how billy became becky (and parents weren't told)

and other adventures in "the state owns your kids."

so, this just happened:

it’s difficult not to stand in awe (and in horror) of the audacity of such a claim. essentially, all i see is this:

the american judiciary has become a deeply dangerous place filled with loons and ideologues chosen for (and not in spite of) their lunacy and ideological adherence. they are not even trying to make sense, follow law, or serve society or its mores and rights. they are playing at dogmatic dictatorship by bench fiat, making up law to suit purpose.

this is going to drive a severe backlash and, as ever (and however emblematic of other abuses), the madness cult of trans seems like the bridge too far.

i cannot imagine an issue more likely to cause parents to revolt than: "schools can groom your children into gender switches and you have no right to know."

the court's ruling on this raises more questions than it provides answers. (bold mine)

“As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children,” the court continued. “And the Protocol of nondisclosure as to a student’s at-school gender expression without the student’s consent does not restrict parental rights in a way courts have recognized as a violation of the guarantees of substantive due process.”

two questions immediately emerge that both feed a third:

1. just what is this alleged "gender expertise" possessed by teachers and school staff? most are absurdly unqualified to have opinions on any such topic, much less to push them on children. it's abuse of authority and a wild step past peter principles and probity alike. the choice at issue in this case was made and supported by “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” from school staff that drove gender confusion in a depressed kid. “Teachers immediately switched to the new name and pronouns, and the school librarian started meeting with the student to talk to her about gender identity and to give her “LGBTQ-related resources.” this is expertise? the librarian hands you some books written by the kinds of people who think drag queen story hour is “everyhting you needed to know in kindergarten” and off you go unsupervised and locked into a peer pressure situation with adults in authority positions?

2. just what is it we're claiming the purpose of schools is here and what are they supposed to be "teaching?” how did, "you're really becky, billy!" and “pronoun projects” become a part of the curriculum and why is this any sort of good idea? who decided this? were parents asked or informed? where is the funding coming from and why? (USAID, i’m looking at you)

both feed the third question which is:

3. so just whose children are these? why would a school get to teach children in secret and (presumably) against parental wishes? a parent should have no say on what is taught, proselytized, and indoctrinated into their children? that's the role of the state, not the family? since when? that’s a pretty big idea to just assume.

“his unelected majesty will see you now”

just who wanted any of this and just who died and made the first circuit court king of anyhting?

their bias is painfully obvious.

“The First Circuit’s ruling is filled with biased language, using “they/them” pronouns for B.F. because is it allegedly “gender neutral.”

the judges on this matter are also highly suspect.

the opinion was written by: “Montecalvo, Thompson, and Rikelman, Circuit Judges”

• lara monteclavo was appointed in 2022 by joe biden having previously been public defender for rhode island under super liberal governor gina raimondo. she’s a deep blue ideologue.

• o rogeriee thompson was added in 2010 by obama as a “first black woman on…” DEI hire with scant history and little to recommend her beyond “intersectional interest.”

• julie rikelman was appointed in 2023 by biden. she’s an immigrant from ukraine. she’s likely the most qualified of the bunch, but also perhaps the most ideological having notably argued to retain roe in the dobbs matter at SCOTUS (interesting consonance as the roe abortion right was structured as a “privacy right” stating the government should not be involved in private citizen matters) and with a life of interest in “woke” topics.

it’s striking that at least two of these justices (and i’m unsure on montecalvo) are mothers. somehow i doubt VERY much that any of them would have asserted this idea that “parents have no right to know what’s taught in schools, what their children are called there, and what identities they adopt” had this case not been about an identity on their “approved list.”

this is not jurisprudence, it’s ideological colonization and capture and it’s entirely tactical rather than general. it find no root in universal principles applied or even attempted. it’s special pleading for “my team” to make you do what we “know” is right for you.

this is an easy matter to test:

consider as a counter case (and i truly wish someone would ask this in a court hearing, especially a SCOTUS justice) what if the girl in question “BF” (known to be depressed and mentally unwell and struggling with “being unpopular”) had, instead of deciding she was “genderqueer,” decided (under the guidance of teachers and the school librarian) that she wanted to change her name to “atarah” and join an evangelical christian group that believed that pre-marital sex and abortion are sins and that only through prayer and bible study might she be saved? can the librarian recommend key books and texts? can she wear different clothes at school? must everyone leap to affirm?

anyone care to wager against the idea that every judge on this bench would immediately find some profound and enduring parental right to know about what was going on down at the old schoolhoousearoonie?

because i’m making book.

there has been an astonishing level of attack on the idea of family coming from unelected officials in courts and schools. it’s clearly deliberate and programmatic.

this is totalitarianism 101: grab the children young and efface all other loyalties. no family, no religion, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

this is not an accident, it’s a strategy.

and it’s time to dig into just where it originated and deracinate it utterly from any conception of reasoned or acceptable society. the courts and schools are fine places to start as both seem to be ringleaders.

(bold mine)

“When district courts have ruled in favor of parents, for example in a District of Kansas case and in a Southern District of California case, the school districts have not appealed,” Claybrook writes. “When parents have lost, for example in Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education, they have proceeded to circuit court, but those courts to date have dodged addressing the merits.”

The Fourth and Seventh Circuits, Claybrook noted, have both ruled that parents don’t have a standing to complain schools were keeping things secret from them because they didn’t know for sure the schools were keeping things secret from them.

it’s pure “catch 22.”

“you cannot ask schools if they are keeping secrets from you because you cannot know for sure if they are keeping secrets from you.”

unbearable

are we seriously going to accept this as a legal rationale to deny parents the right to know what’s going on in schools?

seems pretty threadbare.

some keen jurists seem to agree.

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who dissented from denial of certiorari in the Seventh Circuit, said that the school’s existing policy meant parents weren’t speculating about anything, and suggested circuit courts were avoiding the merits of the cases.

indeed they are. courts don’t drop catch 22’s around obvious case matter like this by accident.

this is how you know that they know that they are lying.

the time to pretend that this is reasonable or OK is long past.

from climate change to the covidian calamity and the wars of gender, race, and class, an awful lot of the seeming purpose of the state’s less accountable institutions has bent to “indoctrination, division, and cultural colonization by diktat and by stealth.”

and in each of these cases and doubtless many others, it’s long past time to get the cover off the schools and the courts and to see just why and how this idea of “the state should raise your children” became so prevalent and pervasive.

let the sunshine in.