jadero

If that were the issue, the solution is to require that either the parent or suitable expert be brought into the conversation. As it stands, there is no option but to inform the parents separately from (instead of?) those experts.

My personal opinion is expert first, who then coordinates parent notification. I have no problem with the idea that parents need to be brought into the conversation, I just think that most parents are as ill-equipped to move forward as I am. I want the experts involved. If my child comes to me, finding expertise will be at the top of my list. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that finding expertise should be at the top of the list, regardless.

Never be concerned with jumping in. I assume that the reason we do this in public is to get as much diversity of opinion as possible. If anyone wants to keep discussions private, this is the wrong place. :)

You have expressed my own feelings and opinions better than I have. The only thing you've missed is that, as much as I want my child to feel free and safe in discussing literally anything with me, what I want more is that they have access to trained professionals for the tough and important stuff (for everything, not just this; that's why they take swimming, driving, and math lessons from accredited experts, not me).

The only reason I attach importance to the difference between starting with me vs someone else is that I would feel that I've somehow failed if they started the process of finding professional assistance with someone other than me. That, of course, is a me thing, not a them thing or a system thing.

The objective, in my view, is to make sure that my child has all the expert help, support, and advice they need for themselves and that I require to ensure I'm not an obstacle to their growth and that we both require in order to maintain a healthy relationship. If, in the end, that means starting off by keeping secrets from me, so be it.

And then, as seems to be natural for people, I layer that thinking onto a system with the assumption that everyone should think that way...

Okay, now we're getting somewhere, an opportunity for us to move beyond default principles to more considered opinions.

I hadn't considered those things. I'd like to say that it's because I didn't see their relevance, but it's probably more accurate to say that I simply never thought things through. So, with your permission, I'll do that now.

If the parent calls and asks to talk to Jill, but the child has made it known they'd rather be called Jack, is the teacher supposed to lie to the parent?

Humans are very good at mapping, especially names. I call for Jack, whoever picks up the phone pages Jill, no more lying required than if I call for Theodore and they page Ted.

Are they supposed to prepare 2 report cards, one for the student and one to show their parents? Do they produce multiple sets of class photos and yearbooks?

I guess I don't see how these are any different than any other official communications. Until there has been an official amendment, which would require parental involvement, official communications use official names. That doesn't sound much different from how I communicate with the CRA. I have a name I prefer in casual conversation, but have to use my birth name with them until I make an official change.

Where does it fit in your reality where the school is responsible for keeping a child's choices from their parents?

I don't think that the school is any more responsible to keep a child's chosen name from the parents than it is my responsibility. If a child asks me to call them Ted even though they were introduced to me as Edward, I'll call them Ted. No big deal. Likewise for Jack vs Jill. It is literally of no consequence to me. I'll happily call them by their preferred name to their face and simply not get involved in the parent-child relationship. I don't see why the school should be held to a different standard.

Compared to the silly laws being passed in certain US states, there's nothing wrong with this one, other than people feel any law targeting LGBT youth must be evil.

I agree with you about the silly laws being passed elsewhere and don't think this falls to that level. I'm still not sure why it's seen as necessary, though. I don't think that any law related to LGBT youth Is evil, because some are designed to protect them.

I'm sure there is still plenty of nuance to be uncovered and I hope that we can do that work without just holding a default position because it's our default.

No nine year old should be concerned about sex, that's not support, that's abuse.

Ideology vs reality. I will tentatively agree that no nine year old should be concerned about sex, but that's not the world we live in and never will be. Some kids that age are entering puberty, so obviously have some stuff to learn. Sadly, some that age and even younger are sexually exploited, so need relevant education for both prevention and reporting. And, back on topic, kids that age are forming their identities, including sexual and gender identities, whether we like it or not.

Closing our eyes and minds to the real world does not make it go away.

Desiring a different world does not magically create it. If you want to work toward that different world, go ahead, but you don't get to act as though that brave new world already exists.

Where did you get that? I never accused you of being anti-trans. You accused someone of having an agenda for linking to a paper that suggests acceptance of gender identity as a means of reducing harm.

I chose my words very carefully to avoid accusing you of anything.

If you actually read that paper, you'll find that it claims evidence of children 6-7 years old starting to separate gender as identity from gender as physical appearance.

I don't think your 8 year old or any 8 year old should be worried about gender identity, which is why I don't agree with making such a big deal about gender identity claims. When it comes right down to it, I don't think anyone of any age should have any concern about anyone's gender identity other than their own. Let people of all ages alone to be who they are without judgement, condemnation, or panic.

It's not me, who is fine with whatever, who is causing any children grief over gender, but those who have their hair on fire over a world that is not quite what they expected.

Given my age (66) I probably shouldn't be riding gravel roads too much. I've done a lot of it in my life and am pretty confident in my skills, but I don't have the reflexes, the bones, or the recovery time of a teenager anymore! :)

I gave up my trials bike and my mountain bike a few years ago due to more frequent falls and injury. If I ever do build that e-trike, I'll build it with a 50km range so I can run to town and back, but I'm not sure how often I'd actually do so. In some ways, a trike might be more challenging than a bike because of the probability that one wheel will always be in a gravel ridge.

Okay, so I do less computer programming for money, but it's still a hobby and I contribute to a few open source projects.

But here are a few things that wouldn't get done if I were still employed:

• regular classes in internet security and privacy to help keep community members safe online.
• volunteering at the school to help teach students both new technologies (3D printing, robotics, environmental data collection and analysis) and old (boat building, sailing, winter survival in nature) plus tutoring in everything from music performance to math.
• serving with the emergency measures organization

That's approximately where my list ends, but fellow retirees are helping less abled people stay in their homes and communities, showing up at social justice rallies, and a myriad of other things that are important both societally and economically. If it's judged to be less important than employment, it's also important to note that much of it wouldn't be societally affordable without our free labour, yet has profound impacts on quality of life.

And I disagree that removing incentives leads to less being done. External incentives, like paycheques, are probably the least effective incentives there are. Most people are motivated by passion, desire, contribution, and satisfying results.

Thanks!

It shouldn't have too much impact on daily life. As part of embarking on this, we decided that running to the village for takeout from the cafe wouldn't count nor would running to the next village over to craft store or lumberyard. We don't do either often enough to matter.

As for an ebike, I really like the idea. I used to be a pretty hardcore cyclist, even cycling year round. (I actually used to ice race motorcycles!) But gravel roads (speed limit 80 kph), especially in winter, aren't something I should be taking on at my age. :) I'm a hobby manufacturer and one of the things I'd like to tackle is an e-trike. But I probably never will, because I just don't think it will safely mix with traffic anywhere I'd ride it.

This may not apply everywhere, but around here (Saskatchewan), retirees are the lifeblood of service and community organizations. From the quilting club that generates revenue for brain injury research and food banks to the senior centre that helps people age in place, retirees are a critical component of the glue that holds us together.

Even if you have a fairly narrow economic view of what it means to contribute to society, there is no question that retirees are making those contributions. While actual money is required for most things, nothing happens without people putting in time and retirees have plenty of time and aren't shy about using it.

This is something I became aware of as my older relatives retired. Now that I'm retired myself, I'm more active than ever in the community, despite having also retired from the volunteer fire and rescue service.

Not a "this week" result, but a change in our vehicle use has borne fruit. This is the second month in a row where we've spent about $400 less than usual.

We live 20 km from the village where we get our mail, library books, and basic groceries. Instead of going in 2-3 times a week, we now go just once a week.

We live 150 km from a small city with groceries and other supplies that are not available in the village. Instead of going in twice a month, we go in once a month and coordinate that trip with a trip to town for mail and library books, cutting out a separate trip.

We live 250 km from a bigger city with yet more selection and supplies and our medical care. We've committed to holding the line on trips only for medical appointments and bundling our other shopping needs into those trips. It remains to be seen if we can successfully eliminate accommodation expenses from those trips.

There are some other things that go into our savings. More research has led to more online purchases of hardware and other non-grocery supplies and those purchases are put off until the threshold for free shipping is reached.

If we can hold the line over the long term, the savings should pay for some other stuff, like installing a heat pump, relegating our pellet stove to very cold weather and backup use. I don't know if that comes with lower average cost of heating/cooling, but it would be less physically demanding, something that will be important if we are to age in place (we're 66).

My concern with a universal income is that it discourages healthy people from working and thus contributing to our collective wellbeing.

Every study I've heard of shows that is not what happens except in very narrow situations. For example, the study run in Dauphin, MB found that teenagers were less likely to work or to work less, but that was because they were choosing to focus on their schooling and, in some cases, actually stay in school. IIRC, there were also people who chose to stay at home with young children or care for infirm relatives rather than find other care options so they could go to low wage, "low skill" jobs. Those outcomes seem positive given the results of other studies regarding education and family care.

There is a general problem in mass psychology where people sitting around a table or in their armchairs try to imagine the impact of a policy without conducting a study or looking at historical results.