Where Are The Lawyers? (Gender/LGBTQIA in schools)
Potential Litigation Claims Have Crickets Chirping...
Flags that display LGBTQIA+ or other gender frames exclude heterosexuality, and have done so since the beginning of time. These flags are often hung in classrooms, which treats the gender-fluid narrative as correct, or display-worthy, while being heterophobic.
(Used under FAIR USE)
(A listing of the flags with no mention of heterosexuality, or non-allied frames) https://www.teenvogue.com/story/lgbtq-flags-history-symbolism
While it disturbs me to point this out, the children are being classified as to sexual preference, which is directly related to their endocrine (hormone) systems, their reproductive systems, and their major life activities of learning, thinking, concentrating, and interacting with others. (See 28 CFR §35.108(b) & (c)) The Gender-fluid/LGBTQ frame, being presented as a flag, and as an ideal that is required for consideration, is discriminatory to normal, heterosexual kids.
In other words, in addition to the harm, and ignored illegality of coercively addressing sexual issues with kids that are not yet to the age of consent, and therefore CANNOT consent, the presentation of sexual frames that EXCLUDE heterosexuality as a norm regard normal heterosexual children as disabled, with the offer of hormone replacement therapy (available easily, with little to no oversight) and/or sex change operations to children that are under the age of consent.
Children that are presented with sexual frames before the age of consent, BY LAW, are acknowledged as being unable to consent, therefore they are unable to resist this coercive presentation. These children are being approached with the Gender-fluid/HRT/sex-change frames by their teachers, other adults, their peers, and books in schools.
Any reasonable person would see that a child under the age of consent, being placed in a discussion about sex or sexual frames by a non-parental figure, without the child requesting information, is, at first glance, predatory and sexually assaulting. It is also discriminatory on the basis of disability, which presumes (regards as) that most Americans are withOUT normal reproductive organs, normal endocrine systems, and withOUT the right to learn, think, concentrate, and interact with others objectively, without having only one side of an argument presented to them as a “choice”. For clarity on this, see: Hobson’s choice.
Add to that, there is a discrimination of religious rights, with no right offered for children to be exempted on the basis of religion, and you have a lawyer’s dream case…. Except that lawyers are not pursuing these cases.
Why? I don’t know. If any lawyer needs help framing the ADA piece of this, I’m available.
P.D., JAY V SHORE