Because y’alls argument is always ‘these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!’ and making that some sort of gotcha, like I’m pro-homeless youth.

You act like that’s a purely hypotherical situation I’m popping out if my ass. There are children in this situation, where this will happen, and your solution is to render them homeless. At least in this situation, you are pro-homeless youth.

And, as I’ve said, that’s outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.

And that’s because teachers do have a lot of duties outside the scope of teaching, including safeguarding.

And I think that’s where things differ between us. I think the school (not just the teacher) should be allowed to withhold that information if they believe it would endanger that child.

As I’ve said and you apparently can’t grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They’re on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?

I’m not trying to carve out a special case for LGBT+, this law that has brought on this discussion is entirely about a law the affects specifically the T part of that community, so of course the conversation will drift that way, because that’s how conversations work.

You seem to think I’m happy letting it get to the point of abuse, when the option to not do so is there. That you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Also, in the event there was a piece of information in the same vein that potentially could introduce abuse to a straight child in the same way, I would also want the school to practice discretion about it.

It doesn’t matter if they’re the same. They’re government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.

The safeguarding duty is serving the tax-payer. It is preventing abuse where there is reason to suspect that the disclosure of certain information could create an abusive situation.

You say “secret meetings” as though the teachers are going out shopping with them to buy opposite gendered clothes and putting them on HRT. There are much better resources than than what a teacher can and should offer, but that’s not possible if you don’t render an environment where the child has a chance to ask for them.

If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?

Teachers have a job, and they’re pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren’t there to keep secrets from parents.

In the event of a broken leg, yes, a first-aid qualified teacher would provide first-aid to the child, then let paramedics take over from there. In that situation, obviously discretion is not going to be required because it’s not a sensitive issue.

And in the event of cancer, I’d hope the parents have an active enough involvement in their child’s life that their teachers find out they’ve got cancer before they do. A teacher wouldn’t be diagnosing such, as that is outside the scope of their job.

Again, they’re their to protect your child. If that means protecting them from you, then yes, that is and should be in the scope of their job. Besides which, it isn’t them alone that would do this. It would be up the school as well, as a teacher does have the duty to report it to the school so that resources can be given.

Apparently this is too long a conversation, so I’m going to have to split this in two.