LGBT lessons in schools

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,491
Wirral
How can you ask an 8 year old what sex they want to be?
My eight year old daughter said to me a few weeks ago “I wonder what it’s like to be a boy”. Make of it what you will but it isn’t a strange thing for her to wonder about.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
My eight year old daughter said to me a few weeks ago “I wonder what it’s like to be a boy”. Make of it what you will but it isn’t a strange thing for her to wonder about.
Kids that age repeatedly want to know how life would be with wings. Or a tail. Or being able to breath underwater.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Uh huh. So provide me with a counter article, one that shows that it's actually happened.
Laws don't work that way. If the law says x happens if y occurs, I don't need case briefs to know if a 2017 law is real or not. The law itself specifies what can and can't happen.

I've read that law. Its a mess. An army of lawyers arguing for 50 years couldn't actually decipher what it means, because it was purposely written that way (it keeps lawyers employed).

But it most certainly alludes that children can be removed for abuse. Judges who review abuse cases have to take into account children's gender now when deciding it, that is spelled out clearly. But what does that mean? Well, what do they want it to mean?

If they want to, they have the law on the books already to deem a parent ignoring their child's desire to change sex as child abuse, to the point they can remove the kids and place them in foster care.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,487
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Laws don't work that way. If the law says x happens if y occurs, I don't need case briefs to know if a 2017 law is real or not. The law itself specifies what can and can't happen.

I've read that law. Its a mess. An army of lawyers arguing for 50 years couldn't actually decipher what it means, because it was purposely written that way (it keeps lawyers employed).

But it most certainly alludes that children can be removed for abuse. Judges who review abuse cases have to take into account children's gender now when deciding it, that is spelled out clearly. But what does that mean? Well, what do they want it to mean?

If they want to, they have the law on the books already to deem a parent ignoring their child's desire to change sex as child abuse, to the point they can remove the kids and place them in foster care.
"alludes". That's your interpretation. Others interpret it differently.

And as it hasn't been applied in that way so far, that would suggest that the other interpretation is currently more correct. So until and unless it happens, it is utterly wrong and disingenuous to say that the Canadian state "will take your kids away for refusing to make their transition possible".
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
"alludes". That's your interpretation. Others interpret it differently.

And as it hasn't been applied in that way so far, that would suggest that the other interpretation is currently more correct. So until and unless it happens, it is utterly wrong and disingenuous to say that the Canadian state "will take your kids away for refusing to make their transition possible".
And that's the problem. It was a very very poorly written law. Which allows individuals far too much leeway in interpreting.

Family 1. No issues, they didn't piss anyone off, so it doesn't apply to them.
Family 2. They pissed someone off, made enemies, etc. So suddenly it will apply to them.

The law isn't even about Canada as a whole, its just Ontario.

it is utterly wrong and disingenuous to say that the Canadian state "will take your kids away for refusing to make their transition possible
A more accurate statement is "A law exists to allow the Ontario courts to have the power to do the above, if they feel like enforcing a law they wrote.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,487
T'Republic of Yorkshire
And that's the problem. It was a very very poorly written law. Which allows individuals far too much leeway in interpreting.

Family 1. No issues, they didn't piss anyone off, so it doesn't apply to them.
Family 2. They pissed someone off, made enemies, etc. So suddenly it will apply to them.

The law isn't even about Canada as a whole, its just Ontario.



A more accurate statement is "A law exists to allow the Ontario courts to have the power to do the above, if they feel like enforcing a law they wrote.
Well, that will come down to how the courts interpret the law. Until (and if) it is tested in court, no one knows. But so far, no applications have been made to remove children under this law that I can find. No doubt some over zealous child protection officer may try it at some point, which will settle the question.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,580
Netherlands
Well, that will come down to how the courts interpret the law. Until (and if) it is tested in court, no one knows. But so far, no applications have been made to remove children under this law that I can find. No doubt some over zealous child protection officer may try it at some point, which will settle the question.
Which begs the question, why put it in law anyway?