It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Teacher Fired for Calling 6-yr-old “Transgender Boy” Student a Girl

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I really don't care what you think. You fools have fought me at every turn, going so far as to call something written by one of the leading experts in the field, who helped write the DSM-5 you tout with such high regard, as "tabloid" material.

The treatment iirc was preparing the child to receive puberty blocking drugs at the first sign of puberty. This is beyond simple treatments that left the question of the future to the future, it was in specific preparation for changing sex, creating an expectation for the child to live up to which is in my opinion completely wrong.


Yup, you really have to monitor those 4 year olds closely for signs of puberty! LOL!

Puberty blocking drugs are not specific preparation for changing sex. They are for delaying puberty and are fully reversible. All this does is allow a child additional time to clarify things and possibly for additional evaluation and counseling. Hormones are the specific preparation for "changing sex" and except in special cases, no surgical procedures are performed before the age of 18.

I have not called you a fool or discredited your "expert". In fact, I agreed with several of your points. I called into question the depth of your own level of real knowledge in these matters beyond what you've read or heard. I have my own level of expertise in this area that is kind of irrefutable so I am going to call things out as I see them.




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yep. I quoted the good doctor above. The Torygraph article is old news from 2012 before the terminology was changed in 2013.

Razor is desperately trying to make the article fit their errant statements; that is my point.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder how many details can be hidden under the guise of an "employment decision".

I'm sure it was an employment decision to fire them.
edit on 11/19/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder how many details can be hidden under the guise of an "employment decision".

I'm sure it was an employment decision to fire them.


... and now you try to direct attention to mere semantics.

You have no facts that support your position.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freija

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I really don't care what you think. You fools have fought me at every turn, going so far as to call something written by one of the leading experts in the field, who helped write the DSM-5 you tout with such high regard, as "tabloid" material.

The treatment iirc was preparing the child to receive puberty blocking drugs at the first sign of puberty. This is beyond simple treatments that left the question of the future to the future, it was in specific preparation for changing sex, creating an expectation for the child to live up to which is in my opinion completely wrong.



Puberty blocking drugs are not specific preparation for changing sex. They are for delaying puberty and are fully reversible.

You do have a peer-reviewed pre-pubescent hormonal therapy study to include with this statement right?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

Yep. I quoted the good doctor above. The Torygraph article is old news from 2012 before the terminology was changed in 2013.

Razor is desperately trying to make the article fit their errant statements; that is my point.

Terminology was changed. The facts I presented did not. You went from the article is a tabloid piece to now jumping to "terminology changed" and somehow never once addressed my points. I proved what I said was right, you don't like it, that's too bad for you. You can change terminology all day long and it does not alter the fact that young children often outgrow it. You did not even bother looking anything up before you started spouting off making yourself look a fool, using the DSM-5 while calling an article written by a DSM-5 author "tabloid material".



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
You do have a peer-reviewed pre-pubescent hormonal therapy study to include with this statement right?


Caught this on my phone after going to bed and taking one last look. I do not have one handy but will be happy to provide sources tomorrow. This approach has been in use for over ten years and there is plenty of information available.

I also know someone that at the appropriate age was on puberty blockers prior to starting estrogen, for what that's worth.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The facts you "presented" were based on outdated terminology. That terminology is outdated for a reason.

Psychiatric professionals disagree with your "take" on the facts, as has been pointed out.

You didn't prove anything, in fact repeatedly, as shown, your own source disagrees with your statements.

I haven't "changed terminology," the American Psychiatric Association did; it's called the DSM V.

You had no basis to "diagnose" the child we were ostensibly discussing, and yet you cited your own "authority" to do so, and when you got called on the facts, you tried to do an elaborate dance to justify using the source that you probably Googled to support your errant statements that are, once again, contradicted BY YOUR OWN SOURCE.

Again, you're calling me and other members "fools" and all you're doing is digging yourself deeper into your own folly with every post.

All of which is beside the point. We're not here to diagnose the kid or cast aspersions on the fathers (well, most of us aren't).

We've shown here that a) the OP source is nothing more than biased screed from a website spreading propaganda, b) the facts clearly show that the two "teachers" are basically dupes who are being used by an anti-trans* activist trying to make a national name based on defending "religious freedom."



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Yet another local news source reporting that the firings had nothing to do with "trans* issues":




A spokesman for Children's Lighthouse Learning Centers, which operates franchise locations in multiple states, said by phone Tuesday that he could not comment on matters related to employment. But when pressed by a reporter on whether Kirksey was terminated over her handling of a transgender student, the spokesman said no.

"What's unfortunate here is that a teacher who was fired from a school for a variety of issues decided to call a news station," said the spokesman, Jamie Izaks. "... This teacher had an agenda behind it and was very opportunistic with a recent vote and discussion in Houston."


Houston Chronicle, November 11



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Psychiatric professionals disagree with your "take" on the facts, as has been pointed out.

No, they don't. Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so. terminology has nothing to do with facts. Stop lying.


Existing research indicates that children with GIDC grow out of gender dysphoria, do not grow up to be transgender, and most of them grow up to be homosexual


Replace that with ....


Existing research indicates that children with gender dysphoria grow out of gender dysphoria, do not grow up to be transgender, and most of them grow up to be homosexual


You are being disingenuous to the point you are actually lying. You should stop. Changing the terminology from the old diagnosis to the name of the new diagnosis does not alter the rest.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep, they do. Shown repeatedly above. See DSM V for starters.

I'm not lying, I've been clear on every single thing I've said, and backed it up.

You cited your own "authority," referenced a source that contradicted your claims, pretended that you can diagnose a child you've never met and know nothing about, stated that you are correct in using outdated terminology and suggested that the entire APA is wrong while you are right, etc. etc.

The fact that you're desperately trying to spin up something else is only demonstrating how far off base from any sort of standard medical references you were.

Trying to focus this on me isn't helping. You can admit you were wrong and that nothing you said applies to this case.
edit on 19-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling first line



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
and Jesus said " thou shalt not refer to girl as boy".



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep, they do. Shown repeatedly above. See DSM V for starters.

You mean what my source helped author?


I'm not lying, I've been clear on every single thing I've said, and backed it up.

No you haven't. You called my expert source a tabloid and said nothing about him disagreeing with me.

Second of all, for someone who is an authority (at least in their own mind) in matters psychological would hardly cite an article from a British tabloid as their only source.

Then I prove he is an expert and you suddenly say it's a contradiction without explaining how at all. You clearly are just saying any stupid thing you can and simply change your story as you go along rather than admit the truth.


You cited your own "authority," referenced a source that contradicted your claims, pretended that you can diagnose a child you've never met and know nothing about, stated that you are correct in using outdated terminology and suggested that the entire APA is wrong while you are right, etc. etc.

Yes, I did, then cited a source that 100% backed me up and you did not disagree it backed me up. You claimed my expert source was a tabloid source and thus it did not matter it backed me up. Only after I made you look a fool did you resort to the source contradicts me, without once explaining how. The rest of your diatribe is an outright lie, I want you to QUOTE ME where I said I can diagnose a child I have never met and know NOTHING about. Show me, all you do is lie. Don't you realize once you have to lie you already lost?


The fact that you're desperately trying to spin up something else is only demonstrating how far off base from any sort of standard medical references you were.

Trying to focus this on me isn't helping. You can admit you were wrong and that nothing you said applies to this case.

Or I can call you out as the liar you are .. because you are .. and it's all you have been doing all thread long.

My statement ...

It's called Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood, and it's very rare for it to last, it almost always goes away. It's very common for them to become gay in adulthood (about 50% for boys and 75% for girls).


My source, an EXPERT who helped author the DSM-5 ...

Existing research indicates that children with GIDC grow out of gender dysphoria, do not grow up to be transgender, and most of them grow up to be homosexual


Keep lying.
edit on 19-11-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Thanks for the news links Deaf Alien and Gryphon66. I did a quick search before posting and there were only 4 links from alternative news sources and they all quoted the original source I gave. It is one of the things I love about ATS, members finding different sources which are often contradictory. I got the female to male mixed up like a few members did (It was late and I was getting tired).

Some very interesting comments on both sides of the argument. I remembered the BBC aired a transgender children documentary not long ago. I found the documentary on Youtube this morning which I am going to watch today.

Having problems embedding the video (just a blank screen) so will post a direct link.

Youtube Link



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I appreciate you bringing facts to this discussion even if others are being obtuse. The only facts that matter to them are ones that support their agenda and if you don't agree with them they call you a bigot.
edit on 2015/11/19 by Metallicus because: Fixed Spelling Error...Text Unchanged



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: deliberator



I got the female to male mixed up like a few members did...


Of course you did...this entire thing is unnecessarily confusing. Imagine how it seems to a 6 year old with two dads with an agenda.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

"Your source" (Dr. Jack Drescher) states clearly in the very article you linked and many other published locations that your over-generalized, outdated, out-of-place comments about the young person in this story were blatantly incorrect.

The article you linked and keep crowing about was from 2012.

Have you read anything "your source" has said since? Or did that not come up on your initial Google?

Before you cited "your source" you said clearly that what was going on in the situation under discussion (2015) was Child Gender Identity Disorder (CGID).

This is an outdated term after 2013 when the DSM V was published. Your article in the Torygraph was from 2012.

When this was pointed out to you, repeatedly, you claimed that YOU are an authority in the area, that those involved in the DSM V publication (which changed this outdated and ill-conceived terminology) INCLUDING YOUR SOURCE was wrong, that the older way of referring to this condition (which is NOT universal in all trans* kids and does NOT always lead to adult homosexuality as you repeatedly try to imply) was a more appropriate way to describe what was going on IN YOUR "PROFESSIONAL" OPINION.

We've quoted what "your source" said back to you in 2012 that directly disagrees with these ridiculous misstatements.

You can Google again and see what he's saying now and find out that you're still mistaken.

You keep trying, embarrassingly, to conflate the article you quoted from The Torygraph from 2012 with Dr. Jack Drescher claiming that "your source" is qualified and "your source" says this or that when that is not true and has been blatantly disproved.

Do you really not understand the difference between a human being and an article? Or that time passes and things change? OR that you misused a clinical term, defended your mistake, quoted an authority that points out your mistakes, and have kept spinning and spinning trying to make yourself right?

This is a waste of time. You were mistaken, you are misusing your source, and this has been made clear.


edit on 19-11-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I appreciate you bringing facts to this discussion even if others are being obtuse. The only facts that matter to them are ones that support their agenda and if you don't agree with them they call you a bigot.


Yet, the very "facts" that have been brought into the discussion have been QUOTED and have proven that what was being claimed (that the child referenced in the OP suffers from a clinical condition that doesn't exist) is mistaken.

Insisting on the facts rather than beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradict those beliefs is hardly "obtuse."



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: deliberator



I got the female to male mixed up like a few members did...


Of course you did...this entire thing is unnecessarily confusing. Imagine how it seems to a 6 year old with two dads with an agenda.


Nope, really not confusing at all. Here's what the source you appreciated so much cited earlier in the thread has to say about the realities of these situations in 2015:



A child assigned male at birth began confounding parents, family and neighbors at age 3 by repeatedly declaring and insisting, "I am a girl." After lengthy consultation with gender specialists, the child was eventually diagnosed with what once was called "gender-identity disorder of children" but is known in today's psychiatric manual, DSM-5, as "gender dysphoria in children." Now the child, 12 years old and approaching male puberty, is terrified about the prospect of impending body changes.

Gender dysphoria (GD) in children is a rare condition, and there has been thoughtful professional controversy about how to treat prepubescent children so diagnosed. However, there is little controversy among acknowledged experts about what to do for gender-dysphoric children when the onset of puberty, with its unwanted secondary sex characteristics, looms large.


So, no confusion, kids as young as 3 are able to indentify their gender, it's not a clinical or pathological condition except for the unease (gender dysphoria) that results from trying to force someone, even a child, to be something they aren't.

The "source" is Dr. Jack Drescher acknowledged here as an expert on the matter.

Source: Huffington Post "Puberty Suppression for Transgender Adolescents Works"

So to summarize:

Dr. Jack Drescher was quoted from an out-of-date article in a UK tabloid newssheet to support the misuse of a clinical term.

Quoting FROM that article disproves the assertion that all children who are trans* are suffering from a pathological condition that they outgrow.

Quoting from anything else Dr. Drescher has written disproves that erroneous contention.

There is nothing unusual about a child even as young as 3 understanding their gender or differences in their gender.

Anything else is pure hogwash.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join