If a boy shows up dressing up in female clothes then I wouldn’t call the parents. Equally, if a girl showed up dressing up in what is deemed boys clothes (i.e. tomboy) it wouldn’t prompt me to call or email the parents about it.

If a student tells me that they’re gay or bi then I’m not obligated to notify their parents about it. Even if the parents had a suspicion and tried to pull it out of me I still wouldn’t/ tell. This isn’t about keeping secrets, just about keeping confidentiality and knowing when to break it.

“–District employees are even instructed to deceive parents by using the child’s legal name and pronouns with family, while using the different name and pronouns adopted by the child in the school setting.”

More like protecting jobs because people don’t want to be deemed LGBT+phobic. It’s equal to being accused of racism nowadays.

I saw no obfuscation in Art Deco’s reply to you, nor do I see any now.

And saying that something hasn’t been tried in the right way, or that events have changed the climate, may be something that the left says about some of its efforts. But that doesn’t make it an automatically invalid claim when applied to other efforts by other groups. I would think that would be obvious.

No, it’s not a personal insult except in a very mild way that’s commonplace on the blog and not something I’m going to stop. The reason is quite clear, I think. Art Deco is not saying you should literally “curl up and die” nor is he asking you to “curl up and die.” He is saying that it sounds as though you have given up on the solutions he suggests might work to effect the change you both seem to want.

Here, here! Fine commentary with insightful points.

“Well, if you’d like to curl up and die, be my guest. You seem awfully opinionated about the Ukraine for someone resigned to public life having a particular configuration.”

You mistake or intentionally confuse, skepticism about the sufficiency of our current political configuration and the resultant prospect for success, as resignation to “curl up and die”.

(does that qualify as personal insult, neo?)

I assure you that curling up and dying isn’t in my nature, personally when all hope of liberty is lost, I favor taking as many of the bastards with me as possible.

“You seem awfully opinionated about the Ukraine for someone resigned to public life having a particular configuration.”

Unlike your well thought out opinions? Though please, explain the connection between my expressed thoughts on the invasion of the Ukraine and your implication that I am resigned to “public life having a particular configuration”.

An appellate panel would simply issue a ruling that it was unconstitutional for Congress to end a particular appropriation it being a violation of the 14th’s equal treatment provision. I realize that would be a logically invalid ruling. But there are many examples of the judiciary and even SCOTUS from not letting mere logic and Constitutional specificity to stand in the way of a desired outcome…

“What other ‘tools’ would you suggest? Given that “eliminating their jurisdictions” would require majority approval in Congress to revamp those jurisdictions.” GB

“Well, yes. Any legislation does. This is supposed to be an argument?

It’s not an argument, it’s an intransigent obstacle to “eliminating their jurisdictions”. One that you have yet to address.

They got a degree from the sh!ttiest segment of contemporary higher education. The administrators are notable for having spent even more time in that latrine.

Ed school students generally have the highest grades and the lowest standardized test scores of any academic discipline. That means they have puffed up egos from grade inflation when, in fact, they are dolts.

Before feminism took hold in our society, many of the smartest women devoted their brain power to being teachers and mothers. Now they become doctors and lawyers and the ed schools are filled with mediocrities.

Some of the worst ideas in society today were promulgated by education schools and “professional” educators.

Today we have blue haired, childless weirdos going on TikTok to tell parents that a certificate in education makes them more expert at raising children than people who have, you know, actually raised children.

By the way, from the hysterical reaction to it from the cultural left I think the “Okay, Groomer” meme is brilliant. The left can’t meme, they say, but the left has been exceptionally competent at framing issues as “pro choice” and “don’t say gay.” Somewhere Andrew Breitbart is smiling at “Okay, Groomer”.

Perhaps Griffith’s fake populist character in A Face In The Crowd, “Lonesome” Rhodes, was closer to his true persona.

“Obfuscation”? It’s not obfuscation to disagree with you about the likelihood of a certain approach achieving a certain result. That is all that’s happening here, and in fact, it is you disagreeing with whether the approach might work. The person suggesting it might think, for example, that the approach hasn’t actually been tried in the past with enough vigor and smarts, or that the political or socioeconomic climate has changed in some way recently that would be likely to make the approach more successful.”

I asked Art Deco to provide the mechanisms with which we might accomplish movement toward reaching the objectives he provided. He responded that they could be accomplished through our political system. I then pointed out the political obstacles that have since Reagan utterly prevented the reforms he suggests.

The obfuscation neo arises from Art’s avoiding offering a practicable methodology for accomplishing his ‘shoulds’. Your suggestion that “The person suggesting it might think, for example, that the approach hasn’t actually been tried in the past with enough vigor and smarts” is exactly the rationale that advocates of socialism and communism in the West use to ‘explain’ why those ideologies have either been less than successful or have obviously failed. How is it different here in America given the left’s dominating ideology and the corruption in every institution in America?

As for or that the political or socioeconomic climate has changed in some way recently that would be likely to make the approach more successful that is, IMO at best wishful thinking given the current state of affairs, where “every one of our Republican Senators regularly vote with the democRats on various issues, practicing a kind of shell game, where a rotating small minority vote against the UniParty line.”

I certainly wish that our problems could be settled through the political process, I simply see little reason to expect it. The rot is IMO, simply too wide and too deep.

Which isn’t to say that I won’t advocate for and vote for needed change through the political process. If the right gains a majority in Congress in 2022 then retains it in 2024, also regaining the Presidency and then acts upon it, then perhaps we finally will get different results.

But absent a sufficient majority willing to act in Congress with a President equally determined, it simply won’t happen. Given a RINO dominated GOP, a democrat party dominated by post modernism, a fundamentally antithetical ideology to classical liberalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M34e-RVtr8M

Given the mindset of the left as described by Jordan Peterson in the first minute in the link above, how we will obtain a sufficient majority in Congress committed to accomplishing Art’s propositions, which BTW I’ve said I agree with… is the question I’ve asked to be addressed.