this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
10 points (91.7% liked)

CanadaPolitics

1895 readers
1 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules:

All of Lemmy.ca's rules apply

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lightrush@lemmy.ca
grte@lemmy.ca
10
Debate on school pronoun policy scheduled to begin in Sask. legislature Tuesday (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canadapolitics@lemmy.ca
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why does this keep getting misrepresented? The debate is not around pronouns. Nobody gives a rat's ass about words. The debate is around whether or not one seeing themselves outside of what is considered "gender normative" is a mental illness.

If it is a mental illness, then educators are obligated to notify parents of the symptoms they have observed. The faction who believe it is a mental illness see this as a violation of that trust when educators declare they will not notify parents.

If it is a normal expression of being human, then educators are right to respect the wishes of the student. The faction who believe it is normal expression see attempts to require educators to notify parents as a violation of the same trust.

It seems someone is worried that they will 'lose the debate' if they address the real issue in contention.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh in that case then why is it not falling to what the experts say? Namely both Canadian and UN as well as specialist organizations on psychology all agree it’s a normal form of human expression.

And even if it wasn’t. If parents were disproportionately likely to disown or abuse children upon learning they have an anxiety disorder then it’s reasonable to stop disclosure to parents against the child’s will as that disclosure would have potential harm.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like some good points for the debate. Why waste them here?

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would guess that it was for the same reason that you "wasted" your excellent points regarding mental illness. To participate in the discussion, to raise issues that are perhaps not properly considered or analyzed, and to get the ideas out there for use by others. Isn't that why we're all here, to learn, teach, discuss, share?

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I wasted my points because it spoke directly to the original article, which misrepresented the issue.

Your comment did not logically follow. It did not speak to my comment in any way. It was a good comment(!), just misplaced, and therefore will miss the audience it was intended for.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would say that your comments were not wasted. Maybe I'm the only person who had never heard it framed as a battle over what can legitimately be called a mental illness, but at least one person has new insight into the issue.

[–] MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because describing it that way is a dog whistle. As another has pointed out, if it was really about mental illness why does an untrained/non-medical parent have any input on the policy?

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if it was really about mental illness why does an untrained/non-medical parent have any input on the policy?

We live in a democracy, so said parents are required to give their input if they are to excise their democratic obligation, just like everyone else. I expect what you really mean is: Why is their input not being shaped by experts?

Perhaps they have not ever considered consulting an expert? Nobody is talking about the issue[1], so it is not like they are going to have someone say: "Hey, you know, you should talk to so-and-so who is an expert in this". What might seem obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone.

[1] Correction: One person left a single comment about the issue, but as an off-topic reply in a forum thread where it has no relevance, leaving it to not be ever seen by anyone who needs to hear it. Nobody is talking about the issue where the so-called debate is actually taking place.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

Not everything is a dog whistle and not every policy input needs to be restricted to those with specific expertise. I have no mental health training, so I shouldn't be making frontline decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that I want appropriate expertise in place. If that is not policy input, what is it?

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

God I fucking hate this province

[–] Paragone@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All this screaming about "rights" of parents to obliterate-the-validity of children, and obliterate children's-rights...

LET THE CHILDREN VOTE/DECIDE THE ISSUE, NOT US "GROWN-UPS".

It is THEIR prison/containment, that THEIR lives are stuck in:

THEY, ALONE, have moral-ground to be deciding their right to their gender-identity.

THEY are valid, therefore their self-determination must have rights.

Why can't any of the ideology-worshippers stomach this fact??

: \

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

You mean... Let actual experts decide (they also happen to align with what most children want, funny that).

We don't let children chose the curriculum for anything else, this subject shouldn't be an exception. The problem is parents and politicians putting their nose in something they don't understand.