Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.