reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on whether school policy penalizes students for misusing pronouns and whether such penalties amount to harassment or suspension. The first speaker raises the core question: “For clarification, is this the policy that's used if a student misuses a pronoun they are suspended? An intentional. Yeah. That's part of the definition, bullying.” They illustrate the concern with a hypothetical: if a student’s parents raise their child to respond to a female with she pronouns, but that student says “I want to be something else,” will their child be suspended for that? The implication is that misusing or resisting pronoun usage could trigger disciplinary action under the policy. The chain of reasoning then states: “Oh yeah that would be harassment.” The speaker expresses disbelief upon learning that students might be suspended “because they are using the wrong pronoun,” stating they were aghast and did not realize that such suspensions occur. The subsequent line shows a pushback from another participant: “Should be disagree with you saying that's incorrect.” This introduces a contest over whether suspending for pronoun usage is correct, but the rebuttal immediately pivots to a claim about biological facts: “Well, one is biologically facts.” The conversation asserts: “It's actually XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes. Those are facts. We can't change those. It doesn't matter what our opinion is. We can't change those things.” The speaker emphasizes that these chromosomal facts are immutable. From there, the speaker clarifies their main question: “Those are immutable facts. And I'm wondering, are we what I'm asking, my question is, are we suspending students for immutable facts? That's what I'm asking. Not for making it as genuine.” In sum, the exchange presents a concern that disciplinary actions related to pronoun use might target individuals based on disagreements about gender identity and pronouns, and it juxtaposes this with a claim about immutable biological facts (XX and XY chromosomes) as a basis for questioning whether suspensions are being applied to immutable facts rather than to conduct. The dialogue frames a tension between policy definitions of harassment and a set of assertions about biological determinism, seeking to determine whether suspensions are being imposed for immutable factual claims rather than for misbehavior.

There is growing concern about the impact of the radical transgender agenda on our daily lives. One example is the access that some boys now have to girls' changing rooms in primary schools. A parent expressed discomfort with this situation, as her daughter feels uneasy about it. The school initially dismissed her concerns, accusing her of undermining the school. However, the school board has now announced that they will work on developing national guidelines and will engage with the parents to find a practical solution. Some argue that the focus should be on making the boy feel comfortable, while others emphasize the need to prioritize the safety and comfort of the girls.

Rangatahi deserve relationships and sexuality education (RSE) that upholds their identities. The Minister for Education has removed RSE guidelines from the ministry's website as part of a coalition agreement. This action contradicts the ERA report, which indicated that whanau, teachers, and young people favored the curriculum and desired more consistent RSE in schools. Removing these guidelines risks disproportionately affecting trans and rainbow students, as well as all students needing education on gender, sexuality, relationships, and consent. The Green Party believes rangatahi should be at the heart of the education system.

We passed a law clarifying teachers can't be fired for not informing parents if a student identifies as trans or gay. Teachers still have the right to inform parents, especially regarding health and safety. The law protects teachers who choose not to "snitch" on students. Some believe teachers should be penalized, even terminated, for withholding information from parents. But we feel teachers shouldn't be policing student conversations. There are instances where teachers affirm a student's transition without parental knowledge. While this issue is politically charged, principles matter, even if unpopular. We both hold deeply unpopular beliefs. It's important to be aware of the Democratic Party's brand challenges on these issues.

The speaker states they are fine with adults being gay or transgender, believing people should live as they choose, as long as they are allowed to do the same. They do not believe children should be allowed to medically or surgically affirm their gender until they are adults, preferably in their mid-twenties. They find drag shows for kids to be weird, but are fine with drag shows for adults. They are not okay with transgender women participating in women's sports. The speaker intends to discuss these topics further in the future, including a discussion about T-Mobile.

This is a statement opposing a move by Danielle Smith and the UCP government in Alberta. The speaker argues that this move endangers the safety of queer and gender questioning kids in schools. They express concern that students may now out these kids to their parents, creating an environment of fear and marginalization. The speaker calls for support from allies and champions in the LGBTQ2 community, mentioning organizations like the Social Workers Association of Alberta and the Alberta Teachers Association. They also mention a planned rally at the legislature in Edmonton. The speaker emphasizes the importance of standing up for the kind of Canada and Alberta we want.

I have an issue when it comes to targeting our kids and trying to change their gender. I don't care if a 40-year-old person wants to undergo gender reassignment, but I don't want to hear about it, pay for it, or be forced to acknowledge their chosen identity. Leave me alone and stay away from our children.

In this statement, the speaker expresses a desire to understand what they have said that is considered chilling. They mention a meeting with a young lesbian named Kira Bell, who shared her negative experience at the Tavistock clinic. The speaker believes there is a growing trend of young gay children being told they are transgender and put on irreversible medical pathways, leading to regret. They aim to protect young LGBT children from being exploited and sterilized by those who lack understanding. The speaker emphasizes that their stance is supported by clinicians and academics, and they refuse to ignore this issue any longer.

The push for gender transition in children is harmful and must be stopped. On my first day, I will revoke current policies on gender-affirming care, halt federal funding for these procedures, and ensure hospitals that perform them lose federal health standards. I will support legal action against doctors who perform these procedures on minors. Teachers suggesting children might be in the wrong body will face serious consequences. I will advocate for recognizing only male and female genders and protecting parental rights in gender identity matters. Chloe Cole shares her experience of being misled into believing she was born in the wrong body, leading to irreversible harm. She emphasizes the need for compassion and therapy instead of affirming harmful beliefs. Puberty is a natural process, not a condition to be altered. We must learn from past medical mistakes and protect children from this dangerous trend.

A person is confronted and accused of being a transphobe who believes "trans kids should be cis kids." The person asks what makes a child trans and what gender is. Another person states you are born trans and gender is a spectrum, like a rainbow. A trans person says the person is playing god and "it fucks kids up." The trans person says the person should be ashamed and that they matter. The person being confronted asks someone to call the police, claiming assault. The trans person says the person is abusive and is spewing hate, not even knowing what gender is. The trans person encourages people to come down and tell the person that trans kids have rights. The person states they are waiting for police because they were assaulted.

Alberta has recently joined Saskatchewan and New Brunswick in attacking the rights of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, particularly trans and gender diverse students. This is concerning because these students already face higher rates of suicide, homelessness, and involvement in the child welfare system. Instead of taking away their rights and making spaces less safe, we should be working to protect and further their rights. As the spokesperson for 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, I have been proud to work with my colleagues across party lines to support the rights of trans and gender diverse students in our education system. We will continue to ensure that the government respects their rights and promotes inclusivity and justice in Nova Scotia.

Parents have always affirmed their children, usually when their gender identity aligns with their biological gender. However, when this is not the case, affirmation tends to diminish. This is the issue at hand with the TGI bill, which does not mention transgender and gender non-conforming individuals explicitly. Instead, it focuses on a child's gender identity and expression, as well as the parents' duty to affirm their children.

The speaker expresses concern about new policies targeting trans and gender diverse youth, calling them divisive and harmful. They criticize Danielle Smith for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about the care available to these children. The speaker argues that the policies will interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and strip away the rights of parents and children to make decisions about treatment. They believe this will further isolate already struggling youth and worsen issues like depression and suicide. The speaker accuses Smith of using these policies as a distraction from other government failures. They conclude by expressing support and love for trans and 2 spirited individuals and a commitment to stand with them.

Gender-affirming care is crucial for transgender children, saving lives rather than ruining them. However, there are individuals pushing legislation against trans inclusion and life-saving healthcare. This is just the beginning of a deliberate and organized effort to eradicate transgender people. These bills, if passed, will result in the deaths of trans individuals, including children. Shockingly, some refer to this as the "transgender question." It's important to reflect on the gravity of this situation.

The speaker expresses concern about government overreach in education, citing critical race theory, critical gender theory, and transgender policies in schools. They claim schools are hiding gender transitions from parents via parental secrecy policies. The speaker questions the requirement to register children with schools and potentially disclose parental teaching methods. They worry about parents teaching creationism or the belief that life begins at conception being targeted. The speaker does not trust the Illinois governor and state government, believing these policies will be weaponized against those with differing beliefs, similar to how adoption has allegedly been restricted for some Christians.

Beauty blockers have been used by doctors for kids experiencing precocious puberty. The conversation then shifts to transgender children, with one speaker arguing that gender affirming care is life-saving and reduces suicide rates. The other speaker questions the lack of studies on suicide rates among transgender children and argues against medical interventions like hormone therapy and surgeries. The conversation becomes heated, with one speaker claiming that transgender children don't exist and that they should be accepted as they are, while the other argues that they need medical interventions. The debate centers around the belief that transgender children are either born in the wrong body or that they should be accepted without medical interventions.

The speaker is co-chair of the trans and non-binary network of the NEU, a teacher at an alternative provision where most students are trans and non-binary, and an activist. The speaker clarifies they did not make their students trans; the school was like that when they arrived. These students come to the alternative provision because they are kicked out of the mainstream education system. Their gender expression is seen as a dismissal of behavior policy, their self-advocacy is seen as defiance, and their identity is seen as something worth anguish, not pride. The speaker and colleagues work to help students through trauma and show them that learning does not need to be an act of silencing. The speaker believes the current government's guidance is despicable and that there is no reason why students cannot be themselves in classrooms. The speaker urges the audience to speak to MPs, friends, families, Facebook groups, and local clubs. The speaker wants to tell their students that when systems fail to protect them, they fight back.

The speaker questions the Irish government about the use of transgender hormone treatments for children, citing a research report from 2021 that highlights potential risks and unknown long-term effects. The government representative responds by stating that they rely on medical advice and research, which can change over time. They acknowledge the need for better healthcare for trans children but do not dispute the claims made in the research report. The speaker presses further, questioning the lack of long-term assessments for potential health effects on these children, to which the government representative reiterates their reliance on the best available medical information.

My Department of Education will inform states and school districts that teachers suggesting a child could be trapped in the wrong body will face severe consequences, including civil rights violations and loss of federal funding. We will promote education about the nuclear family and the unique roles of mothers and fathers. I will ask Congress to pass a bill recognizing only male and female genders assigned at birth, ensuring Title IX prohibits men from participating in women's sports. Parents will have the right to consent before their minor child assumes a new gender identity. No serious country should tell children they were born with the wrong gender, a concept that is recent and radical. Under my leadership, this will end. Thank you.

Beauty blockers have been used by doctors for children experiencing precocious puberty. The conversation then shifts to transgender children, with one speaker arguing that gender affirming care is life-saving and reduces suicide rates. The other speaker questions the lack of studies on suicide rates among transgender children and challenges the necessity of medical interventions such as hormone therapy and surgeries. The conversation becomes heated as they discuss the cutting off of body parts and the speaker's belief that there is no such thing as a transgender child. The debate centers around the message being sent to children and the potential harm or benefit of gender affirming care.

The speaker discusses the issue of parents not being informed if their children are transitioning at school. They compare this issue, affecting about 1% of the population, to climate change, which impacts everyone. They emphasize that this is a significant and distracting issue. The speaker believes that these kids just want to live their lives. The conversation then transitions to a debate about something related to Reagan.

The speaker expresses concern about what they perceive as harmful gender-related practices being imposed on children. They outline a plan to address this issue, including revoking certain policies, ceasing programs promoting gender transition, and prohibiting federal funding for related procedures. They also propose consequences for healthcare providers involved in such practices and suggest investigating potential cover-ups of long-term effects. The speaker emphasizes promoting positive education about the nuclear family and traditional gender roles. They advocate for legislation recognizing only male and female genders assigned at birth, prohibiting men from participating in women's sports, and protecting parental consent regarding a child's gender identity. The speaker concludes by stating their intention to put an end to what they consider to be a recent invention of the radical left.

The speaker expresses concern about what they perceive as harmful gender-related practices being imposed on children. They outline a plan to address this issue, including revoking certain policies, ceasing programs promoting gender transition, and prohibiting federal funding for related procedures. They propose consequences for healthcare providers involved in such practices and suggest investigating potential cover-ups of long-term side effects. The speaker also emphasizes promoting education about the nuclear family, gender roles, and the recognition of only male and female genders assigned at birth. They advocate for protecting parental consent and criticize the concept of being born with the wrong gender as a recent invention. The speaker concludes by asserting that they will put an end to these practices.

There is concern about the push to introduce transgender topics to children, as it is believed to have no benefits for anyone involved. The speaker questions why this is happening and suggests that a small percentage of the population may genuinely want to switch genders, but the current trend seems forced. The speaker argues that telling kids there are more than two sexes is not based on organic conclusions, but rather a deliberate effort to hurt people. This is seen as evil done for the sake of causing harm.