4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

My son's a couple years ago was drink a half gallon of milk (he's only 15 so thankfully they're not chugging bears) and run a mile and he got like 3rd to last place but for some weird reason he still had to do it. One of his friends moved to Israel and another one got sick or something, so he bit the bullet. He made it through it without puking but I suspect he didn't actually drink a whole lot of that milk.

lol the milk challenge sounds brutal.

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So then what are you even arguing with me about?

Because you stated that you failed to envision a scenario where this sort of policy could be beneficial. Are you not reading your own posts or something?

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Because you stated that you failed to envision a scenario where this sort of policy could be beneficial. Are you not reading your own posts or something?

Right, so giving the teacher/counselors the discretion to talk to the parents if they feel it’s in the best interest means that they also have the option to NOT talk to the parents, right?

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

 Never said I want to be a helicopter parent.  Never said that it’s a good idea to be a helicopter parent.  Never said that it’s a teacher’s job to be a baby sitter and report every little thing that happens at school to parents.  What I did say is that if a child is secretly changing their gender identity at school, and the teacher wants to talk to the parents about it, then they should have that option.  

I doubt that the middle school my friend teaches at is the only school in the country with that policy. 

There are reasons why schools have that policy. Bad parenting is a big one. If your kid is changing their gender identity in school, then you should know this before your kid steps foot in the building. If you don't know that's a failure on you. Not the school. Teachers should not have the responsibility put upon them to tell you. Schools make policy to keep school a safe place for children to learn and grow.

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Right, so giving the teacher/counselors the discretion to talk to the parents if they feel it’s in the best interest means that they also have the option to NOT talk to the parents, right?

Correct, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean there are no scenarios where a more restrictive policy isn't beneficial. Hypothetically speaking, if the parent your friend was dealing with was emotionally abusive to their child and he as a teacher was unaware of this, a policy which allows for voluntary disclosure fails to protect the student in such a situation. It's okay, you can say you don't support a district policy while also conceding there could be valid scenarios where it helps to protect students. It's not that hard, dude.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Correct, but again, that doesn't necessarily mean there are no scenarios where a more restrictive policy isn't beneficial. Hypothetically speaking, if your friend was emotionally abusive to their child and a teacher was unaware of this, a policy which allows for voluntary disclosure fails to protect the student in such a situation. It's okay, you can say you don't support a district policy while also conceding there could be valid scenarios where it helps to protect students. It's not that hard, dude.

I think a policy that strictly forbids teachers/counselors from discussing a child’s gender identity with the child’s parents does more harm than good. Allowing for discussion with the parents still leaves on the table the option of NOT discussing it with the parents. Just my opinion.

cheeto distracts us with nonsense about schools giving kids sex change operations...while he's trying to gain control over who does & doesn't get their mail-in ballots delivered to them.

6 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

cheeto distracts us with nonsense about schools giving kids sex change operations...while he's trying to gain control over who does & doesn't get their mail-in ballots delivered to them.

Don’t forget importing poison beef and losing to Iran in a war!

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

Don’t forget importing poison beef and losing to Iran in a war!

well, that too. but rigging the midterms is his big move.

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I think a policy that strictly forbids teachers/counselors from discussing a child’s gender identity with the child’s parents does more harm than good. Allowing for discussion with the parents still leaves on the table the option of NOT discussing it with the parents. Just my opinion.

In most cases, I'd agree, which is why I support teachers having autonomy, but I'd bet there are cases where such a restricted policy ends up being a net benefit.

8 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

cheeto distracts us with nonsense about schools giving kids sex change operations...while he's trying to gain control over who does & doesn't get their mail-in ballots delivered to them.

But he said the magic words "proposed rulemaking" in the order so we have to allow it happen first otherwise we could cause irreparable harm to the government if we handled this election like we handled all the ones preceding it!

15 minutes ago, Nice Work Pal said:

man, watching so-called alpha males act like whoopie goldberg is neato.

25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

But he said the magic words "proposed rulemaking" in the order so we have to allow it happen first otherwise we could cause irreparable harm to the government if we handled this election like we handled all the ones preceding it!

lol we don't though. We just needed to actually see the language in the provision so that states can actually file suit and cite the specific parts of the provisions they feel are illegal, which has been done since the rule was officially published :)

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

lol we don't though. We just needed to actually see the language in the provision so that states can actually file suit and cite the specific parts of the provisions they feel are illegal, which has been done since the rule was officially published :)

Language of a provision that was explicitly dictated by the EO in no unequivocal terms. But I know, I know, "it said proposed!"

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Language of a provision that was explicitly dictated by the EO in no unequivocal terms. But I know, I know, "it said proposed!"

Sure, the EO provided guidance of what he wanted the proposed regulation to say. Still can't file suit until a regulation is actually published. No different than if congress is drafting and debating a bill, can't file suit and claim harm until the bill is actually approved and signed into law.

21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I think a policy that strictly forbids teachers/counselors from discussing a child’s gender identity with the child’s parents does more harm than good. Allowing for discussion with the parents still leaves on the table the option of NOT discussing it with the parents. Just my opinion.

Do not live in fear your kids are going to go off and do something major without you knowing. They will tell you. I have seen this happen enough to know that if your kid is the one going through some kind of transition you will know. The school doesn't have to tell you. I have met enough adults in my lifetime that kept secrets like this because it was not safe at home. They live with the repercussions for life.

My kid attended a large public school. Their responsibility is to provide a safe environment for kids to grow and learn. When they announced a policy like this, my peers all silently nodded to each other because we knew they had to do this to make school a safe place for learning. As a parent I understand the need to have an open relationship with your teachers. In a perfect world no discussion is off the table. Unfortunately the bad ones cause them to make policy like this. That's how it works in a large group dynamic.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

the EO provided guidance

14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Do you think a person can file suit against congress over a proposed law while the law is being drafted and hasn’t been approved yet?

5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Do you think a person can file suit against congress over a proposed law while the law is being drafted and hasn’t been approved yet?

An EO is not a proposed law. It's hilarious that you would try to frame the verbiage of that EO as "guidance" though as if nobody would notice.

8 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Do you think a person can file suit against congress over a proposed law while the law is being drafted and hasn’t been approved yet?

It is a litigious society. You can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything these days.

22 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

An EO is not a proposed law. It's hilarious that you would try to frame the verbiage of that EO as "guidance" though as if nobody would notice.

That didn’t answer my question. Can a person file suit against the government over a bill that is being voted on and hasn’t been approved yet? Yes or no.

22 minutes ago, toolg said:

It is a litigious society. You can file a lawsuit for pretty much anything these days.

Yes and if a person tried to file a lawsuit against the government over a bill that was being voted on and not yet approved, the suit would get tossed because they don’t have standing, and they’d be told that if and when that bill actually gets signed into law, THEN they can come back and file suit and claim harm.

It’s no different with this EO. Once the government published the provision, then parties can claim standing and file suit and cite which parts of the provision they think violates the constitution. They can’t successfully claim harm prior to the provision being published as the only thing they have to go on is what they THINK the provision might state.

That’s how the judicial process works in this country.