The transgender advocacy community is guilty of the vilest practices, including hiding gender confusion from parents. It is hard to believe that this was ever accepted by adults who claim to have the welfare and well-being of children as their calling.
Sam Brinton, a former employee of the Department of Energy, helped to create a policy that allows schools to conceal gender identity changes and/or a child’s sexual orientation from their “un-affirming parents”.
There is a lot of potential for abuse. Who decides what is “un-affirming?” What is the definition of “un-affirming?” Will it reach the point that being “un-affirming” can be grounds to have children’s services removed from the home?
Brinton faces jail for stealing luggage worth $5,000 from airports. In a normal society, Brinton would face life imprisonment for conspiring to rob parents of their most essential responsibility, which is to care for their child in their own way and not as some bureaucratic entity.
Brinton served as head of advocacy at the Trevor Project in 2020. Brinton’s LinkedIn profile states that Brinton was responsible for youth suicide prevention. Brinton was part of the development of a 37-page guide titled “Model School District Policy for Suicide Prevention,” which limits how teachers can speak to parents and guardians about their LGBT child’s suicide prevention.
The model was published by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the American School Counselor Association. It also includes the National Association of School Psychologists and the American School Counselor Association.
We are supposed to delegate the decision of whether or not a parent is “un-affirming” a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity to a school counselor. It’s a stretch to call the professionals. They would have their own practice or join a group-recognized practice. And they wouldn’t be stuck giving horse manure advice to children during a crisis.
Brinton wrote in a September 2019 press release, “In addition to our research showing that more than half the LGBTQ youth aren’t out to anyone adult in school; these policies indicate that LGBTQ youth, whether out or not, feel that their school is safe for them to learn and that staff are ready to help them when they need it.”
How does not being “out” to a single adult in school show that “their school is a safe place for them to learn, and that school staff is prepared to help them in times of crisis”? Wouldn’t it be the opposite? You would think if kids felt school is “safe” and they could depend on the staff to help, they’d “come out” to adults at the school.
One section of the model is called “Special Considerations”. Schools are required to hide a child’s sexual orientation from their guardian or parent unless they consent.
Why should parents be able to access vital information about their child’s mental health from a state-employed mental health professional? We’re not yet at the Hillary Clinton “It Takes a Village” stage of government child-rearing.
We’re getting close.