Complimentary Story
One afternoon last month, my daughter’s second-grade teacher apparently discovered a note that she had written to one of her classmates that the instructor felt demonstrated “unexpected behavior.” In this message, my daughter had, evidently, written that her friend “bring a phone tomorrow and delete everything.” Her teacher, rightfully curious about the intent, had a light discussion with her, relating that this was not an appropriate request in a school setting and, later that day, called my wife to inform her of the incident. Though seemingly trivial on the surface, I very much appreciated that her teacher felt this behavior warranted an informational phone call for our knowledge. Knowing that my daughter does not have an advanced understanding of how cell phones operate, including the notion of strategically deleting information, nor expressing any recent interest in even acquiring one, I decided to inquire as to her side of the story. Quite innocently, my daughter informed me that her friend had described a collection of “nine phones” at her home that her family no longer used and that my daughter could have one if she wanted. As she had just been gifted a wristwatch with children’s games for Christmas, it was not surprising that she was beginning to show an interest in technology, especially with what she has seen her parent’s cell phones accomplish. My daughter also has one notable personal weakness: she is very territorial. If something belongs to her then there can be nothing associated with it except what she deems as acceptable for her purposes. So, it was not surprising that she would have requested that everything be “deleted,” still without full comprehension of such an act. In the end, a harmless miscommunication and no questionable intent, but, nonetheless, a fair observation for her teacher to have provided notification.
I believe I can trust my daughter’s teacher, here, in Brown County of Northern Wisconsin, to keep me informed about her behavior. The same, however, might not be said for Dane County in Southern Wisconsin.
On February 18, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a small group of concerned parents against the Madison School District for the implementation of unprecedented gender identity policies that were enacted in 2018. The parents have expressed that the right to raise their children in accordance with their personal beliefs is being violated under state laws because these policies are directly obstructing parental decisions regarding their child’s religion and health. For those unaware of the details of these policies in the Madison school system, take heed, because this is unsettling.
Under the guise of “creating inclusive and welcoming learning communities” and providing “safe and nondiscriminatory environments for all students” the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) has implemented a policy designed to not simply promote a radical social agenda, but force it upon whoever does not wholly comply. Making it clear that “school staff shall not disclose any information that may reveal a student’s gender identity to others, including parents or guardians…unless legally required to do so,” the MMSD emphasizes the importance of keeping a student’s gender identity from families who are not already aware as such a disclosure could result in “imminent safety risks, such as losing family support and housing.” And because, according to the district, “school may be the only place a transgender student feels safe enough to be themselves,” the MMSD has betrothed itself to task a process through which “the student and school can collaborate to develop a plan that balances the student’s need to be affirmed at school and the reality that the student does not have the support at home.”
Fundamentally, the MMSD feels that it knows what is best for your child.
Upon expressing the desire to change one’s gender identity, a student is given a “Gender Support Plan,” which includes questions regarding initial plans for a public gender transition, including new pronoun preferences, which school facilities they will choose to utilize, and the support system that they desire to have around them. Questions indicating the school’s willingness to evade family notification abound including whether the student is using a different name at home, which the school needs to know for protecting the student, and if the family will be involved in the plan for support or, even, communication. In fact, when describing the goals for “Family Communication,” the policy states that “all staff correspondence and communication to families in regard to students shall reflect the name and gender documented in [records] unless the student has given permission to do otherwise (this might involve using the student’s affirmed name and pronouns in the school setting, and their legal name and pronouns with family).” Additionally, the MMSD mandates that teachers “manually change attendance sheets to reflect the student’s chosen name, but not alter the entry in the district’s student information system so that any written communication with the parents uses the student’s name as reflected on their birth certificate,” which allows the district to circumvent parental rights and further promote the student’s transition while remaining within laws that prohibit the alteration of official student records without parental permission.
According to the MMSD, because “a parent’s initial negative reaction to their child exhibiting signs that they might be “transgender” is likely based on inaccurate or incomplete information about gender identity, or out of fear,” the district feels compelled to “assist the process of family acceptance.” The MMSD declares that they will “educate the student’s family about the serious consequences of refusing to affirm their child’s gender identity,” with the ultimate stated goal being to “support the student’s family in accepting their gender identity.” Such dialogue, however, would only happen if the student authorized the discussion since the policy states that “with the permission of our students, we will strive to include families along the journey.” But if the family gets too close “student services staff shall discuss with the student, contingency plans in the event that their privacy is compromised.”
The government continues to unjustly command sovereignty in matters of moral and social justice, directing the course of countless families based solely on political agendas. Currently, twelve states require no parental involvement when it comes to the abortion decisions for pregnant youth and nearly every state that requires notification allows for parental involvement to be overruled by court, or even doctor’s, approval. In Florida, a judge removed a child from the custody of his parents because they expressed interest in exploring alternative treatments to chemotherapy for his cancer. Last year, New York implemented new state laws that kicked unvaccinated children out of schools until they had received all mandated vaccinations, informing the families that their only education options moving forward included either home schooling or moving out of state should they choose not to acquiesce. Recently, doctors in Illinois were recorded plotting how to collaborate with state protective services to remove children whose parents refused a Vitamin K shot immediately after their birth. The list goes on.
Friends, submission to the will of the world is knocking at your door. Guard your family.
