socially ridiculous things is their right. Remember, you don't have a right to NOT be offended, regardless of what college social justice warriors tell you.

I don't think anyone is supporting them

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
So.... I found this in the news. As I live in Iowa it does effect me. To sum it up: Churches are no longer able to segregate bathrooms or changing facilities. Churches are also required to use ANY chosen name and any chosen pronoun for a person. Churches are not allowed, in pretty much any way, to make a member of the LGBT community feel bad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/

I find it hard to believe that anyone should care.

I personally don't like the Westborro Baptist Church. I think they are basically scum of the earth. I do however support their ability to peacefully say anything they want. Quashing any train of thought is basically an abomination to a free society, perhaps even more so when it is linked to religious discussion.

I don't think they are very peaceful about it.

They're not peaceful but they're not violent either. That's their schtick they are loud obnoxious rude people and they try to provoke violent reactions against them so they can sue people for money.

As much as I hate to say it, being a complete idiot and saying socially ridiculous things is their right. Remember, you don't have a right to NOT be offended, regardless of what college social justice warriors tell you.

I don't think anyone is supporting them

Other than the ACLU?

I'm confused. Are you saying that you support the Westboro Baptist Church's right to say awful things, while also taking a swipe at the ACLU for supporting their legal rights to do so? Seems like a bit of a cognitive dissonance there, but I guess this is now a transgender bathroom thread, so par for the course - where literally the same people who attack gun free zones as murder magnets argue plastic signs stop pedophiles.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯