Let's start with a premise.
All children are immature.
Immature people cannot make mature decisions.
Those who cannot make mature decisions must not be given the choice to do so.
Making mature decisions about children is reserved for parents alone.
Only parents and children are responsible for their intra-family relationships.
Since no one other than parents and children are responsible for their relationship, both bear the positive and negative consequences of their relationship.
No one outside the family can be responsible for the success or failure of a family relationship.
Since no one else can be responsible, no one else is.
If parents make immature decisions for their children, they are responsible.
The question that anyone who deals with children and young adults,
whether in a school/university, educational or medical environment, can and should ask themselves is: "Am I their family? Insofar as my influence affects internal family matters, how far do I want my influence allow to go? Do I want personal responsibilities for all families who are attached to the students I work with? If I want that, is my will even possible to realize?"
The next question is:
"If I currently reinforce a child's idea that they want to be a different sex than they are, can I be held accountable in the future, when that child is an adult, for having encouraged them to have a problem with their sex?"
If the answer is: "No. I can't be held accountable," then I must refrain from affirming a child's idea about their sex. I CAN'T validate it because I can't be held accountable by anyone, not the child, not their parents, not friends and not relatives. None of these people can hold me responsible because I CAN'T have this responsibility in the FIRST PLACE. It makes no difference, if I WANT that responsibility, since I CAN'T have it.
Incidentally, this is the reason why all physiological and psychological treatments give no guarantee of success, but on the contrary say that the patient who decides in favour of a treatment is aware of possible risks and, despite the risks being made known (from slight to very serious), gives his consent to it by signature.
If I cannot have this responsibility in the first place, to whom do I hand it down? To the parents, who else?
Now, if the parents themselves affirm their child and want it to have hormonal treatment,
and they want a teacher to join the affirmation, the teacher again can say: I carry no responsibility for your child, I can't, since I cannot be held accountable for possible future problems. Since I cannot and will not be held accountable for any difficulties or harm in the future, the only one who can be held accountable are you, the parents.
Since I have no crystal ball and cannot see into the future, I, as a teacher, doctor, educator will neither affirm a child nor its parents in its and their idea about its sex.
My duty as an educator/expert in my field is to inform about all the known risks and dangers of the procedure of which I claim to be an expert in. And point out the unknown risks. That is my due diligence.
Affirmation is not information.
I will not affirm or confirm anything or anyone outside of my own family, since I cannot be held accountable for the validity or the non-validity of claims and procedures. Since I am not in an intimate relationship with "anyone".
If you are a teacher and a prepubescent pupil attracts attention about "it's sex",
you neither reject it, nor conform it. If you are asked by your pupils about what they should do when a boy demands to be spoken to as a girl, or vice versa, you ask them back: "Who do you see right in front of your eye?"
You say nothing else about it. You yourself address the kid by what your eyes see. You cannot address a kid by something other than male or female, since your eye does not see anything other and your eye cannot see any pronouns.
Do not discuss the issue any further. Stick to your eyes and nothing else.
If you are commanded by your superior that you have to address a prepubescent/pubescent kid against what your eyes see,
answer that you cannot be held responsible for either confirming or rejecting its sex. Ask the superior if he can be held accountable for whatever future problems might occur to the pupil. If his answer is no, then he is free to address the kid by his eyesight and so are you.
If he says "yes, he can be held accountable",
ask him to what law he is referring exactly and how he in concrete interprets the law, and if his interpretation can be seen as a legal professional advice - in the same way a lawyer could give it - and if the superior will take responsibility that what he advices could be taken as a hundred percent guarantee by the commanded teacher, that what he shall obey to, will for sure be seen as lawful, and that he wants the superior to sign a paper in which he promises that he is willing to be held accountable by law for any possible future damage of the respective kid.
The superior most likely will not sign such a paper.
He may say that there are no risks of later regrets about confirming a teenager's preferred sex. Again, he must be asked if he knows for sure about the risks?
He must of necessity say "no" to this. The teacher asks: "If you say 'no', wouldn't the logical consequence of your answer be that you must be informed about possible risks?"
The teacher can go on to ask: "If we as teachers and as a school in our function as an authority confirm a teenager in his idea and he decides to take hormones because he now feels officially confirmed by us, which is no small deal, do we know the exact long-term effects if the teenager disrupts his biological hormonal process?"
Conversely, if we affirm the teen,
can we say with certainty that our affirmation will prove to be a complete success in the teen's ongoing life? That our affirmation and it alone will be responsible for a positive trajectory in that particular student's life?
The answer must be "no, we don't know the long term effects of our affirmative behavior."
If we as involved ones do not know for sure about future term effects, how can affirmation be justified in present terms?
The answer is, it can't.
Since the superior and the teacher is neither a clinician nor a psychologist, the teacher or head of the school cannot be held accountable for what they think might cause damage or no damage to the kid. They can only be held accountable for what the law "thinks".
The teacher can continue by asking whether the supervisor absolutely wants to be responsible for the fact that there could be possible harm to the life and limb of the teenager? And whether his will counts at all, given that neither he nor the teacher will play a role in the teenager's particular life after leaving school?
The teacher could ask:
What is the likelihood that a teenager we have confirmed could cause conflict in their home?
If there is a likelihood that our approach will cause conflict within the family, can we take responsibility for this? Are we part of the teenager's life and his parents? His grandparents? Of relatives who are now confronted with the issue outside the classroom?
If our influence stops at immediate and extended family and friends, which it inevitably does, how can we even WANT to have this responsibility? Since we don't HAVE it?
The answer in the eyes of the law from people involved with students can only be:
"Since I have no certainty about the extent to which my affirmation of a student's idea will positively or negatively affect them and their family dynamics, I refrain from affirming something of which I cannot know the consequences and retreat to my status of ignorance about the possible future of each student at my school."
"The best interest in this regard would be to have no interest,
since I cannot be held accountable for the fact that a teenager, encouraged through our schools affirmation may take life altering hormones. To which I am not willing to be held accountable for."
If the parents of a prepubescent kid
want you to address the kid as a girl even it's a boy, or vice versa, let them show you a certificate from a psychologist or other clinician who signs with his signature that he, in particular, will assure that he personally will be held accountable for any possible future problems the kid might face in the course of time by being affirmed in its idea.
They will refuse to give you such a paper, since they know that they won't get one such paper.
Then ask them to sign with their parental signatures to free you personally, as the pupils teacher, from any consequences whatsoever, in the case the child might suffer due to the fact that you affirmed it in its idea.
They will not give it to you.
It is then justified to ask: "If you are unwilling and unable to give me this assurance, how can you yourself be so sure?"
This puts the responsibility back in the hands of the parents concerned.
It makes them realise that they have no authority other than their own to refer to
and no one to hold accountable in the event that their own child might one day regret what they have done.
The former teenager, now older, will quite rightly level the moral accusation at their parents that they were not aware of all the consequences at the time of their teenage years, nor were they fully informed, in the case he suffers due to medical treatment.
This means that the parents, instead of protecting the child due to a lack of life experience, relied solely on the child's wishes, which were taken as the sole measure.
This bears the question: is the kids will to be the sole measure?
If the parents cannot give you such a paper, you stick to your habit to address boys and girls like your eyes tell you.
Do not discuss the issue any further than that. Don't debate it with the class since you have to deal with prepubescents. Stick to your normal class procedure.
Be friendly. Do not let yourself being dragged into any other discussions about that topic. Be notoriously kind and refuse to talk about the topic with you confronting parents - after having not received any papers - who want to force you to speak to their kid in any other way than what your eyes tell you.
If a pubescent kid tells you, during class, in front of all other class mates,
to address it against what your eyes see, and the kid tells you that this is the law, turn to the class and say that you are going to give them an interesting challenge - and that they shall follow your lead. Say "thank you" to the kid and mean it. Ask the kid:
- Can I, as your teacher, foresee your future, let's say how you are going to feel in ten years?
The kid will say "no". - Ask the class the same.
Go ahead and ask the class: - Did you ever regretted something in your life? It does not matter what the regret is, but it has to be a genuine regret.
The class will respond with either yes or no. - "Would you say that there are minor and major regrets in every persons life?
The class will respond. - "Would you agree, that a major regret must be linked to something irreversible, in order to be classified as "major"?"
The class will respond. - "If I, as your teacher, am not able to foresee the future of any of you, does this include a future regret of yours?"
The class will respond. - "If I, as your teacher, am not able to foresee the future of any of you, and since I, as your teacher, will not be an active part of any of your lives in ten years, will you be able to file a lawsuit against me for something you might regret in ten years but from which you today say, that you wouldn't?"
The answer is probably mixed or not sure. - "Since I am not someone who can foresee your future, and since you all neither are able to foresee your future, and what you might or might not regret in this unknown future, how do you now view my relationship towards all of you?"
Make a pause and let them think.
Go back to the kid who wants his idea being confirmed by you. - "Would you say that I, as your teacher, confirming you, will for for sure and without any doubt whatsoever free you from any possible future regret?"
He must answer "no". - "Fantastic. If confirmation is not something, which will free you from anything in the future, you might see different from todays perspective, what is my present responsibility as an adult towards you?"
If he does not know or does not want to answer, turn to the class and ask: - "Would you having me rather confirm you or inform you?"
Let the class respond. - "Last question: What kind of information would you like to have on which you want to come to your own conclusions? Would this information include major risks?"
Let the class respond. - "Thank you for engaging with me. I appreciate it a lot."
Disclaimer:
This text is not legal advice and cannot be considered as legally valid advice. These are personal thoughts on the above subject, following my own logic. It is not exhaustive. If you have additional thoughts, you are welcome to comment on them.
Picture source: my own.
Presently, the law prescribes specific behaviour by such professionals, particularly teachers, and there is a wide range of legally mandated behaviours in diverse jurisdictions, ranging from laws against grooming children, which affirmation of transsexual identification by a child under tutelage certainly can be considered to be, to compulsory affirmation of their transsexual/transhuman identification. Furthering the deranging power of lawfare are biologically insuperable laws regarding majority, because post-pubertal individuals are treated as children and ubiquitously obey their biological imperatives rather than irrational and oppressive laws. In many jurisdictions in the West both ends of this spectrum are legally mandated, so it is actually impossible to be in compliance with all laws regarding these matters, facilitating arbitrary law enforcement in order to implement harmful policies desirable to overlords increasing their mastery of hapless serfs. Preventing families from creating good marriages for their kids, causing adolescents to despoil their biological imperative to create strong pair bonds, and deranging marriage to the point that almost every jurisdiction in the world no longer successfully maintains their populations reproductively all result from the multivarious derangements of human biology being imposed.
I am absolutely certain you know from experience that respondents answer lots of things besides 'no'.
I agree with your reckoning of authority and responsibility regarding the sexual self identification by children. However, I view government as a vector for criminal corruption, and the Identarian propaganda with which children are being indoctrinated a crime against humanity that victimizes children worst of all, but not them alone, because parents, teachers, and everyone that has any professional or personal liability for children are also secondarily targeted. Parental rights, responsibility, and cultural traditions are being eradicated by laws in such matters, and I observe such erosion of our human rights in this regard dovetails and exacerbates other such erosions being imposed through corrupt jurisdictions and agents.
Unfortunately for civil societies, a global technocracy is being imposed pan-culturally, and human rights that underlay most cultures are being attacked differentially per the various ways they support that diversity of cultures, in order to create a global society of hapless, incompetent, (preferably) illiterate thralls that can be more easily and profitably victimized by overlords. From bodily integrity to intellectual freedom, any tradition or societal norm that impedes the mastery of thralls by this class of overlords is being diminished and eradicated. These political crimes are neither just nor logically consistent. When abortion or promiscuity (even by children) can be advanced by affirming individual autonomy, the principle of autonomy is proclaimed via slogans like 'your body your choice'. When mandatory subjection to experimental medical testing or harmful physical abuse are the goal, false claims of governmental authority to impose medical treatments and PPE (masks, biometric surveillance, captivity, isolation, and etc.) are asserted and rationalized as necessary 'for the greater good'.
Examples to follow are provided for the easily led, as well as those more recalcitrant.
tl;dr Doing what is right in this regard is criminalized by corrupt jurisdictions, leaving parents, teachers, and other professionals liable to unjust prosecution for failing to comply with legally mandated crimes against humanity.
Thanks!
True.
If legislation sees itself as a central moral authority, it abuses what it has not been given.
It may determine what happens when someone breaks moral principles, but it must not itself call upon and encourage people to decide against their own conscience and reality.
The new "self-determination laws" all over the world do just that: they say that anyone who wants to can declare reality and objectivity to be an idea in their own head.
This is the famous scene in films where the bully asks: "How many fingers do I show?" (pointing four fingers) and the person being asked has to answer that "there are five fingers".
It is probably the worst of all forms of driving a person to despair to tell him that what he sees objectively not only does not have to be denied by him, but also that it should be denied voluntarily and gladly.
Wasting one's precious life time dealing with bullies who now show up in classes as children is often more than anyone who knows full well that reality MUST be objectifiable can handle.
It seems to be the ultimate maturity test for all of us.
We must stay cool.
I do. Although they do answer "no" (because they cannot beat logic) but eagerly put a "but" behind it. You gotta catch them before they get into the "buts".