Transgender CHILD confusion

[Cerebrum123]

See my last post to him. And what do you mean by bad parents? On going physical or sexual abuse? We have laws for that.

Physical and sexual abuse are definitely bad, but you also have what would probably be "emotional abuse". This would be parents who are always putting their kids down, and saying horrible things to them. I'm not talking about what you could call "tough love" either. I'm talking about really horrible and nasty things being said. Would you trust someone who routinely said nothing but horrible and hateful things to you?

If an otherwise good parent doesn't do the last two on your list you gave earlier(keeping the kids close, and letting them know they are accepted*), then that's going to make communication on already difficult subjects harder. I think that in such a case it would be good if kids had access to someone who could act as a mediator of sorts. Not someone who will just reject the parents, or tell the kid to just ignore their parents.

I know that ideals are just that, and are often not met, but I think that there should be somewhere/someone kids can go to if their parents aren't trustworthy/good. I don't know who would be best either, but I think it's an issue that needs to be taken into consideration. For the record, I agree with you on what parents should be doing.

I'm also not saying that children should just be made exempt from parent's decisions. I do think there are cases where a kid would need help, even if it's just to communicate better with their parents for whatever reason.

*Some people aren't very good at showing their feelings, and that would make those two things rather difficult for said person to do. If a kid doesn't know their parents feelings, then it would be hard to feel close, or even know how loved they really are.

[seer]

Physical and sexual abuse are definitely bad, but you also have what would probably be "emotional abuse". This would be parents who are always putting their kids down, and saying horrible things to them. I'm not talking about what you could call "tough love" either. I'm talking about really horrible and nasty things being said. Would you trust someone who routinely said nothing but horrible and hateful things to you?

If an otherwise good parent doesn't do the last two on your list you gave earlier(keeping the kids close, and letting them know they are accepted*), then that's going to make communication on already difficult subjects harder. I think that in such a case it would be good if kids had access to someone who could act as a 1000 Mile - McClean of sorts. Not someone who will just reject the parents, or tell the kid to just ignore their parents.

If an otherwise good parent doesn't do the last two on your list you gave earlier(keeping the kids close, and letting them know they are accepted*), then that's going to make communication on already difficult subjects harder. I think that in such a case it would be good if kids had access to someone who could act as a mediator of sorts. Not someone who will just reject the parents, or tell the kid to just ignore their parents.

I'm also not saying that children should just be made exempt from parent's decisions. I do think there are cases where a kid would need help, even if it's just to communicate better with their parents for whatever reason.

*Some people aren't very good at showing their feelings, and that would make those two things rather difficult for said person to do. If a kid doesn't know their parents feelings, then it would be hard to feel close, or even know how loved they really are.

My goodness, how did humanity ever survive! And how could you know if your mediator had the best interest of the child in mind? Who knows or loves the child more than the parent? I'm sorry, I just know from experience where all this leads - the minimizing of the parental role, and the exultation of state institutions.

[Cerebrum123]

My goodness, how did humanity ever survive!

Saying something could be a good idea is hardly saying it's impossible to survive without it.

And how could you know if your mediator had the best interest of the child in mind?

I think that would have to come from looking at a person's history. This wouldn't be foolproof, but nothing else is either.

Who knows or loves the child more than the parent?

The question was about parents who don't show love for their kids. Depending on the case the answer would be different.

I'm sorry, I just know from experience where all this leads - the minimizing of the parental role, and the exultation of state institutions.

I never said anything about "state institutions" or anything about "minimizing" a parents' role. I've agreed with you about what parents should be doing. The only question was what should be done when parents are not doing those things. I'm not sure of the answer myself. I think that a close relative should be who you would turn to, but that's not available in all situations.

You said "from experience" that you know "where all this leads". Can you explain what your experience is, and what "all this" even is? Right now, it feels like your experience is causing you to expect me to propose certain specific things. That's not what I'm doing.

I'm really not a fan of the government doing things, they tend to be inefficient, and cause more problems. There are, however, parents that while not doing anything illegal, are still bad parents. I thought that a discussion on who might be best to help deal with that situation, as well as who might be best to help deal with the situation of confused kids who for whatever reason aren't feeling to trusting of their good parents, would be a good thing.
I mean, aunts, uncles, grandparents, godparents, etc. would all be potential people to help in this situation while staying close to the family. Unless it's really, really bad situation* surely one of the above would be good for helping good parents with a confused/upset child, and help a child with emotionally abusive parents.

*I'm thinking a situation as bad as I'm thinking would have the child in a foster home at minimum anyway.

[Carrikature]

There is no blanket answer. Because as we have seen, once you make an exception and remove one set of "bad parents" from the child's decision making process that will eventually lead to leaving all parents out of the process. The criterion no longer is about good or bad parenting but what is socially acceptable or not, or what the educators deem to be socially acceptable or not.

This seems like a slippery slope fallacy. There are dangers here, but 'eventually leads to' isn't warranted without examples of precedent. There's definitely a fine line, but it's not as if I'm advocating for educators to second-guess the parents in any or all circumstances. Socially acceptable is one thing. Fearing that you will be ostracized by members of your family is another (and it does happen).

If it helps, take away the school counselor and substitute a psychologist. They're trained experts that want to help. They want to work in the child's best interest. Sometimes that means helping the parent be more accommodating. Sometimes that means helping the kids gain some perspective. The psychologist's role isn't to second-guess the parents, but they may still feel that some things need to be protected as part of the professional code of ethics.

My goodness, how did humanity ever survive!

I used to think this way about a lot of things. The answer is extremely complicated. Mostly we didn't have schools, the mortality rate was high, and going against what your parents said wasn't considered an option. When you don't know there are options, you don't have the ability to choose between them. We have those options available now where we mostly didn't before.

Humans can survive a lot of things. It's not a helpful metric to use.

And how could you know if your mediator had the best interest of the child in mind?

At some point, trust of other humans is required. You don't know, but you trust your child to be in good hands while being educated. You trust them to be in good hands while being carried to/from school on a bus. You trust them to be in good hands while volunteering at a church. Usually it works out fine. Sometimes it doesn't. We make our best judgments and pick up the pieces when we're wrong. That's part of being a parent.

Who knows or loves the child more than the parent?

That really is going to depend. It depends on the kid and the parent and who else is around. There's a reason things like the Boys and Girls Club or YMCA exist, after all. Not every child is wanted or properly cared for.

I'm sorry, I just know from experience where all this leads - the minimizing of the parental role, and the exultation of state institutions.

Can you expound upon this experience? I can't gainsay it, but if you have experience which lends perspective it would be very helpful to share for the rest of us.

[Papa Zoom]

I'll be the first to say I don't know how I feel about this. I think there's a really big clash in how we view children in terms of the rules meant to protect them, and I think this is an area where it shows up perfectly. If parents were perfect, it'd be a lot cleaner. Kids need someone to trust, though, right? A school counselor is far from ideal, but where are they supposed to turn? Religious systems?

ETA:
That's not to say I think it's the counselor's place to lie to the parents, with possible exceptions.

By law we'd have to lie or face consequences.

[Carrikature]

By law we'd have to lie or face consequences.

I'm not ok with that, but I'm not convinced that's actually the law. I'd like to see the law in question. I don't see how we can legally force someone to lie. That's the sort of law that doesn't stand up in the courts.

There's a lot of space between lying and withholding information, and Cath already pointed out ways to give information without violating trust.

[Papa Zoom]

I'm not ok with that, but I'm not convinced that's actually the law. I'd like to see the law in question. I don't see how we can legally force someone to lie. That's the sort of law that doesn't stand up in the courts.

There's a lot of space between lying and withholding information, and Cath already pointed out ways to give information without violating trust.

It's exactly what we were told in our training although I cannot find the specific law in Washington State. Here's what I was able to find:

http://eagnews.org/proposed-vegas-sc...lling-parents/
http://www.christianaction.org/news/...elling-parents
http://www.newsmax.com/US/transgende.../21/id/491434/http://www.anonymousconservative.com...oesnt-show-it/

Such things have been in the news many times. We cannot give a child any medication without parent consent but without parent consent we can put a young girl on birth control. Not only without consent, but without their knowledge.

[Carrikature]

It's exactly what we were told in our training although I cannot find the specific law in Washington State. Here's what I was able to find:

http://eagnews.org/proposed-vegas-sc...lling-parents/
http://www.christianaction.org/news/...elling-parents
http://www.newsmax.com/US/transgende.../21/id/491434/http://www.anonymousconservative.com...oesnt-show-it/

Such things have been in the news many times. We cannot give a child any medication without parent consent but without parent consent we can put a young girl on birth control. Not only without consent, but without their knowledge.

So lots and lots of nonsense without any substance. That's cool.

It's weird that 15 is the age of medical consent in Oregon, but it's not as if this is a fast-one being pulled on the parents.

[Adam]

California was always the land of fruits and nuts, but clearly it's contagious. Apparently the La-La-Land contagion festers in dampness, and our drought here in California for four years has driven the madness northward.