Psaki Says "Gender Affirming Care" for Kids Is 'Best Practice'

Unlike Whoopi Goldberg
I know this isn’t white on white crime

 

So, my issue here is two things. The headline of your tweet is false. Gender Affirming Healthcare could be something as simple as a therapist telling a little boy it's okay to wear dresses and NOTHING more. It is not SRS or Blockers.

So now you're tweets...let's look at them, I'm glad you posted them and I say this sincerely.

#1 Trans Day of visibility or reading a book on pronouns is...how is that equal to SRS or puberty blockers? How is that indoctrinating? Telling kids that trans people exist and have pronouns is indoctrinating in what way?

#2 More pronouns...same opinion...why is it bad that kids are learning about pronouns and that some people might prefer to be called different things? Can you tell me why this is bad?

#3 the only issue I have is her using the term sneaky...but I had to look into this one because she talked about high school. This is why the term 'kids' needs to be clarified. To me, a 14 year old is a kid and most adults might still use the term kid for anyone under 18. Hell, we use it talking about NBA rookies. But it's interesting to me that this, based on whats on her walls...is teaching at minimum middle school and probably high school students and its also interesting to me that all she's talking about is protecting LGBTQ+ kids from bullying from others. Sneaky is the wrong term but with how openly homophobic the right is getting maybe sneaky is necessary. Also...they are now trying to get this teacher fired...so I suspect you're against that? Cancel culture and all.

#4 Ok...what's wrong with a boy that wants to wear dresses? So if a boy wears a dress that should be frowned upon? The book is saying it's okay so that if a boy DID come to class one day with a dress maybe the other students wouldn't bully him? That might be why they are reading the book as to protect the little boy that might want to wear a dress to school one day.

 

The tweet is still false though...

Ok, so lets go back to #4...

Do you think it's bad that kids read a book that tells them it's okay for little boys to wear dresses?

Do you not see how teaching tolerance might help a queer child should they decide they want to wear dresses to school and not be bullied for it?

 

You are the only one here demonizing LGBTQ people and trying to deny them basic health care. Pretty sure that's exactly what they do in most Islamic countries. You are exactly the person you claim to hate, which is pretty common in people with repression issues.

 

Funny we get worked up over what happens to 5% of people out there. Just like we ruin any semblance of gun control to shield the small number of peepee gun nutters out there who own the majority of guns just so they can show off their "military grade kit" and ramble on about a government wanting to enslave Cleetus cuz he's exceptional.

World is nuts folks.

 

Do we really want nancies, sissies and butches in galavanting and prancing around in our classrooms?

That's the MAIN REASON why America is WEAK.

Do your non conforming stuff in public bathroom stalls like a good God fearing Republican.

 

You never did tell me what you found objectionable after you read the book "What Are Your Words" that The Real Shady referenced in one of his posts.

 

ATW is going to absolutely love WPB.

 

Funny how tiktok has replaced youtube and facebook as rightwingnuts main source of news and communication...

 

How is this not indoctrination? You are teaching children which social mores are considered right and wrong. Whether you agree or disagree with the mores, it is indoctrination. The problem is that many parents disagree with the mores being taught in school because they conflict with their beliefs.

I believe in both tolerance and the parents right to teach their children morals. School should teach children to be compassionate and accept different lifestyles. However, schools shouldn't teach children which lifestyle is acceptable, just like they shouldn't teach which religion is acceptable. If you teach them compassion and acceptance the rest shouldn't matter.

 

I didn't notice any of the literature saying it was wrong to identify with the gender they were born with.

This stuff seems like what you are describing. Teaching children that some kids may identify with a different gender and allowing them to choose their pronouns seems like it is teaching tolerance and acknowledging that not everyone will wear clothes associated with their biological birth gender.

It seems to me like it's a more specific Dr. Seuss message.

 

I know, my point is that legislating a non-problem because a bunch of mythological following religious freaks are terrified is just a waste of time.

DD

 

Hey funboys, get a room.

 

But that is exactly what this is? A book about why it's okay for little boys to wear dresses is exactly teaching children to accept different lifestyles.

But your argument has a bit of a slippery slope to it, doesn't it? Should schools not teach that racism is bad, for example? We have to discuss this as well because the whole CRT debate is about whether schools should teach history and show that at one point in time this was an extremely racist country and the reason we have taught that the past 70 years or so was so that kids growing up would learn that racism is bad and it leads to really bad things. The reason that's relevant to them because these kids will meet people of different races and as such, they should be prepared to treat their other citizens fairly.

Schools should teach that LGBTQ+ people exist and its normal for them to exist. That teaching will come in different forms, whether it be about books telling children that boys wearing dresses is fine or whatever other method a teacher feels is necessary. If a parent has an issue with it they should bring it up with that school and teacher, not the government.

What we have now is the government telling certain parents that the way they raise their children is inappropriate. Imagine if a liberal state like California said that we can't indoctrinate children into religion? Imagine the (rightful) uproar that would come from many people. When parents are putting their kids into Catholic schools and religious schools that too is indoctrination but we're completely fine with that. Well, at least when that religion is Christian. I imagine if we had a school encouraging kids to praise Allah every morning we'd hear a lot more about the separation of Church and State from the right.

 

Also, I should add, some of these groups...like this one Tennesse mom that was leading some anti-CRT group...didn't even have children attend the schools she's trying to change the rules of. How often is this the case? So this really should be an issue that a parent talks about with a teacher and the school...not having all these people who homeschool or send their kids to private school anyway.

It's so odd that conservatives keep saying "Homeschool your kids" and yet are trying to dictate what other kids, kids they aren't the parents of, learn. Trying to pass bills that affect as many children as possible, for what reason? Who's really trying to indoctrinate children anyway?

 

These two sentence directly contradict each other.