University of California campuses mandate gender ideology training to register for classes

Delvianna · Tuesday at 4:14 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion, but I'm curious - who are these people? Because I know several trans people and not a one of them has gone through their transition without folks chiming in on it. Quite the opposite.

It's highly relevant to show that pandering to them can have very long term consequences that they can later regret.
Some active outspoken voices that have de-transitioned: Chloe Cole, Keira Bell, Prisha Mosley, LaRell Herbert (now has a wife Valerie and the both run a ministry now specifically for LGBTQ)

iluvatar5150 said:
Ok, so you think that by deadnaming somebody, you're helping them. Why do you think that?

I'm not perpetuating their mental disorder. I'm not going to be part of the problem as the crowd of people that sit there and tell this individual that they are who they say they are, and their decision to be another gender is okay. I can love them, be there for them, but I won't affirm their disorder in anyway.

iluvatar5150 said:
What do you know about mental disorders? Are you a mental health professional or have some experience with it yourself? What do you know about transgenderism?

Do I need to be in order to see that God made man and woman and mentally thinking you are another gender isn't normal? And that by being an enabler to the problem is a bad route? So I guess the entire population has to be a professional before they decide how they're going to react to this? That doesn't make sense. But I've done a lot of research to aid my decision.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 4:35 PM

Delvianna said:
It's highly relevant to show that pandering to them can have very long term consequences that they can later regret.
Some active outspoken voices that have de-transitioned: Chloe Cole, Keira Bell, Prisha Mosley, LaRell Herbert (now has a wife Valerie and the both run a ministry now specifically for LGBTQ)

Did any of them transition without input from outside?

Do I need to be in order to see that God made man and woman and mentally thinking you are another gender isn't normal? And that by being an enabler to the problem is a bad route? So I guess the entire population has to be a professional before they decide how they're going to react to this? That doesn't make sense. But I've done a lot of research to aid my decision.

No, you don't have to be a professional to understand the condition, but I would have expected something a bit more substantive than just google searches.

To put a finer point on this: I don't really think this is about helping people, at least in any kind of serious sense, because I don't think you understand the condition or know what would really help them. You presume to, but you don't. Your justification for your belief, as you described it, wasn't rooted in any experiences or training - it was your observation "that God made man and woman." Your approach isn't about helping; it's about moralizing and what you're advocating is being a moralizing busy-body. That's why I used the maiden name analogy - because calling you by your maiden name in that example would constitute being a moralizing busy body. Maybe, in that case, I believe I'm "helping" you by not pandering to your sin, but I wouldn't really be helping, would I. I'd just come off as a jerk. Which is exactly how deliberately dead-naming someone comes off.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 4:55 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
Did any of them transition without input from outside?

Yes, though I don't remember specifically who. It's been a while since I watched their interviews.

iluvatar5150 said:
No, you don't have to be a professional to understand the condition, but I would have expected something a bit more substantive than just google searches.

Did I say it was just google searches? You make a lot of assumptions about what I do/don't do, my motives, and my thoughts. How about asking instead of assume?

iluvatar5150 said:
To put a finer point on this: I don't really think this is about helping people, at least in any kind of serious sense, because I don't think you understand the condition or know what would really help them.

You have no idea what I've researched or haven't and again, assumption.

iluvatar5150 said:
Your justification for your belief, as you described it, wasn't rooted in any experiences or training - it was your observation "that God made man and woman.

It's rooted in a lot, but the bible is the biggest base for this, yes. This is a Christian forum is it not? My main drive is always going to be rooted in scripture. This is a "christian only" subforum, so no I'm not just looking at this from a worldly standard as to the ethics or morality that the world wants to push down my throat.

iluvatar5150 said:
Your approach isn't about helping; it's about moralizing and what you're advocating is being a moralizing busy-body.

Again, you do realize what subforum you're on right? This IS a moral issue AND a biblical one.

iluvatar5150 said:
Maybe, in that case, I believe I'm "helping" you by not pandering to your sin, but I wouldn't really be helping, would I. I'd just come off as a jerk. Which is exactly how deliberately dead-naming someone comes off.

This is against biblical ethics. We are not supposed to do nothing when it comes to sin regardless of the topic. So if you want to keep bringing up your maiden last name example, as I said, it still doesn't fit when I believe it is biblically inaccurate. By wordly standards its "being a jerk" but by Gods standards, its not enabling sin or destructive behavior. The bible is against even tattoos, how do you think he feels about cutting off genitals and adding fake implants? And by the way, I do have some medical background and understand what the synthetic hormones does to your body.

Your way of debating makes me think you spend too much time on Reddit by your assumptions and extreme arguments approach. You paint me with a broad brush and just automatically think that I think a certain way or do something or haven't done something because it seems like the people you converse with are immature and do those things on a regular basis, but I suggest you don't do this with everyone. Let people speak for themselves instead of inserting your own information that you make up and then accuse me of. This isn't how you should talk to anyone regardless of who they are.

PloverWing · Tuesday at 6:15 PM

Delvianna said:
The California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA) - EC Sections 51930 - 51939 (Required for 7-12, optional for K-6)
EC Section 51932(b) states: "The opt-out provisions of this chapter shall not apply to instruction or materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, bullying, relationships, or family whenever the content is a part of a course subject other than comprehensive sexual health education."

This means that a parent cannot legally opt their child out of:

A Social Studies lesson discussing the history of the LGBTQ+ rights movement (per the FAIR Education Act).

A Literature lesson that includes a book with a main character who is transgender or has same-sex parents.

An Anti-bullying or Diversity lesson that discusses gender identity.

Seems okay. A family can believe that it's morally wrong to be gay or trans, but still allow their children to know that LGBTQ people exist, that sometimes LGBTQ people have been mistreated in the past, and that it's good to be kind to LGBTQ people, just as one should be kind to people in general. I think that combination of beliefs is within the California policy that you've cited here.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 6:23 PM

PloverWing said:
Seems okay. A family can believe that it's morally wrong to be gay or trans, but still allow their children to know that LGBTQ people exist, that sometimes LGBTQ people have been mistreated in the past, and that it's good to be kind to LGBTQ people, just as one should be kind to people in general. I think that combination of beliefs is within the California policy that you've cited here.

I don't think its a case of just knowing they exist, but the teaching that it's promoting actually doing it. Like, you have your family saying it's a sin, but the teacher is saying it's okay to do and then encourages it. And since parents are not allowed to opt out, that's a problem within itself and gets into the realm of indoctrination where the state is in control over what they want to teach when it comes to morality issues, and you have no say in the matter. Why are kids being taught this at all in general? What happened to focusing on math, science, history and other lessons? Schools should leave morality and sexuality to the parents.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 6:34 PM

Delvianna said:
Did I say it was just google searches? You make a lot of assumptions about what I do/don't do, my motives, and my thoughts. How about asking instead of assume?

I did ask, in post 20. Remember?

Ok, so you think that by deadnaming somebody, you're helping them. Why do you think that? What do you know about mental disorders? Are you a mental health professional or have some experience with it yourself? What do you know about transgenderism?

Your entire answer was, “I've done a lot of research to aid my decision.”

You’re free to go into greater detail at any time.

Delvianna said:
This is against biblical ethics.

No, it’s against your specific flavor of Christian ethics and your interpretation of scripture. It’s not against mine and my theology isn’t particularly liberal. I don’t know why it should be treated differently than any other corrective surgery.

Delvianna said:
We are not supposed to do nothing when it comes to sin regardless of the topic. So if you want to keep bringing up your maiden last name example, as I said, it still doesn't fit when I believe it is biblically inaccurate. By wordly standards its "being a jerk" but by Gods standards, its not enabling sin or destructive behavior.

The analogy is applicable because in both situations, the accuser thinks they’re correct in pointing out sin and the accused disagrees.

Am I understanding you correctly in that you think I would be exhibiting love in insisting on calling you by your maiden name even if you thought I was interpreting scripture incorrectly?

Delvianna said:
The bible is against even tattoos, how do you think he feels about cutting off genitals and adding fake implants?

The same passage prohibits cross-breeding cattle and blending fabrics. I think we’re well beyond using that as a justification for much of anything.

Delvianna said:
And by the way, I do have some medical background and understand what the synthetic hormones does to your body.

So? Lots of medication has all kinds of effects on people.

Delvianna said:
Your way of debating makes me think you spend too much time on Reddit by your assumptions and extreme arguments approach. You paint me with a broad brush and just automatically think that I think a certain way or do something or haven't done something because it seems like the people you converse with are immature and do those things on a regular basis, but I suggest you don't do this with everyone. Let people speak for themselves instead of inserting your own information that you make up and then accuse me of. This isn't how you should talk to anyone regardless of who they are.

I am coming on strong, but I would argue that the approach you’re advocating is at least as aggressive and at least as presumptive.

Sure, your approach is wrapped in a more genteel veneer, but when you unpack it, it’s just as bad. You’re presuming to know a lot more about mental illness in general and transgenderism specifically than you actually do. You’re presuming that your interpretation of scripture is so robust that it’s appropriate to just foist on people in public. Have you listened to any trans people who haven’t de-transitioned “speak for themselves instead of inserting your own information”? Because I have and their descriptions of their motivations are striking in their similarity to one another but bear almost no resemblance to the descriptions I hear from folks who think it appropriate to deadname them deliberately.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 6:52 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
I did ask, in post 20. Remember?

You asked me if I'm a mental health professional, not what specific research I've done after I said I did research. While you asked me what I know specifically which I didn't expound on what exactly I found. So, you didn't ask me what I've researched specifically and just said "google". That's not the same thing. What I know, and what/how I looked into are two different questions.

iluvatar5150 said:
No, it’s against your specific flavor of Christian ethics and your interpretation of scripture. It’s not against mine and my theology isn’t particularly liberal. I don’t know why it should be treated differently than any other corrective surgery.

Your opinion.

iluvatar5150 said:
Am I understanding you correctly in that you think I would be exhibiting love in insisting on calling you by your maiden name even if you thought I was interpreting scripture incorrectly?

I reject the entire idea and "exhibiting love on insisting on calling you..." doesn't even make sense in the context that I used it in in the first place. I do not agree with the Catholic approach of valid/invalid marriages point blank. I'm just not going to respond to this example anymore when I keep answering you and keep telling you that you calling me by my maiden name does zero against me. That's my answer.

iluvatar5150 said:
The same passage prohibits cross-breeding cattle and blending fabrics. I think we’re well beyond using that as a justification for much of anything.

Your opinion.

iluvatar5150 said:
So? Lots of medication has all kinds of effects on people.

A 47 times higher rate for just breast cancer isnt a "side effect".

iluvatar5150 said:
You’re presuming to know a lot more about mental illness in general and transgenderism specifically than you actually do.

You didn't even know that de-trans are saying that no one has stepped in the way of their transition efforts. So, I could say the exact same thing about you.

iluvatar5150 said:
Have you listened to any trans people who haven’t de-transitioned “speak for themselves instead of inserting your own information”?

Yes I have, which is another reason why I call it enabling because it's wrapped up in nothing but emotion and the desire for them to be validated by others.

PloverWing · Tuesday at 8:44 PM

Delvianna said:
I don't think its a case of just knowing they exist, but the teaching that it's promoting actually doing it. Like, you have your family saying it's a sin, but the teacher is saying it's okay to do and then encourages it. And since parents are not allowed to opt out, that's a problem within itself and gets into the realm of indoctrination where the state is in control over what they want to teach when it comes to morality issues, and you have no say in the matter. Why are kids being taught this at all in general? What happened to focusing on math, science, history and other lessons? Schools should leave morality and sexuality to the parents.

I'll agree that teachers have a challenging job talking about this topic.

One reason that morality has to come into education, at least a little, is that you have a bunch of students in the same classroom, and they need to be able to function together without hurting each other too badly. The student who's gay, or whose parents are a married gay couple, or who is trans, needs to be able to feel safe enough in school that they can concentrate on their studies. So that's where some of the anti-bullying lessons come in. Most of education is subject matter -- math, science, language, etc. -- but some of education is teaching students how to behave courteously in a group of people, even when that group includes people you disagree with.

Delvianna · 2025-11-05T08:48:58-0600

PloverWing said:
I'll agree that teachers have a challenging job talking about this topic.

One reason that morality has to come into education, at least a little, is that you have a bunch of students in the same classroom, and they need to be able to function together without hurting each other too badly. The student who's gay, or whose parents are a married gay couple, or who is trans, needs to be able to feel safe enough in school that they can concentrate on their studies. So that's where some of the anti-bullying lessons come in. Most of education is subject matter -- math, science, language, etc. -- but some of education is teaching students how to behave courteously in a group of people, even when that group includes people you disagree with.

I agree with the anti-bullying but the issue I have is when teachers take it upon themselves to encourage sexuality and teach about it at all. If asked, teachers should just say, "ask your parents, but if student A wants to do XYZ, you are not allowed to bully them." Instead of handing students a book to read and say, "here is what a trans person is, here is what a gay person is and if you want to be that, it is okay and if your parents are against it, that is wrong." Because there absolutely are cases of teachers doing this. I remember a father recording an instance where he went to his childs kindergarden class and found that the teachers put him in a dress and when asked, the child said he didn't want to be in the dress. I think the laws are too lax and favor indoctrination over what parents want to teach their children.

RamiC · 2025-11-05T09:37:54-0600

Delvianna said:
What happened to focusing on math, science, history and other lessons? Schools should leave morality and sexuality to the parents.

Morality should indeed be primarily covered at home, however there could be a lack of protection from abuse if sexual morality is left exclusively to the student's family. Not everyone comes from a loving home.

RamiC · 2025-11-05T09:56:22-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
What do you know about mental disorders? Are you a mental health professional or have some experience with it yourself? What do you know about transgenderism?

So is being transgendered a mental health problem? Because I thought the whole of the problem here is that people are being taught that it is just a part of normality, that some people just have their gender identified all wrong and only they can tell. Are tansgendered people mentally ill?

iluvatar5150 · 2025-11-05T11:28:34-0600

RamiC said:
So is being transgendered a mental health problem? Because I thought the whole of the problem here is that people are being taught that it is just a part of normality, that some people just have their gender identified all wrong and only they can tell. Are tansgendered people mentally ill?

I don't know the proper diagnosis, but I haven't seen anybody outside of armchair psychaitrists and folks with an obvious agenda describe it in such terms.

Every transgender person I've known who's been willing to share their experiences with me has described a disconnect between their sense of identiy and their physical body. It strikes me as similar to the feelings I've had being in an ill-fitting career or a failing marriage (only a lot more serious, obviously), where a lot of forces were telling me A, while everything inside me was telling me that wasn't right.

That's why I don't see why it's such a big deal for so many people. It's not about sex (the act) or relationships; it's a struggle internal to the person. What other sort of corrective surgery do we get bent out of shape about?

RamiC · 2025-11-05T14:52:47-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
That's why I don't see why it's such a big deal for so many people. It's not about sex (the act) or relationships; it's a struggle internal to the person. What other sort of corrective surgery do we get bent out of shape about?

What other sort of medical condition requires everyone accepting male bodies in women's sport, women's prisons, public changing rooms and bathroom spaces?

Now if a grown adult wants to pay a doctor to change some body part, each church might want to comment on the morality of that, but under civil law, I do not see a viable way to stop it, and would not be so bothered. When anyone in a male body raised as a man can throw on a dress and access a gender specific space for women, and children and their parents are blackmailed into accepting irreversible changes to the child's body, I start to get bent out of shape.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-11-05T15:56:45-0600

RamiC said:
What other sort of medical condition requires everyone accepting male bodies in women's sport, women's prisons, public changing rooms and bathroom spaces?

Intersex could.

Regardless, the discussion here was about deadnaming, not how to integrate them into other situations that might cause issues.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-05T16:00:20-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
Intersex could.

Regardless, the discussion here was about deadnaming, not how to integrate them into other situations that might cause issues.

From the OP
protesting the presence of men in women's restrooms constitutes a hostile environment and qualifies as harassment.

iluvatar5150 · 2025-11-05T16:04:25-0600

BPPLEE said:
From the OP
protesting the presence of men in women's restrooms constitutes a hostile environment and qualifies as harassment.

Fair enough. I had only raised the issue of deadnaming, but you're right, there was more in the OP.

RamiC · 2025-11-06T00:41:34-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
Intersex could.

Intersexed does not count, because by definition they are not raised as men in male bodies then just sporting a dress and demanding access to anything, intersexed people are scientifically identifiable as mixed gender.

RileyG · 2025-11-06T12:06:08-0600

Delvianna said:
I mean, it's california, I can't say I'm surprised.

Sadly, I agree with you.

RileyG · 2025-11-06T12:07:57-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
How is intentionally dead-naming someone not a form of harassment?

It depends. I know of a man in school a year older than me. His mother still calls him by his birth name and calls him "my son" despite he now has a different name and identifies as a woman. I think he respects her enough that he's realize he will always be a son in her eyes.

But, I think it depends on the context.

RamiC · 2025-11-06T12:38:35-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
How is intentionally dead-naming someone not a form of harassment?

Deliberately using a name someone dislikes is rude, new names are okay with me because names do not cross boundaries or harm children.

University of California campuses mandate gender ideology training to register for classes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads