Public Response to Education Regulation 225

If you missed the review of the public response go here for the video. Notable moments are 2:20 when it actually starts, 1:27:00 when the public comments start, and around 1 hr 43 minutes when this author speaks.

Regulation 225 started with House Joint Resolution 6 which called for the Governor to direct the Department of Education to draft these regulations. It passed the DE House of Representatives, but stalled in the DE Senate. A House Joint Resolution signed by the governor can have the force of law. A joint resolution passed by one house is just an opinion. Governor Carney was so enthusiastic that he bypassed the law and the will of the people. No regulation can be imposed without a basis in law. This regulation is far reaching and intrusive into the affairs of the family and local school districts. It goes far beyond the legitimate concerns of very small transgender/transsexual minority. It expands into the area of gender identity. In New York City there are 31 genders. In San Francisco there are 62. If you do not like it, you are not safe and the government should protect your children from your ignorance, they assert. 90% of people who struggle with gender dysphoria issues become comfortable with their genetic sex. People who do not have many challenges with other psychological issues.

It is not parents who want to lovingly help their children that are the problem. It is unhealthy for the state to push people in a politically correct direction. The American College of Pediatrics and others understands these issues. They have issued a clarion warning to those whose misplaced compassion will harm children. Naturally, they are attacked, but they are not refuted. There is not one answer. One should not be imposed. Transgender individuals have the right to be accommodated so they can relieve themselves and get a free and appropriate education. One does not need to remake society and give every 6 year old trying to discover who they are a dual identity. How does one imagine encouraging a dual life with different names, gender and whatever else is healthy?

From the American College of Pediatrics link

As an example, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, long acknowledged as a foremost authority on gender identity issues in children, has also been a lifelong advocate for gay and transgender rights. However, much to the consternation of adult transgender activists, Zucker believes that gender-dysphoric pre-pubertal children are best served by helping them align their gender identity with their anatomic sex. This view ultimately cost him his 30-year directorship of the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.4,5

Many critics of pubertal suppression hold a modernist teleological worldview. They find it self-evident that there is a purposeful design to human nature, and that cooperation with this design leads to human flourishing. Others, however, identify as post-modernists who reject teleology. What unites the two groups is a traditional interpretation of “First do no harm.” For example, there is a growing online community of gay-affirming physicians, mental health professionals, and academics with a webpage entitled “First, do no harm: youth trans critical professionals.” They write:

We are concerned about the current trend to quickly diagnose and affirm young people as transgender, often setting them down a path toward medical transition…. We feel that unnecessary surgeries and/or hormonal treatments which have not been proven safe in the long-term represent significant risks for young people. Policies that encourage—either directly or indirectly—such medical treatment for young people who may not be able to evaluate the risks and benefits are highly suspect, in our opinion.