>but pretty much all of them agree with the idea that everyone should be entitled to basic decency.
This is begging the question. Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate, just like disagreement over when life begins and what that means is at the heart of the abortion issue.
Some think "basic decency" means transitioning schoolchildren behind their parents' backs, providing them with hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental knowledge or consent, and removing kids from their homes if the parents object. Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience. The first group holds power in public education, HR departments, academia, and the federal government (at least in the USA), making that second group the counterculture.
> Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate,
Okay, let's put it another way. Pretty much all of them agreed with me about the entitlement to basic decency. From this, I conclude that my views about basic decency probably aren't all that controversial, after all.
This disagreement exists online, and in the press. I haven't seen it in the real world. If "the heart of the […] debate" is fictional, maybe the debate itself is artificial.
> Some think
Literally who? I will share with you two anecdotes:
• I know some parents whose children, questioning their gender, thought they were trans for a few months. The worried parents advised caution, while doing their best to educate themselves about trans people: the kids (as everyone suspected) turned out not to be trans.¹
• Those parents of trans friends of mine who object to their transition? Also shitty (bordering on abusive) parents in other ways. (When you're holding something else at a much higher priority than your kids, you're probably a shit parent,² and I've yet to see a counterexample.)
So, yeah, I'm somebody who would agree with the letter of your first "basic decency" example. I would likely³ punch somebody who actually supported it in spirit. I mean, seriously. Who the actual [minced oath] is that arrogant, that they know what's right for some kid they've never met, based on a checklist? Arrogant enough to kidnap them from their (presumably loving) family? That's Oliver Twist-style child-rearing morality.
> Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience.
They're right to.⁴ Except, that "authoritarian pseudoscience" they're fighting against doesn't exist, and nobody in the world (with any power) is actually a proponent of it. The closest thing we've got is overworked and understaffed medical gatekeepers (one clinic for an entire country, in some cases) who make bad calls because they can't make good ones – to the point that only the law really listens to them any more. The solution to that problem is obvious.
> The first group holds power
Please show me an actual example of a member of this group.
---
¹: And yes, professionals usually can tell the difference. Not that a few months of blockers would actually have caused any real issues. (I currently lean towards the "radical autonomy" end of the spectrum, in case you haven't picked up on that; my reasons are many, and probably out of scope of this comment.)
²: Or your kid is in danger of significantly harming somebody else, or something like that. Children are people, after all: some are capable of evil. In these cases, though? Shitty parents.
³: Don't know for sure, though. I've never been in a position to punch one. (I'd like to think I'd try talking, first.)
⁴: In the jurisdictions I'm aware of, there's no such thing as "parental rights". There's children's rights – and in the vast majority of cases, a child's interests are best served by being with their parents. For example, in divorce cases, it's the child's right to have time with their parents, not the parent's right to have time with their child. That distinction can be significant, but only in edge-cases.
I have family and friends in K-12 education. If you question LGBTQIAP+ or fail to affirm a kids' gender self-identification, you are out of a job. Wesley Yang has covered this topic extensively, and is a good one to follow on Twitter:
>I currently lean towards the "radical autonomy" end of the spectrum, in case you haven't picked up on that
I believe you. That approach endangers children, has no scientific basis, and will be stopped in the courts. Kids do not have the capacity to make permanent, life-altering decisions about fertility or sexuality. They do not and cannot understand the implications and consequences of their actions. Responsible adults must safeguard them into adulthood.
Small question: In the name of preventing children from transitioning, there are laws in place in some states to investigate supportive parents for child abuse and separate children from their parents should their parents support their child's transition. How does this correspond with parental autonomy?
There are other laws in place in some states that force that a teacher is not allowed to mention gender identity at all in the classroom, and must report any gender nonconforming behavior to authorities. How does this correspond with teachers having control?
Edit to your additional edit: How do you match that there's no scientific basis for transitioning when the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association both oppose preventing access to transitioning?
Your very comment dodged every major point of my original post, which you continue to evade. I won't be sidetracked into debating the actions of some Governor I don't control in a state I've never visited. It is classic "whatabouting," not relevant to the topic nor the main point.
[Edited: I'm not contributing to this conversation since this is just culture war nonsense to someone who obviously opposes with no interest in mutual understanding, so I'm removing my post here and will cease conversing along this manner.]
Is not really a real person.¹ But if you think he's an example, he'll suffice for this. Please, state his position, and explain why you disagree with it.
> If you question LGBTQIAP+ or fail to affirm a kids' gender self-identification, you are out of a job.
I mean, yeah. That kind of power over children comes with a responsibility to keep your politics out of school – or, out of your position as authority figure, anyway. (A few, very few, teachers at my school managed the latter – and they only used this talent to rant a little about budget cuts to education, during times where we weren't obliged to listen.)
If a kid thinks she's a prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is not for a teacher to tell her otherwise. If a kid thinks he fancies his best friend, it is not for a teacher to tell him that's wrong. If a kid says they're a fairy princess from Mars? To insist otherwise² is not the role or purpose of a schoolteacher.
> That approach
I didn't describe an approach, there: just a vague philosophy. I think you're reading too much into my words. What do you think the problems with my position are?
---
¹: At least, not while he's acting in his position as head of state. I elaborated on this in a sibling post: real-life people will tell you what they believe, but public figures (especially politicians) often tell you what they think will make you believe something. https://hackernews.hn/item?id=34616318
²: A teacher could mention that no life, nor evidence of civilisation, has been found on Mars. Using this as a rebuttal of the child's claim to Martian fairy royalty would be overstepping.
This is begging the question. Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate, just like disagreement over when life begins and what that means is at the heart of the abortion issue.
Some think "basic decency" means transitioning schoolchildren behind their parents' backs, providing them with hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental knowledge or consent, and removing kids from their homes if the parents object. Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience. The first group holds power in public education, HR departments, academia, and the federal government (at least in the USA), making that second group the counterculture.