学校科普trans, lgbtq我觉得挺好，只是教育内容和态度的问题。如果孩子真的有性别认知的问题，那么告诉他trans是正常的，有许多同伴，那么对缓解他的心理压力绝对有极大的帮助。所以学校教育应该侧重于让人理解it's a matter of fact。“鼓励”或者说"promote“又是另外一回事。变性就是医学治疗，应该被视为一种解决特定痛苦的方式，其中也经过了利弊权衡，风险预估，所以假如要教育，应该give the whole picture。最理想的状态是所有人对此不再敏感但也不以为”时髦“，就是出生恰好不幸有一些unexpected issue，make informative decision去纠正，跟天生对xx过敏而因此治疗一样，这样最好。
太阳底下没有新鲜事 看看喔两年半以前发的分析文章，里面关于MAGA和它祖宗德国纳粹党当时是怎么利用妖魔化LGBT群体，来制造社会分裂，进一步夺权的 3.3 LGBT/妇女权力问题 其实LGBT群体是一个社会的试金石，是canary in the coal mine. 看一个社会是否对少数群体权力保护，就看怎么对待LGBT群体。历史上，任何独裁政权，血洗镇压少数群体时候，无一例外都是从LGBT群体开始的。因为LGBT是最软的软柿子。 你知道吗，pink triangle的意思吗？德国纳粹在系统性屠杀犹太人之前，早已经开始系统性的囚禁和屠杀LGBT人群，这个很多以前的历史书避而不谈。斯大林时期，LGBT也是和反共斗士一起扔到斯伯利亚死亡营里面的。哪怕中国，当年严打，LGBT本事就是”流氓罪“，哪怕你啥也不干，或者本身就是犯罪；今天的MAGA精神导师普金俄国，LGBT也是重点打击目标。更不要说伊朗，沙特这种对待LGBT和对待女人不戴头巾一样的地方。 https://www.google.com/search?q=pink+triangle 也许你本人对LGBT群体有固有成见，但是，如果你看到一个国家一个政党系统性的攻击LGBT群体，而你恰恰也是这个国家的少数，或者这个政党眼中的敌人，那你就要考虑下自己的安危了。纳粹德国犹太人当时看到LGBT群体被捕杀到集中营，其中不少支持者，后来这些为纳粹迫害LGBT群体叫好的Jew，自己也进了同一个集中营和焚尸炉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany 我这里懒得辩论LGBT群体有没有作为人活着的资格，或者作为人有同样 Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness的权力，我仅仅就华人（非LGBT群体）本身觉得迫害LGBT与自己无关，甚至给MAGA举起呐喊的人，敲个警钟，历史always repeats itself 更指的惊醒的是，MAGA在过去几年，加大攻击LGBT群体力度后，看到社会反抗很小，觉得可以进一步推进其计划，这也是为什么保护妇女基本权力的Roe在今年被SCOTUS推翻。 LGBT人口只占5%，你可以“牺牲”掉不在乎，可当MAGA开始roll back占人口50%的妇女权力的时候，你就应该惊醒了。If they can get away with doing that, what else they can’t do.
DOI EXAMINATION FINDS COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE RISKS AT 51 CITY-FUNDED NONPROFITS THAT OPERATE NYC HOMELESS SHELTERS AND FLAWED CITY OVERSIGHT OF DHS-FUNDED PROVIDERS —DOI issued 32 reforms to address system-wide vulnerabilities— Jocelyn E. Strauber, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), issued a Report today memorializing the key findings from DOI’s extensive examination of compliance risks at 51 nonprofit human service providers that operate many of the homeless shelters in New York City and of the City’s oversight of the shelter system. The Report includes DOI’s 32 recommendations for reform, intended to protect the billions of dollars that the City spends annually on shelter services from corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse. A copy of the Report follows this release and can be found here: https://www.nyc.gov/site/doi/newsroom/public-reports.page
DOI Commissioner Jocelyn E. Strauber said, “When it comes to protecting the vast taxpayer resources that City-funded nonprofits receive, prevention is key. City-funded nonprofit service providers pose unique compliance and governance risks, and comprehensive City oversight is the best way to stop corruption, fraud, and waste before it starts. This deep dive into the City-funded homeless service provider system builds on DOI’s extensive experience investigating nonprofit fraud, and our 2021 Report concerning City-funded nonprofits. Today’s Report provides ample evidence of the risks specific to nonprofits and shortcomings in City oversight and makes 32 recommendations to strengthen controls around this essential network. I thank the DOI team that has worked tirelessly on this investigation and the many City entities that provided assistance, including the staff from the City Department of Social Services who worked closely with DOI to support this examination.” The City, through the City Department of Social Services (“DSS”) and the City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”), operates the largest homeless shelter system of any municipality in the United States. DHS-funded shelters currently support an average of over 86,000 people per night at a cost of approximately $4 billion annually in FY 2024, up from $2.7 billion annually in FY 2022, due in large part to the influx of asylum seekers over the past two years. (DOI did not review City-funded contracts involving services to the asylum seekers that were procured under emergency procedures for this Report. DOI has oversight of these expenditures through an integrity monitor that is supervised by and reports to DOI.)
The examination for this Report began in 2021, well before the influx of asylum seekers, although some of the providers DOI examined are providing asylum seeker services. DOI’s focus on this area was prompted in part by the investigation of Victor Rivera, the former CEO of nonprofit City service provider Bronx Parent Housing Network, who ultimately pled guilty to a federal bribery-and-kickback scheme involving that nonprofit. DOI investigators drew on their knowledge of financial and administrative vulnerabilities in City-funded nonprofit providers generally to examine individual shelter providers’ governance and compliance practices, and potential conflicts of interest and other potential misconduct during this examination of 51 nonprofit organizations operating shelters for DHS. DOI reviewed the 2 operations of these organizations and their responses to a detailed questionnaire; analyzed an array of materials including audit reports, financial ledgers, invoices, and disclosures to the City; and conducted dozens of interviews, including of certain providers’ senior executives. DOI also evaluated the oversight of these providers by the City, including by DHS and DSS. The provider practices and City oversight reflected in the Report dates from 2018 through the present, although the majority of DOI’s information-gathering was completed from 2022 through 2024.
DOI received approximately 70 responses to the questionnaire distributed to City-funded nonprofit organizations. To date, DOI has completed findings on 51 providers and issued related referral letters to DSS, each one summarizing DOI’s findings as to individual shelter providers and, in total, raising hundreds of governance and compliance concerns at these providers. The findings in these referrals already have caused some providers to make improvements to their policies and procedures. The Report makes 32 recommendations to the relevant City agencies to address system-wide vulnerabilities, strengthen controls with respect to providers to protect the substantial public funds providers receive, and enhance public trust. Aspects of this examination are still ongoing, and this Report is a summary of DOI’s major findings to date. This Report builds on the findings from the investigations DOI has conducted in recent years that have focused on the City’s nonprofit vendor spending and which have resulted in criminal charges, administrative findings, integrity monitorships, and recommendations to improve City oversight of these contracts and providers. Since 2018, DOI investigations have resulted in at least 25 arrests on charges involving fraud and corruption at City-funded nonprofits, including prosecutions related to homeless service providers. Since 2018, DOI also has issued more than a dozen administrative referrals to City agencies – in addition to the administrative referrals issued as part of this examination -- reporting findings of mismanagement, noncompliance, or other non-criminal misconduct at City-funded nonprofits. In 2021, DOI issued Report on Corruption Vulnerabilities in the City’s Oversight and Administration of Not-for-Profit Human Services, which identified gaps in the City’s general oversight of its contracts with nonprofit human service providers. Many of DOI’s prior findings and recommendations remain relevant to the findings of this Report, which focuses solely on the unique issues associated with the oversight of DHSfunded shelter providers.
This Report identifies a variety of compliance and governance risks at these providers, as well as in the City’s overall management of the shelter system. These risks vary in their severity and include: • Conflicts of interest affecting City money. DOI identified cases where insiders at the shelter provider had personal business interests involving the shelter through which they received payments outside their regular compensation. In some cases, shelter executives simultaneously held employment at a private entity, such as a security company, that was hired to provide services at City-funded shelters. • Poor Citywide controls over how City money is used for executive compensation. DOI identified multiple shelter executives who received more than $500,000 per year, and in some cases, more than $700,000 per year, from providers and related organizations. Executive compensation in these cases is funded either largely or in part through City funds. The City lacks sufficient rules concerning how much City money can be allocated to nonprofit executives’ salaries. • Nepotism, in violation of City contracts. DOI found shelter providers that have employed immediate family members of senior executives and board members, in apparent violation of their City contracts. For instance, one provider that is largely funded by the City employed its CEO’s children since at least 2007. This provider subsequently entered into a DOI-managed monitorship agreement. • Shelter providers failing to follow competitive bidding rules when procuring goods and services with public money. DOI found numerous cases where shelter providers did not comply with the City’s competitive bidding requirements or where it was unclear whether shelter providers conducted true competitive bidding processes. For example, this review identified multiple instances where shelter providers awarded multimillion-dollar building maintenance service contracts to companies affiliated with the buildings’ landlords.
DOI issued 32 recommendations to address the system-wide vulnerabilities noted in this Report. Included among the key recommendations are: ➢ DSS should appoint a Chief Vendor Compliance Officer to provide overall leadership for DSS and DHS’s compliance strategy with respect to nonprofit human service contracts, including contracts with shelter providers. ➢ Shelter providers should be required to regularly disclose additional information relevant to identifying compliance risks, including potential conflicts of interest for key persons. ➢ DSS and DHS should take steps to improve their oversight of shelter operators’ expenditures, including by immediately stopping payments for costs that are not accompanied by a proper description and ensuring that relevant agency staff receive regular financial compliance training. ➢ The City should update its electronic procurement and invoicing systems to better enable thirdparty oversight and centralize key documentation.
This Report also reiterates many of the 23 recommendations that DOI issued in its November 2021 Report on Corruption Vulnerabilities in the City’s Oversight and Administration of Not-for-Profit Human Services. While the City has implemented some reforms since the 2021 Report and is also undertaking some work that closely tracks DOI’s recommendations, many of the recommendations from 2021 have not been implemented at any substantial level. The 2021 Report recommended, among other things, that the City: Reform its conflict-of-interest disclosure system for the City’s human service providers. Develop more specific guidance to agencies on executive compensation and consider setting a cap or other parameters on City-funded executive compensation. Conduct more robust reviews of expenses that human service providers invoice to the City, including by reviewing larger samples of supporting documentation. New York City is currently making an unprecedented financial commitment to address homelessness. For that reason, it is more important than ever that it implement stronger risk management and compliance controls around this spending. Accepting and implementing the reforms set forth in this Report, as well as in DOI’s November 2021 Report, would be critical steps in this direction. DOI Commissioner Strauber thanks DSS Commissioner Molly Wasow Park and her staff, for their partnership on this examination and the Mayor’s Office of Contracts and Mayor’s Office of Risk Management and Compliance for their assistance. DOI also received support from two private firms with experience in investigations, audits, and compliance monitoring, who provided auditing and investigative resources with respect to certain provider reviews. At DOI, this examination was conducted by Deputy Inspector General/Special Counsel Daniel Kacinski and Confidential Investigator Rushelle Sharpe, with the assistance of Senior Investigative Auditor Olga Avram and Senior Investigative Attorney Alex Cane in DOI’s Office of the Inspector General for CityFunded Nonprofits. Data Analysts Anthony McDowald and Zachary Sayle and Director of Data Analytics Shyam Prasad in DOI’s Data Analytics Unit provided technical assistance. The examination was supervised 4 by Senior Inspector General Andrew Sein, Deputy Commissioner of Strategic Initiatives Christopher Ryan, and Deputy Commissioner/ Chief of Investigations Dominick Zarrella. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doi/press-releases/2024/October/39DHSRptRelease10.17.2024.pdf
DOI EXAMINATION FINDS COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE RISKS AT 51 CITY-FUNDED NONPROFITS THAT OPERATE NYC HOMELESS SHELTERS AND FLAWED CITY OVERSIGHT OF DHS-FUNDED PROVIDERS —DOI issued 32 reforms to address system-wide vulnerabilities— Jocelyn E. Strauber, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), issued a Report today memorializing the key findings from DOI’s extensive examination of compliance risks at 51 nonprofit human service providers that operate many of the homeless shelters in New York City and of the City’s oversight of the shelter system. The Report includes DOI’s 32 recommendations for reform, intended to protect the billions of dollars that the City spends annually on shelter services from corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse. A copy of the Report follows this release and can be found here: https://www.nyc.gov/site/doi/newsroom/public-reports.page
DOI Commissioner Jocelyn E. Strauber said, “When it comes to protecting the vast taxpayer resources that City-funded nonprofits receive, prevention is key. City-funded nonprofit service providers pose unique compliance and governance risks, and comprehensive City oversight is the best way to stop corruption, fraud, and waste before it starts. This deep dive into the City-funded homeless service provider system builds on DOI’s extensive experience investigating nonprofit fraud, and our 2021 Report concerning City-funded nonprofits. Today’s Report provides ample evidence of the risks specific to nonprofits and shortcomings in City oversight and makes 32 recommendations to strengthen controls around this essential network. I thank the DOI team that has worked tirelessly on this investigation and the many City entities that provided assistance, including the staff from the City Department of Social Services who worked closely with DOI to support this examination.” The City, through the City Department of Social Services (“DSS”) and the City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”), operates the largest homeless shelter system of any municipality in the United States. DHS-funded shelters currently support an average of over 86,000 people per night at a cost of approximately $4 billion annually in FY 2024, up from $2.7 billion annually in FY 2022, due in large part to the influx of asylum seekers over the past two years. (DOI did not review City-funded contracts involving services to the asylum seekers that were procured under emergency procedures for this Report. DOI has oversight of these expenditures through an integrity monitor that is supervised by and reports to DOI.)
The examination for this Report began in 2021, well before the influx of asylum seekers, although some of the providers DOI examined are providing asylum seeker services. DOI’s focus on this area was prompted in part by the investigation of Victor Rivera, the former CEO of nonprofit City service provider Bronx Parent Housing Network, who ultimately pled guilty to a federal bribery-and-kickback scheme involving that nonprofit. DOI investigators drew on their knowledge of financial and administrative vulnerabilities in City-funded nonprofit providers generally to examine individual shelter providers’ governance and compliance practices, and potential conflicts of interest and other potential misconduct during this examination of 51 nonprofit organizations operating shelters for DHS. DOI reviewed the 2 operations of these organizations and their responses to a detailed questionnaire; analyzed an array of materials including audit reports, financial ledgers, invoices, and disclosures to the City; and conducted dozens of interviews, including of certain providers’ senior executives. DOI also evaluated the oversight of these providers by the City, including by DHS and DSS. The provider practices and City oversight reflected in the Report dates from 2018 through the present, although the majority of DOI’s information-gathering was completed from 2022 through 2024.
DOI received approximately 70 responses to the questionnaire distributed to City-funded nonprofit organizations. To date, DOI has completed findings on 51 providers and issued related referral letters to DSS, each one summarizing DOI’s findings as to individual shelter providers and, in total, raising hundreds of governance and compliance concerns at these providers. The findings in these referrals already have caused some providers to make improvements to their policies and procedures. The Report makes 32 recommendations to the relevant City agencies to address system-wide vulnerabilities, strengthen controls with respect to providers to protect the substantial public funds providers receive, and enhance public trust. Aspects of this examination are still ongoing, and this Report is a summary of DOI’s major findings to date. This Report builds on the findings from the investigations DOI has conducted in recent years that have focused on the City’s nonprofit vendor spending and which have resulted in criminal charges, administrative findings, integrity monitorships, and recommendations to improve City oversight of these contracts and providers. Since 2018, DOI investigations have resulted in at least 25 arrests on charges involving fraud and corruption at City-funded nonprofits, including prosecutions related to homeless service providers. Since 2018, DOI also has issued more than a dozen administrative referrals to City agencies – in addition to the administrative referrals issued as part of this examination -- reporting findings of mismanagement, noncompliance, or other non-criminal misconduct at City-funded nonprofits. In 2021, DOI issued Report on Corruption Vulnerabilities in the City’s Oversight and Administration of Not-for-Profit Human Services, which identified gaps in the City’s general oversight of its contracts with nonprofit human service providers. Many of DOI’s prior findings and recommendations remain relevant to the findings of this Report, which focuses solely on the unique issues associated with the oversight of DHSfunded shelter providers.
This Report identifies a variety of compliance and governance risks at these providers, as well as in the City’s overall management of the shelter system. These risks vary in their severity and include: • Conflicts of interest affecting City money. DOI identified cases where insiders at the shelter provider had personal business interests involving the shelter through which they received payments outside their regular compensation. In some cases, shelter executives simultaneously held employment at a private entity, such as a security company, that was hired to provide services at City-funded shelters. • Poor Citywide controls over how City money is used for executive compensation. DOI identified multiple shelter executives who received more than $500,000 per year, and in some cases, more than $700,000 per year, from providers and related organizations. Executive compensation in these cases is funded either largely or in part through City funds. The City lacks sufficient rules concerning how much City money can be allocated to nonprofit executives’ salaries. • Nepotism, in violation of City contracts. DOI found shelter providers that have employed immediate family members of senior executives and board members, in apparent violation of their City contracts. For instance, one provider that is largely funded by the City employed its CEO’s children since at least 2007. This provider subsequently entered into a DOI-managed monitorship agreement. • Shelter providers failing to follow competitive bidding rules when procuring goods and services with public money. DOI found numerous cases where shelter providers did not comply with the City’s competitive bidding requirements or where it was unclear whether shelter providers conducted true competitive bidding processes. For example, this review identified multiple instances where shelter providers awarded multimillion-dollar building maintenance service contracts to companies affiliated with the buildings’ landlords.
DOI issued 32 recommendations to address the system-wide vulnerabilities noted in this Report. Included among the key recommendations are: ➢ DSS should appoint a Chief Vendor Compliance Officer to provide overall leadership for DSS and DHS’s compliance strategy with respect to nonprofit human service contracts, including contracts with shelter providers. ➢ Shelter providers should be required to regularly disclose additional information relevant to identifying compliance risks, including potential conflicts of interest for key persons. ➢ DSS and DHS should take steps to improve their oversight of shelter operators’ expenditures, including by immediately stopping payments for costs that are not accompanied by a proper description and ensuring that relevant agency staff receive regular financial compliance training. ➢ The City should update its electronic procurement and invoicing systems to better enable thirdparty oversight and centralize key documentation.
This Report also reiterates many of the 23 recommendations that DOI issued in its November 2021 Report on Corruption Vulnerabilities in the City’s Oversight and Administration of Not-for-Profit Human Services. While the City has implemented some reforms since the 2021 Report and is also undertaking some work that closely tracks DOI’s recommendations, many of the recommendations from 2021 have not been implemented at any substantial level. The 2021 Report recommended, among other things, that the City: Reform its conflict-of-interest disclosure system for the City’s human service providers. Develop more specific guidance to agencies on executive compensation and consider setting a cap or other parameters on City-funded executive compensation. Conduct more robust reviews of expenses that human service providers invoice to the City, including by reviewing larger samples of supporting documentation. New York City is currently making an unprecedented financial commitment to address homelessness. For that reason, it is more important than ever that it implement stronger risk management and compliance controls around this spending. Accepting and implementing the reforms set forth in this Report, as well as in DOI’s November 2021 Report, would be critical steps in this direction. DOI Commissioner Strauber thanks DSS Commissioner Molly Wasow Park and her staff, for their partnership on this examination and the Mayor’s Office of Contracts and Mayor’s Office of Risk Management and Compliance for their assistance. DOI also received support from two private firms with experience in investigations, audits, and compliance monitoring, who provided auditing and investigative resources with respect to certain provider reviews. At DOI, this examination was conducted by Deputy Inspector General/Special Counsel Daniel Kacinski and Confidential Investigator Rushelle Sharpe, with the assistance of Senior Investigative Auditor Olga Avram and Senior Investigative Attorney Alex Cane in DOI’s Office of the Inspector General for CityFunded Nonprofits. Data Analysts Anthony McDowald and Zachary Sayle and Director of Data Analytics Shyam Prasad in DOI’s Data Analytics Unit provided technical assistance. The examination was supervised 4 by Senior Inspector General Andrew Sein, Deputy Commissioner of Strategic Initiatives Christopher Ryan, and Deputy Commissioner/ Chief of Investigations Dominick Zarrella. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doi/press-releases/2024/October/39DHSRptRelease10.17.2024.pdf
真的是完全天生的么？ The percentage of U.S. adults who identify as LGBTQ has doubled over the past decade, from 3.5% in 2012 to 7.1% in 2021. Gen Z adults who identify as LGBTQ has increased from 10.5% in 2017 to 20.8% in 2021. Millennials, ages 26 to 41, identifying as LGBTQ increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 10.5% in 2021.
我还特别去查了一下transphobia 这个是啥意思 我不是 同事朋友都有trans 这在加州也不算啥稀奇的 不过我也是通过这个帖子了解了一个常规操作：就是给持不同意见的人不停的贴label 什么川粉 MAGA anti LGBTQ 又出来个transphobia 很少人真正谈事情本身 而是热衷于给提出问题的人贴标签
你真的有同事朋友是trans吗？你有了解过他们的心路历程吗？他们成为trans是因为在学校里“被洗脑”吗？你跟他们谈一谈，也许就不这么焦虑了。 不过，有trans朋友不能保证你不是transphobia, 要看你做什么，游戏里男孩子穿个裙子你觉得就是“激进性教育”，不是phobia还是啥？ 你知道“I have a black friend so I am not a racist “是个笑话吗？
科罗伊 发表于 2024-10-20 20:28 你真的有同事朋友是trans吗？你有了解过他们的心路历程吗？他们成为trans是因为在学校里“被洗脑”吗？你跟他们谈一谈，也许就不这么焦虑了。 不过，有trans朋友不能保证你不是transphobia, 要看你做什么，游戏里男孩子穿个裙子你觉得就是“激进性教育”，不是phobia还是啥？ 你知道“I have a black friend so I am not a racist “是个笑话吗？
科罗伊 发表于 2024-10-20 20:28 你真的有同事朋友是trans吗？你有了解过他们的心路历程吗？他们成为trans是因为在学校里“被洗脑”吗？你跟他们谈一谈，也许就不这么焦虑了。 不过，有trans朋友不能保证你不是transphobia, 要看你做什么，游戏里男孩子穿个裙子你觉得就是“激进性教育”，不是phobia还是啥？ 你知道“I have a black friend so I am not a racist “是个笑话吗？
我觉得我们是on same page的 我在学区发言上说过（我的发言都是公开信息可以去查）：我听说过一个故事 一个TK女娃家长给所有同班家长写了个信 说自己女儿identified as boy 请大家支持并address properly 我说如果我是同班家长 收到这样的信 我肯定支持 但是我们的例子是老师是activist 在教室不遗余力的教这些 我想说孩子的gender identity并不是任何老师的training内容 尤其TK年龄 应该交给专业人士和家长 老师应该是配合而不是主动去发现孩子的性别然后还觉得自己在拯救世界 这是非常strong的personal preference 这位老师在个人网站说 no matter what others say，my students deserve to know xxx. 这位老师似乎致力于隔绝家长和孩子，老认为只有自己在主持正义拯救孩子。然后家长提出疑义，此老师和其他人立刻将事件上升为LGBTQ说自己被anti被针对。这有点极端。
坐标蓝州， 40k+ refugees from central/South America. Gang groups are everywhere. Refugees didn’t buy car insurances but still drove on the road and couldn’t pay after an accident. I can see “ Harris/Watz” everywhere. Oh, so many homeless people in the streets and sleeeps in the park. Packages pirated , cars breakin. Can’t name enough
科罗伊 发表于 2024-10-20 20:28 你真的有同事朋友是trans吗？你有了解过他们的心路历程吗？他们成为trans是因为在学校里“被洗脑”吗？你跟他们谈一谈，也许就不这么焦虑了。 不过，有trans朋友不能保证你不是transphobia, 要看你做什么，游戏里男孩子穿个裙子你觉得就是“激进性教育”，不是phobia还是啥？ 你知道“I have a black friend so I am not a racist “是个笑话吗？
呵呵 又禁止引用 还说我的动机 真的 你愿意选谁选谁 你能说服你自己就可以 你的回帖再次说明一件事：你和那些攻击我们家长的人没有区别 只要是和你们观点不同 就是川粉 绝对不能说民主党任何一点不好 哪怕说我谁都不选 也不行 服气
我的天呐 你在搞笑吗？你不相信的事情就是漏洞？ 这些事情都是公开信息好吗？学区的会议的录像音频全部都在 公立学校的邮件也都是可以去获取的公开信息 我自己家娃的班级和老师我为啥要造谣啊？？？？
我知道你真正的动机了，所以这个帖子不会再跟了
挂羊头卖狗肉而已
不同意！ 你忘了教育是什么？当孩子还小自我认知没有完全建立起来的时候，天天耳濡目染受到某些“教育”是很容易走偏的，甚至觉得自己很酷，等到自我认知完善后恐怕为时已晚，一声叹息。。。
我需要强调一点，不是强迫，是鼓励。不断鼓励。 这位老师是一位人权活动家。教学之外有一个口号叫做“boys can wear dresses" 这在网上都是公开信息
裙子是教室的裙子 不是家里的 教室有dress up game 男娃们回家和家长们说的 几个案例： 男娃a和妈妈说，玩那个游戏的时候 教室里只有裙子 没有其他costume 男娃b和妈妈说，自己不喜欢裙子并把裙子扔了一边，老师说 你如果不要我给别人了哦 校长在邮件里确认说，其实教室里有各种衣服 只有裙子被挂了起来
有个男娃穿了裙子 老师拍了照 - 是同班另外一个女孩回家和妈妈讲的
威夷所思吗？呵呵 这就是最真实的事件发生在了我们这些家庭身上！ 这件事情家长们反映很大 受到的攻击也很多 你们以为媒体和第三方调查机构为啥会介入？？？
你可以离开加州啊，为啥这么痛苦还赖着不走?
看看喔两年半以前发的分析文章，里面关于MAGA和它祖宗德国纳粹党当时是怎么利用妖魔化LGBT群体，来制造社会分裂，进一步夺权的
3.3 LGBT/妇女权力问题 其实LGBT群体是一个社会的试金石，是canary in the coal mine. 看一个社会是否对少数群体权力保护，就看怎么对待LGBT群体。历史上，任何独裁政权，血洗镇压少数群体时候，无一例外都是从LGBT群体开始的。因为LGBT是最软的软柿子。 你知道吗，pink triangle的意思吗？德国纳粹在系统性屠杀犹太人之前，早已经开始系统性的囚禁和屠杀LGBT人群，这个很多以前的历史书避而不谈。斯大林时期，LGBT也是和反共斗士一起扔到斯伯利亚死亡营里面的。哪怕中国，当年严打，LGBT本事就是”流氓罪“，哪怕你啥也不干，或者本身就是犯罪；今天的MAGA精神导师普金俄国，LGBT也是重点打击目标。更不要说伊朗，沙特这种对待LGBT和对待女人不戴头巾一样的地方。 https://www.google.com/search?q=pink+triangle 也许你本人对LGBT群体有固有成见，但是，如果你看到一个国家一个政党系统性的攻击LGBT群体，而你恰恰也是这个国家的少数，或者这个政党眼中的敌人，那你就要考虑下自己的安危了。纳粹德国犹太人当时看到LGBT群体被捕杀到集中营，其中不少支持者，后来这些为纳粹迫害LGBT群体叫好的Jew，自己也进了同一个集中营和焚尸炉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany 我这里懒得辩论LGBT群体有没有作为人活着的资格，或者作为人有同样 Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness的权力，我仅仅就华人（非LGBT群体）本身觉得迫害LGBT与自己无关，甚至给MAGA举起呐喊的人，敲个警钟，历史always repeats itself 更指的惊醒的是，MAGA在过去几年，加大攻击LGBT群体力度后，看到社会反抗很小，觉得可以进一步推进其计划，这也是为什么保护妇女基本权力的Roe在今年被SCOTUS推翻。 LGBT人口只占5%，你可以“牺牲”掉不在乎，可当MAGA开始roll back占人口50%的妇女权力的时候，你就应该惊醒了。If they can get away with doing that, what else they can’t do.
我相信大部分是天生的 但是性取向也好别的也好 后天的影响必然存在 但是这个不是重点啊 作为家长并不是反对某个性别或者性取向啊 而是四岁的孩子真的有必要开始接触这种很先进的性别概念吗？比如tree - 我都还没搞明白什么是tree identity
我觉得给他们带来的是困惑更多吧
算了。。。。。。。。。
可能主贴没有说的非常详细 这个事情不是LGBTQ。。。 上升到学区不是小题大做，而是需要学区帮忙理清几件事： tk教育的curriculum和教室的哪些活动相关 如果不在curriculum, tk又没有所谓的“上课”，那么老师就可以随心所欲了吗？ 如果小朋友们问了这些问题，老师应该如何回答呢？没有任何一个指导文件其实。目前那个tk的老师基本上是按照个人偏好先把教室布置成全部都是性别元素，然后娃有问题就会抓住一切机会宣讲，这不是一个well balanced的教育吧？老师的书单也很多这些题材。 还有就是鼓励男娃穿裙子，这是允许的吗？男娃想穿啥穿啥，为啥要鼓励裙子？
确实痛苦 但是发声了之后期待有些许改变 如果没有改变 失去控制 那确实要考虑搬走
如果激怒了你先说声抱歉 我可能被攻击得有些PTSD
你选民主党 我尊重你的选择
在哪都有痛苦吧 有痛苦就来说一说呗
和大家聊聊天
哇，厉害。在什么地方，有这么大的数据点，可否分享一下？想更深地了解一下？
完全同意。这种人居然还能做老师，就说明这个社会不正常了。
现实点咱们都是普通人，重视和抗议有用吗？已经说了，受不了送私立，多花一点钱的事，真的不至于。
非要在公立死磕，那真的只能搬红州了，那红州不也有另外一个极端的问题，两害相权，自行选择吧。
这位说LGBT洗脑没有基督教厉害的还不让引用的，真好笑，你睁开眼睛看看，那位老师在小男孩说No的基础上还不遗余力让他穿裙子，哪个基督教敢这么不遗余力地传教的？老实说如果基督教也像这位老师那么不遗余力，你还会让你娃就读基督教学校吗？早就退学了吧。
正常人无法斗得过民主党这个恶魔。现在就需要川普这样的魔法对魔法。
哈里斯连自己的出身种族都要撒谎，她说的话可信吗
一个成年人当然不会受多大影响，现在说的是小孩。
检查报告指出纽约市收容所系统存在一系列问题！
据侨报报道，市调查局（DOI）17日（周四）发布针对本市收容所系统检查报告，发现利益冲突、裙带主义以及包括多名主管年薪高达50万乃至70万的薪水超高等一系列问题，并提出多项改革意见。
该审查始于2021年，调查了51个非营利组织服务供应商。报告中指出的第一大问题为影响本市资金的利益冲突。 DOl确定了收容所服务供应商的内部人员有涉及收容所内部人士商业利益的情况，部分内部人士通过收容所获得常规补偿以外的付款。 部分收容所主管同时在受雇为收容所提供服务的私人实体工作。多名庇护所主管薪资超高，每年从供应商和相关组织获得超过50万到70万美元，其中主要或部分来自城市资金，因此本市缺乏足够规定以确定对于收容所高管工资的分配。
此外，DOI发现收容所系统存在违法城市合同的裙带主义，有服务供应商雇用了收容所主管和董事会成员的直系亲属。
而第三大问题为庇护所供应商在用公共资金采购商品和服务时未能遵守竞争性投标规则。
DOI局长史特劳勃(Jocelyn E.Strauber)表示，“市府资助的非营利服务提供商构成了独特的合规和治理风险，全面的城市监督是在腐败、欺诈和浪费开始之前阻止问题发生的最佳方式。今天的报告充分证明了非营利组织特有风险和城市监督缺陷，提出了32项建议以加强对这一重要系统的控制。” DOl发布了32条建议，以解决报告中指出的全系统漏洞。
包括市社会服务局（DSS）应任命一名首席供应商审核官，为DSS和国土安全部在非营利性利民服务合同方面的合规战略提供全面领导、应要求收容所提供者定期披露与识别合规风险相关的信息，包括关键人物的潜在利益冲突、DSS和市游民服务局（DHS）应采取措施改善对服务商支出的监督，包括立即停止支付模糊费用并确保相关工作人员定期接受财务合规培训、本市应更新其电子采购和发票系统，以更好地实现第三方监督并集中关键文件。
市府方面在对报告的回应中称，市府官员已同意了许多建议，并将制定一个书面计划，在90天内解决调查结果。
DOI EXAMINATION FINDS COMPLIANCE AND GOVERNANCE RISKS AT 51 CITY-FUNDED NONPROFITS THAT OPERATE NYC HOMELESS SHELTERS AND FLAWED CITY OVERSIGHT OF DHS-FUNDED PROVIDERS —DOI issued 32 reforms to address system-wide vulnerabilities—
Jocelyn E. Strauber, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”), issued a Report today memorializing the key findings from DOI’s extensive examination of compliance risks at 51 nonprofit human service providers that operate many of the homeless shelters in New York City and of the City’s oversight of the shelter system. The Report includes DOI’s 32 recommendations for reform, intended to protect the billions of dollars that the City spends annually on shelter services from corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse. A copy of the Report follows this release and can be found here: https://www.nyc.gov/site/doi/newsroom/public-reports.page
DOI Commissioner Jocelyn E. Strauber said, “When it comes to protecting the vast taxpayer resources that City-funded nonprofits receive, prevention is key. City-funded nonprofit service providers pose unique compliance and governance risks, and comprehensive City oversight is the best way to stop corruption, fraud, and waste before it starts. This deep dive into the City-funded homeless service provider system builds on DOI’s extensive experience investigating nonprofit fraud, and our 2021 Report concerning City-funded nonprofits. Today’s Report provides ample evidence of the risks specific to nonprofits and shortcomings in City oversight and makes 32 recommendations to strengthen controls around this essential network. I thank the DOI team that has worked tirelessly on this investigation and the many City entities that provided assistance, including the staff from the City Department of Social Services who worked closely with DOI to support this examination.”
The City, through the City Department of Social Services (“DSS”) and the City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”), operates the largest homeless shelter system of any municipality in the United States. DHS-funded shelters currently support an average of over 86,000 people per night at a cost of approximately $4 billion annually in FY 2024, up from $2.7 billion annually in FY 2022, due in large part to the influx of asylum seekers over the past two years. (DOI did not review City-funded contracts involving services to the asylum seekers that were procured under emergency procedures for this Report. DOI has oversight of these expenditures through an integrity monitor that is supervised by and reports to DOI.)
The examination for this Report began in 2021, well before the influx of asylum seekers, although some of the providers DOI examined are providing asylum seeker services. DOI’s focus on this area was prompted in part by the investigation of Victor Rivera, the former CEO of nonprofit City service provider Bronx Parent Housing Network, who ultimately pled guilty to a federal bribery-and-kickback scheme involving that nonprofit. DOI investigators drew on their knowledge of financial and administrative vulnerabilities in City-funded nonprofit providers generally to examine individual shelter providers’ governance and compliance practices, and potential conflicts of interest and other potential misconduct during this examination of 51 nonprofit organizations operating shelters for DHS. DOI reviewed the 2 operations of these organizations and their responses to a detailed questionnaire; analyzed an array of materials including audit reports, financial ledgers, invoices, and disclosures to the City; and conducted dozens of interviews, including of certain providers’ senior executives. DOI also evaluated the oversight of these providers by the City, including by DHS and DSS. The provider practices and City oversight reflected in the Report dates from 2018 through the present, although the majority of DOI’s information-gathering was completed from 2022 through 2024.
DOI received approximately 70 responses to the questionnaire distributed to City-funded nonprofit organizations. To date, DOI has completed findings on 51 providers and issued related referral letters to DSS, each one summarizing DOI’s findings as to individual shelter providers and, in total, raising hundreds of governance and compliance concerns at these providers. The findings in these referrals already have caused some providers to make improvements to their policies and procedures. The Report makes 32 recommendations to the relevant City agencies to address system-wide vulnerabilities, strengthen controls with respect to providers to protect the substantial public funds providers receive, and enhance public trust.
Aspects of this examination are still ongoing, and this Report is a summary of DOI’s major findings to date.
This Report builds on the findings from the investigations DOI has conducted in recent years that have focused on the City’s nonprofit vendor spending and which have resulted in criminal charges, administrative findings, integrity monitorships, and recommendations to improve City oversight of these contracts and providers. Since 2018, DOI investigations have resulted in at least 25 arrests on charges involving fraud and corruption at City-funded nonprofits, including prosecutions related to homeless service providers. Since 2018, DOI also has issued more than a dozen administrative referrals to City agencies – in addition to the administrative referrals issued as part of this examination -- reporting findings of mismanagement, noncompliance, or other non-criminal misconduct at City-funded nonprofits.
In 2021, DOI issued Report on Corruption Vulnerabilities in the City’s Oversight and Administration of Not-for-Profit Human Services, which identified gaps in the City’s general oversight of its contracts with nonprofit human service providers. Many of DOI’s prior findings and recommendations remain relevant to the findings of this Report, which focuses solely on the unique issues associated with the oversight of DHSfunded shelter providers.
This Report identifies a variety of compliance and governance risks at these providers, as well as in the City’s overall management of the shelter system. These risks vary in their severity and include:
• Conflicts of interest affecting City money. DOI identified cases where insiders at the shelter provider had personal business interests involving the shelter through which they received payments outside their regular compensation. In some cases, shelter executives simultaneously held employment at a private entity, such as a security company, that was hired to provide services at City-funded shelters.
• Poor Citywide controls over how City money is used for executive compensation. DOI identified multiple shelter executives who received more than $500,000 per year, and in some cases, more than $700,000 per year, from providers and related organizations. Executive compensation in these cases is funded either largely or in part through City funds. The City lacks sufficient rules concerning how much City money can be allocated to nonprofit executives’ salaries.
• Nepotism, in violation of City contracts. DOI found shelter providers that have employed immediate family members of senior executives and board members, in apparent violation of their City contracts. For instance, one provider that is largely funded by the City employed its CEO’s children since at least 2007. This provider subsequently entered into a DOI-managed monitorship agreement.
• Shelter providers failing to follow competitive bidding rules when procuring goods and services with public money. DOI found numerous cases where shelter providers did not comply with the City’s competitive bidding requirements or where it was unclear whether shelter providers conducted true competitive bidding processes. For example, this review identified multiple instances where shelter providers awarded multimillion-dollar building maintenance service contracts to companies affiliated with the buildings’ landlords.
DOI issued 32 recommendations to address the system-wide vulnerabilities noted in this Report. Included among the key recommendations are:
➢ DSS should appoint a Chief Vendor Compliance Officer to provide overall leadership for DSS and DHS’s compliance strategy with respect to nonprofit human service contracts, including contracts with shelter providers.
➢ Shelter providers should be required to regularly disclose additional information relevant to identifying compliance risks, including potential conflicts of interest for key persons.
➢ DSS and DHS should take steps to improve their oversight of shelter operators’ expenditures, including by immediately stopping payments for costs that are not accompanied by a proper description and ensuring that relevant agency staff receive regular financial compliance training.
➢ The City should update its electronic procurement and invoicing systems to better enable thirdparty oversight and centralize key documentation.
This Report also reiterates many of the 23 recommendations that DOI issued in its November 2021 Report on Corruption Vulnerabilities in the City’s Oversight and Administration of Not-for-Profit Human Services. While the City has implemented some reforms since the 2021 Report and is also undertaking some work that closely tracks DOI’s recommendations, many of the recommendations from 2021 have not been implemented at any substantial level. The 2021 Report recommended, among other things, that the City:
Reform its conflict-of-interest disclosure system for the City’s human service providers.
Develop more specific guidance to agencies on executive compensation and consider setting a cap or other parameters on City-funded executive compensation.
Conduct more robust reviews of expenses that human service providers invoice to the City, including by reviewing larger samples of supporting documentation.
New York City is currently making an unprecedented financial commitment to address homelessness. For that reason, it is more important than ever that it implement stronger risk management and compliance controls around this spending. Accepting and implementing the reforms set forth in this Report, as well as in DOI’s November 2021 Report, would be critical steps in this direction.
DOI Commissioner Strauber thanks DSS Commissioner Molly Wasow Park and her staff, for their partnership on this examination and the Mayor’s Office of Contracts and Mayor’s Office of Risk Management and Compliance for their assistance.
DOI also received support from two private firms with experience in investigations, audits, and compliance monitoring, who provided auditing and investigative resources with respect to certain provider reviews.
At DOI, this examination was conducted by Deputy Inspector General/Special Counsel Daniel Kacinski and Confidential Investigator Rushelle Sharpe, with the assistance of Senior Investigative Auditor Olga Avram and Senior Investigative Attorney Alex Cane in DOI’s Office of the Inspector General for CityFunded Nonprofits. Data Analysts Anthony McDowald and Zachary Sayle and Director of Data Analytics Shyam Prasad in DOI’s Data Analytics Unit provided technical assistance. The examination was supervised 4 by Senior Inspector General Andrew Sein, Deputy Commissioner of Strategic Initiatives Christopher Ryan, and Deputy Commissioner/ Chief of Investigations Dominick Zarrella.
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doi/press-releases/2024/October/39DHSRptRelease10.17.2024.pdf
对对，哈里斯拿鞋油把自己涂黑的，疮破是天生的橘色，全世界唯一的橘色人种
不同意。我家小娃在幼儿园。受学校影响非常大。咳嗽cover your mouth, 吃饭坐在桌边，上完厕所要洗手，在playground 要take turns. 这都是学校教的。我们教多久他都我行我素不好好做。学校里一学期后，明显各种manner就是进步多了。这就是教师和同学的巨大影响。
普通人的作用有限我深有体会 刚发声就有人试图攻击+mute我们
不过最近宾州的一个案子我觉得也有借鉴意义：
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pennsylvania-court-rules-in-favor-of-parental-right-to-opt-out-of-gender-identity-lessons/amp/
三个母亲告了学区 最后赢了
这是啥啊 这么长 好像和我的帖子主题没啥关系吧
不好意思有点好笑🤣
mark 说的太好了
通透！
这就是很多CU和PA家庭的误区了。你以为你买了个"好”学区，你就买到了“好”老师？
事实上加州公立老师的水平超级参差不齐，一个老师如果没做什么违法乱纪的事情，在加州基本不可能被干掉，还什么curriculum? 想多了。对小孩做出比这恶心几十上百倍事情的老师都多了去了。你的小孩没遇到，只能说是幸运，而不是不可能。这跟公校的免费饭一样，你可以选择不吃，但是绝对没人听你抱怨对饭菜的不满。
人家老师就挣那么点钱，教的小孩都是家收超他们的十倍的异族人，你还指望这些老师像没有情感一样的机器人把这些都硬生生忍了？你自己要先想通这个问题： 什么样的人会愿意留在CU和PA当老师，教这堆中印娃？ 换你会不会？你为什么不会？等你能回答这些问题了，你自然也就想通为啥老师会在学校教变性的知识了。
还是那句话，美国教育选择多如牛毛，连三迁都不需要你就可以有无数选择。你要追求教育的个性化，就去跟私校一个一个的问去。你浪费时间跟cusd杠，不会有任何作用，因为这本身就是一个政治立场的问题，而不是一个对与错的问题。老师没有打你娃，bully你娃这种common sense层面错误的行为，你就没法证明他有什么问题。就像你没法persuade别人改变他的政治立场一样的毫无作用。
工资超十倍也太夸张了吧 湾区也不是全部都是码农 我自己也不是
这位老师会不会被辞退不好说 听说之前被我们附近另外一个学区直接辞退了 老师也告了那个学区 最后输了 然后就来了我们学区 我们学区没有辞退Ta但是在开展调查
你说的对 好学区不一定都是好老师 很靠运气
你说的都有理，但是社会就是不可能时时刻刻都合每个人的心意，它甚至很多时候就是不合理，即使你纳税了。说到纳税，那红州女性是不纳税还是怎么的?凭什么要被管子宫?
如果你选择为你的意识形态奋斗到底，绝不搬家绝不转校，就跟学校死磕，我真的敬佩你。但是作为一个普通有家庭的人来说，占小朋友的角度，既然都已经这么焦虑悲观了，早点转校早点省心。
谢谢分享 如果条件允许 可以来加州体验一下 唉 有没有不那么红也不那么蓝的地儿 就不要搞什么极端 难道就只能去摇摆州了么😂
Re 这个。强制管理女人子宫比让小孩知道gender fluidity可怕太多了，简直是开倒车。LGBTQ教育又不是逼着人去变形，不准堕胎法是逼着人生！
全校都投？ 这个project咋听着充满了喜感。。
逼着不让做什么 vs引导让做什么（还不一定是真的） 肯定选后者
真的是完全天生的么？
The percentage of U.S. adults who identify as LGBTQ has doubled over the past decade, from 3.5% in 2012 to 7.1% in 2021. Gen Z adults who identify as LGBTQ has increased from 10.5% in 2017 to 20.8% in 2021. Millennials, ages 26 to 41, identifying as LGBTQ increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 10.5% in 2021.
亲，这边建议您移居红州呢，您的孩子在那边就收到maga白人的热烈欢迎，祝您生活愉快。
亲，这边建议您好好说话呢！不会说就不要说呢！
加州就这个环境了，胳膊拧不过大腿，你还有啥办法？我要劝你回中国，没有性教育这一说，私底下lgbt还是有的（红州也有）。你更生气or可以接受？
赞头脑清醒
不要胡扯。私立做一点点这种教育，心里很清楚有孩子的人也就是家长非常反感这种事，顾客就是上帝怎么可能故意得罪家长。
咋的 在一个地方呆着就得天天唱赞歌不能提任何意见不能表达痛苦？ 你是哪里来的霸权
谢谢你愿意语气正常的交流
是 很多人都说没有必要 大环境就这样 但是校长到TK director拿家长当傻子一样忽悠和敷衍的时候真是让人忍不了 必须找学区说几句
私立那么多，还有教会私立呢，非得盯着那几个左的?
并且这里我就要批评一下某些华人家长了，既要又要还要，既要逼格高“尊重孩子个性发展“，看不起不搞意识形态只填鸭的平民私立，又要别人不左选择性的“尊重“家长觉得可以尊重的，能不把小朋友的精神搞错乱吗？
真的即使你花了一点小钱(纳税or私立学费)，这个世界也没法围着你转的，说到底还是花钱不够，如果跟首富一个财富级别，可以自己开个学校。
這些人每天想的就是這些，像是我們安省前省長偉恩女士，身為女同，正事不幹，成天想著推行新版兒童性教育，然後呢，下一屆選舉直接把他的政黨送走，現在安省已經沒有自由黨的事了，憑藉一人之力斷送整個黨在省裡未來，這個黨就是小土豆的自由黨，希望明年把小土豆一起送走
华人一代和其他族裔一代都比较保守，川粉多，这个已经传遍美国了，所以左派的教育机构看你们上门闹，肯定是态度不好的。已经定性为敌我矛盾了，这个无解。但是等你孩子长大了，他们有投票权了，还是投民主党，人家也不怕你闹…….中国的学校里也有lgbt，只是不浮上水面而已，我觉得美国这种教育模式光明正大没啥不好的。希望有解决你的痛苦。
怎么可能？….但尊重别人的天生的or后天的性取向是大势所趋了，国内的年轻人其实也不在乎了。你要找一个禁止lgbt的地方，估计只能去某些宗教国家了。
可是我们也不反对LGBTQ的教育啊 我也觉得到了一定年纪需要了解这些
但是这不代表我同意四岁就开始满教室这些东西 挂画啊书啊老师的谈话啊等等 不学别的然后天天鼓励男娃穿裙子 这是另外一个极端了吧
也没有天天鼓励吧，我看了一些小红书的内容，其实就是一次吧。孩子不会穿一次裙子就被抓去强制变性回家再告诉你的。你可以多看看这个流程有多么复杂。美国很多孩子是和家长一直冲突，才会出现不做变性手术要自杀的情况，政府只能出钱挽救一个要自杀的孩子。孩子都以死相逼了，你能怎么样？回中国，去红州，摇摆州能改变这个事？只有很保守的宗教地区才会用直接打死的方案，估计你们也不想去，也舍不得孩子被打死哪怕他们真的是lgbt。
从你这些例子看，看不出“激进的性教育”。
dress up games里男孩子可以穿裙子，是鼓励孩子打破gender stereotypes, 不被社会所定义的性别局限。这跟鼓励变性完全是两回事。
性别有生理性别，也有社会上约定俗成的性别定义，比如男孩穿蓝，女孩穿粉，男孩子穿裤子，女孩子穿裙子，男孩喜欢汽车和机械，女孩喜欢娃娃过家家等等。现代教育往往提倡打破这些性别“刻板印象”，鼓励孩子们尝试不同的新事物。我想家长对女孩子穿短裤长裤都没什么意见吧？过去不少学校女生校服必须穿裙子的。并没有女生因为穿了裤子就想变性的。同样，男孩子在游戏里穿裙子怎么就会要变性呢？
老师本人不是Trans也可能鼓励孩子这么做，但是恰恰这个老师是trans就戳到某些家长的敏感神经了。
楼主把这么一件事上升到对整个加州的公校失望我觉得不够convincing, 退一步讲，这个老师只给你的孩子做一年的老师，明年孩子可能遇到一位更保守的老师。长大之后他四岁时被老师鼓励穿裙子的事儿，不过是个笑谈而已。你现在孩子小，把这个看做天大的事情，建议你看看版上各种高中孩子的问题讨论，这种焦虑真的是out of proportion.
与其是担心孩子受影响，不如是做为家长内心的恐惧心理被放大出来了。
声明一下，这件事上我确实认为楼主的言行是transphobia ，但是请注意我说的是你的言行，而不是你这个人。每个人都可能有局限性，都可能有歧视性的言行，但不意味着我们永远不能学习和改变。
真的我劝你也消消气，看看上面描述的这个教育系统的问题才只是意识形态的问题吗？
假定最好情况，家长抗议，老师把ta的宣传材料撤了(其实我觉得基本不太可能)，ta就会好好教学了?问题的重点难道不是教育系统从根儿上，就没把教学质量放到老师的kpi上，老师自然也不会把这个放心上，才止宣不宣传意识形态这一点点事么？就，这真的也不是抗议一下能解决的。
不是一次 是若干次 有中国男娃印度男娃 但是这个时限是开学前两周 已经非常密集了 后面老师就不断休病假 不怎么来学校了
说得轻描淡写，搬个家这么容易吗？那让老美也不要反堕胎了，谁都可以去蓝州堕啊。你怎么不把这么简单的方法去美国各大论坛上贴一帖，估计大家都会觉得你聪明绝顶赞死你了。
谢谢你写这么多
我觉得如果如你所说 这个老师是个例 不能因为个例否定加州教育 - 确实是这样的话 我比谁都高兴 立刻把娃从私立转回公立
希望更多的人来给我更多的例子 恢复我对加州公立的信心啊 能重新回公立我还能省钱何乐而不为
我还特别去查了一下transphobia 这个是啥意思 我不是 同事朋友都有trans 这在加州也不算啥稀奇的
不过我也是通过这个帖子了解了一个常规操作：就是给持不同意见的人不停的贴label 什么川粉 MAGA anti LGBTQ 又出来个transphobia
很少人真正谈事情本身 而是热衷于给提出问题的人贴标签
你真的有同事朋友是trans吗？你有了解过他们的心路历程吗？他们成为trans是因为在学校里“被洗脑”吗？你跟他们谈一谈，也许就不这么焦虑了。
不过，有trans朋友不能保证你不是transphobia, 要看你做什么，游戏里男孩子穿个裙子你觉得就是“激进性教育”，不是phobia还是啥？
你知道“I have a black friend so I am not a racist “是个笑话吗？
说到穿裙子 我再和你解释一遍 你听好了：家长们不反对男娃穿裙子 男娃想穿啥都行 而是男娃明确表示了自己不要穿 老师继续鼓励 而且老师在游戏中只提供了裙子 其他小衣服都在箱子里 没有其他选择
男娃回家和家长说了 家长觉得这不合适 这就成了anti LGBtQ和transphobia？您没事儿吧
呵呵，phobia是你定义的吗？
确实 即使如此也还是要和学区交流一下 我现在已经过了生气的阶段 谢谢
我很希望加州的朋友来和我说加州的公立很好 我其实愿意听 重塑信任 可是目前接收到的都是负面例子
大顶顶顶！
你也消消气，再说一遍，我说的是你在这个帖子里的言论，而不是你这个人。我们素不相识，也许你是个对朋友很温暖对社区很积极做贡献的人，你在某一个方面的言行我不赞成，不等于我要否定你这个人。咱们还是就事论事。
我自己和身边朋友们的孩子都大了，念公校私校的一半一半吧，有的家庭是一个孩子公校一个孩子私校，有的是念了几年私校再转回公校的。我的观察是只要父母上心，公校私校出来的都很不错。遇到困难的孩子，两边都有，但是，again, 有父母的全力支持，孩子们即使走一段弯路也都顺利长大啦。
我理解小娃父母的焦虑，自己也是过来人。说起来我孩子们的好朋友是trans, 我眼看着这个孩子一路成长上的挣扎和痛苦，我赞成学校里教育孩子接受不同的性别自我定义，想法不同的孩子们少受歧视和bully. 我的个人经验trans不是传染病，孩子也不会因为被“洗脑”而变性。
这个话题我想说的已经都说完了，祝你们讨论愉快。
好吧😅 我反省一下 谢谢回帖anyways
我觉得我们是on same page的
我在学区发言上说过（我的发言都是公开信息可以去查）：我听说过一个故事 一个TK女娃家长给所有同班家长写了个信 说自己女儿identified as boy 请大家支持并address properly 我说如果我是同班家长 收到这样的信 我肯定支持
但是我们的例子是老师是activist 在教室不遗余力的教这些 我想说孩子的gender identity并不是任何老师的training内容 尤其TK年龄 应该交给专业人士和家长 老师应该是配合而不是主动去发现孩子的性别然后还觉得自己在拯救世界 这是非常strong的personal preference
这位老师在个人网站说 no matter what others say，my students deserve to know xxx. 这位老师似乎致力于隔绝家长和孩子，老认为只有自己在主持正义拯救孩子。然后家长提出疑义，此老师和其他人立刻将事件上升为LGBTQ说自己被anti被针对。这有点极端。
安慰一下。 你的ID很有趣。
自己有没有黑人朋友，也没有必要用涂黑来证明自己是大爱。
我不回应你说的脑子不清楚的部分了 你这么来一句我倒觉得你脑子不是十分清楚
我们做的事主要是不断地写信 沟通 面谈 发言 回答媒体的问题 回答其他人的问题 其实很累 也确实过了这一波不打算再fight了
目前成果：我们complain的挂画被取下 老师被暂时停职 学区发布官方声明 各大媒体报道
我发这个帖子是为了让更多人了解我们在深蓝州经历的事 至于怎么看 是各位自己的判断了 有些家长也确实在看房子考虑搬家 确实加州大环境这样普通人能做的有限 每次都要这么fight一波精力上吃不消
加州还有其他事 比如孩子到12岁家长自动失去孩子的医疗记录access 要重新申请 同事说的我还没有仔细研究
公立转私立，蓝州转红州， 再不行就去其他国家。自己的娃还是要盯紧的。
请问是哪个州方便说吗？ Optional的还是好一些 我们这个是TK班 没有opt out选项
不要等到孩子们变性手术做完了，再后悔，too late. 看看Elon Musk，自己的娃做完了手术，他自己才意识到自己搞差了。
这是一个朋友的创意☺️ 谢谢
马里兰
Musk他孩子还是上的他自己开的学校呢，但是他从娃小时候就嘲笑她女性化也没纠正过来这个娃的性别，说明学校教育的影响比不上先天基因和出问题的家庭教育啊。。。
所以我说他没看好自己的孩子，后悔已晚。
这个老师估计有童年创伤，从小是transgender, 虽然周围的人都很宽容理解他，但是他没有belong 的感觉，所以他成年以后投身教育事业，立志为下一代创造出让transgender 孩子有归属感的学校环境，办法就是诱导更多的孩子变成transgender! lgbtq 积极渗透中小学基本都是出于同样的原因
我们这在疫情期间搬来好几家从加州过来，原因就是为了孩子。 说加州的教育太魔幻了。 我们这典型Midwest红脖子州，特别保守