195
Pretty sure you can faithfully practice your religion and not know what your kids are up to 24/7.
I hope California simply ignores this vile abortion of children’s human and Constitutional rights. What a despicable, inhuman shithole of a country. Americans need to start burying their criminal, pedophilic, predatory government. Literally.
It's a chance to bring suffering and perhaps death to the weakest and most vulnerable, so there was little doubt how the Republican Supreme Court would rule.
Putting children in danger is a very Christ-like thing to do.
God damnit, this timeline sucks greasy orange balls.
I mean, the Bible includes a story about children who get mauled by bears as punishment for making fun of a bald man... So yeah that tracks.
If you can't trust the parents with this sort of information, and the child fears letting them know, should the child even be in the custody of those parents?
This. My first reaction to this article was "duh why wouldn't the parent know?" Then I thought about it a little harder. Yea parents should know, and parents should be accepting / supportive. But shoulda coulda woulda doesn't mean shit in the face of what is. If the kid hasn't told their parents they likely fear the outcome...
While my gut says this isnt a great decision, I can't think of another scenario where teachers/school are restricted in sharing information like this. I know sometimes teachers are designated reporters (have to report), but not aware of anything being restricted.
Is there some legal precedent for what California wanted to do?
If a child tells a teacher they are being abused by a parent it seems likely that there would be rules in place for the teacher to not share that information with the parent.
I'm pretty sure that's part of being a designated reporter.
However, that's not a uniquely parent-child policy and it's really about the parents behavior. I'm not sure I would consider those the same thing.
Some legislation that is slightly similar is that college students need to sign waivers to allow their parents to access their grades. But that's because in college students are adults and therefore parents don't have inate rights to that information.
I've never had to face what it's like to be transgender. But I am what most would classify as "bisexual."
I didn't tell my mother about my sexual orientation until I was pressured to by my extended family at the age of 17. My mum is a religious Conservative who believes the LGBTQI+ community is a bunch of brainwashed kids having sexuality forced upon them from TV shows and drag queens. I didn't feel comfortable then, and it was scary, and the more I get to know my mum, the more I regret telling her. Now I know that every time she spews bigotry, she's doing so with the knowledge that I'm in the group she's targeting. Her knowing that her daughter, whom she raised and thought of as "normal" didn't stop her from spreading misinformation and fear-mongering. She treats me well, but she doesn't accept my whole self no matter how much she says she does. She still disregards my identity as nothing more than a trend for the mentally ill. She once told me, "Yeah, yeah, I know you think you're bi," meaning she doesn't actually believe I am but that I have been brainwashed to think I am.
So even though it's not the same experience, I understand what it's like having an extremely personal piece of information about your identity -- that you're still getting used to yourself -- being shared, with scary potential outcomes. I can imagine how even scarier it would be for someone in this situation to be transgender. While the general public has made some progress with the LGBTQI+ community, transgender people are still not safe.
Knowing about cases like Brianna Ghey (she was murdered by "friends," not her parents) breaks my heart. I can only imagine how terrifying it is to just exist as a transgender person in this world. Just because someone is your parent, doesn't mean that they will protect you any more than strangers or friends. Sometimes parents don't have your best interests at heart and can be your biggest bully.
Having such danger forced upon a CHILD is absurd. If it were up to me, I would leave it up to the student involved whether or not to share this information with their parents. It's not a medical condition, and children aren't properties of their parents. While I understand that some would want to be there for their children, some don't love their children unconditionally and would choose religion over their children any day. I think a student would know more about their parents' likely response than the school staff (who only see the parents for brief moments) and the government. I don't feel comfortable with this decision excluding the students' autonomy. They're not pets; they have a voice and personhood that should be respected.
So uh… in your shoes, I’d for damn sure be very tempted to go full NC with your mom over that behavior. That is unacceptably toxic and hateful.
If I had less empathy and more guts, I would. I actually tried it once, and those around me accused me of being divisive, overly sensitive, and cold. They claim my problem is that I can't handle other people's opinions. I live abroad and had to break the no-contact approach to visit family, and my mum started bawling her eyes out begging for a renewed relationship.
The reasons I went NC were her Facebook-led brainwashing and her sending a petition link to ban gender-affirming care for children to my boyfriend (she says it was an accident but I'm infuriated that she sent that link to anyone, not just because it was sent to my boyfriend, unlike what others think). Even my boyfriend couldn't understand at first that it's not just about me seeing what she thinks, but about me having a relationship with someone spreading and causing harm to others. His solution was to just tell her that I don't want to hear about her opinions on social media, but I asked her to choose between her dangerous conspiracy theories and our relationship. Her response was, "You know what my opinions are," and so I replied, "Well then you've made your decision," and blocked her. It was easy to be NC with her until it was time to visit my family. She later sent a message to my boyfriend, which included the phrase something to the effect of, "Maybe when she matures, she'll learn how to be more tolerant."
I've figured that the only way to maintain both a somewhat idea of peace and my sanity is to completely ignore all negative aspects of my mother. I pretend that I don't know what her ideologies are and that whoever I went NC with is another person. It's depressing, and whenever I think about it I get livid all over again, but I feel like I can't escape it "because we're family" 🙄. I never talk about politics or social issues with my mother, and I cut her off if she initiates such conversations. She tried to push to have her say but I tried not to fall for the trap and tell her, "If you say one more thing about this topic, I'm going to leave because I won't allow myself to be in a place where my boundaries aren't respected." I've grown very good at just getting up and leaving, and yes people do think it's rude and stubborn but I don't care.
What "helps" me is knowing that she's not intrinsically like this. She's a very sensitive and kind person, but she's been brainwashed and indoctrinated into falling for the propaganda of drag queens forcing transitions on children and TV shows manipulating children into homosexuality. When you dive deep into it, we have very similar values: protect the innocent and vulnerable; no one deserves to die for their identity; the government lies to you all the time, and so on. The difference is that my basis is Liberalism and scientific facts and her basis is religious teachings and Facebook comments. I've turned my focus from trying to debunk her claims and calling her out to treating her as a mindless sheep. I try to educate her on how to use critical thinking skills, how to spot red flags in the media, and different perspectives, philosophical arguments, and so on. I truly believe that one of the biggest obstacles for these people who don't want to be evil but are complicit in evil acts is the lack of education and cognitive skills. I don't have much hope for her ever being progressive, but I do hope I can at least get her to catch nonsense claims and predatory propaganda.
I know that she doesn't want to be evil because she doesn't wish harm in the way that neo-nazis do. She doesn't want the LGBTQI+ community to be slaughtered and she understands that many of them need support, but she doesn't think that it's not a choice and doesn't agree with encouraging that lifestyle (i.e. doesn't want to legalise equal rights). She doesn't want women who get abortion care to be stoned to death or for women to be forced to give birth if they're dying, but she's been taught to believe that women use it as a contraceptive, that foetuses have the same rights as people, and that abortion leads to fertility and psychological issues. She doesn't want people to die from viruses, but she's recently become scared of vaccines and sceptical of their development and side effects (she vaccinated us). She agrees that huge corporations are stealing her data and spreading misinformation, but she's not ready to give up Facebook for it. She wants to feed the hungry, but she believes that charity is the only solution for it.
.... I keep dreaming of a world where my mum doesn't get brainwashed in the first place and becomes a progressive Liberal... 🤦♀️
Oof, that sounds rough. But it also sounds like you’re doing the best you can to enforce your own boundaries where possible and practical.
Hopefully she’ll get de-programmed one way or the other at some point…
Yeah I think there's been a string push against the personhood of minors in recent decades. I don't love all the decisions minors would make with more autonomy, but I've seen the consequences of full parental control over the lives of teenagers in trans teens, and while some have had good results, for others it's the sort of thing that makes you just kinda stare at a wall for a bit. Over a decade ago, when I was freshly out a teenager stepped in front of a truck because of her parents' response to her being trans, they sent her to conversion camps, they punished her self expression, and they guaranteed she had no hope for the future, then when their daughter died they didn't even believe her words that they had killed her.
Children's rights are complicated. No reasonable person thinks a 5 year old should have the ability to tell their parents that they want to live alone and have the state defend that right or to take the child without cause. But I think it's equally ludicrous to say that a 16 year old should be blocked from getting a vaccine they want because their parents oppose it (when I was a teen this was a hot issue for the HPV vaccine). In fact I think any child old enough for abstract thought should have plenty of protections as a human including from their parents.
Hell even beyond rights to privacy from parents and the right to bodily autonomy, teenagers are often currently being aggressively hand held to the point they don't know how to function outside their parents' guidance at early adulthood. Adolescence is supposed to be a period of gaining rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, of learning how to be an adult but before the training wheels are off.
And yeah my experience as a trans millennial had me strongly relating to cis gay people my parents age. Lots of broken families and too many dead acquaintances, but with strong community and cultural bonds. The community meant I always had people and even in a new place I could find family pretty quick, I just had to be family to those who found me.
Also seconding the person saying that your mom is awful, like wtf, just because I've seen worse doesn't mean I'll ever get over the petty shittiness of some parents.
The court’s ruling focused on the parents’ claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated. The court also said they have valid parental rights claims under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
That is very troubling. I could have understood a First Amendment justification for the school and the staff, although they have to live with restrictions on what they say all the time.
Basing this on the parents' free exercise clause means that the parents have a religious right to know the details of their children's lives, which implies they have a right to force their religion on their children.
That is a monstrous claim, as children have a right to their own religion and exercise thereof under the First Amendment, too.
which implies they have a right to force their religion on their children.
Alito has pretty consistently implied that he believes religious freedom gives christians the right to impose their religion on others. Or that other people don't things that christians disagree with is somehow infringing on their religious freedom.
And Thomas is just a piece of shit who has explicitly said he just wants to make liberals miserable. I don't even think all the bribes actually influence his decisions, he would've been this terrible for free.
I agree, and they have more or less always been that way. If you wanted to shrink the reach of religion, you brought a case about the rights of Muslims or Native Americans. If you wanted to expand it, you brought a case about Catholicism.
I think what changed is that they were more roundabout about it and they tried to find some reasoning that got them where they wanted but not for the reasons they wanted. Sort of like the decision to let the baker discriminate, which was formally decided on the grounds that the State of Colorado discriminated against his religiosity.
Conservatives view children as property. It shouldn't be that surprising of a ruling; its why they love pedophilia.
Rights are essentially the mirror image of duties: the right not to be killed corresponds to the duty not to murder; the right to privacy corresponds to the duty not to intrude on people's privacy; the right to free expression corresponds to the duty not to prevent that expression.
If parents have a right to know about the child's transgender identity, who has the corresponding duty? The implication of this line of argument is that, at the very least, schools ought to snitch on anything a child does that the parent might want to know for religious reasons, whatever they may be.
If we take the duty as primary, we can flip it and ask what right corresponds to the duty of schools to tell parents about their child's transgender identity, in case it's something narrower. Sometimes a duty merely creates the right to expect that a public body behaves in an appropriate way. But that is then not in the least bit a religious matter but a civil one.
load more comments
(4 replies)
...Parental, free speech and religious rights to do what?
to ignore the privacy rights, free speech rights and religious rights of their child.
Conservatives think of childen as property, so it's not surprising.
unsurprising, when you realize they get their ideology from an iron age reboot of bronze age legal codes written by... grumpy old pervert men.
parents’ claim that their rights [...] were violated.
Their rights? What about their children's!?
The Supreme Court has been packed with religious nutjobs who don't give a damn about the mental health of transgender students.
Wow you can clearly see the brigading starting to appear here, undermining constructive discussion.
I'm not seeing the constructive discussion in your post.
Explain.
Vagueposting is a scourge on the internet. It teaches people to not have actual values and the idea that we're all just separated niche groups who can communicate to each other via dogwhistles and gestures. It's anti-social and lacks actual values or principles.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
195 points (100.0% liked)
News
36292 readers
2609 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS