Of course I don't think teaching trans kids they're inappropriate is the right thing to do. Nobody in their right mind would ever think that. I think the book should absolutely be read in the classroom - but I also support the rights of parents to withdraw their kids. That's how a pluralistic society works
The reality is some kids are going to be taught that being trans is inappropriate. They'll be taught that by their parents anyway. There's nothing you can do to stop that happening. I'd rather those kids were pulled out (excluded) than trans kids, because it's a balanced compromise position in a pluralistic society.
Inclusivism doesn't hurt anyone ever is the point. I agree. And that really is the point. Mandating inclusivity doesn't work. Inclusivity has to grow organically because an inclusive society is one that tolerates the views of others in the hope that there will be consensus. If trans-kids were being pulled out of the class because they were a threat to the wellbeing you'd have a point about exclusion. But you don't.
If you had a trans-child, you'd want to pull them out of any story called 'Billy Binary Goes to School' - because you'd find it harmful to your child. That's your right as a parent. That's what equality means. Equal rights. That includes disagreement about the curriculum. Parents are free in a pluralistic society to bring their kids up how they want. Regardless of what you and I may privately think about what effect this has on everyone else. School can mitigate some of this - and it does... but if parents want to bring their kids up racist, homophobic or transphobic there's very little you or I can do about it.
A heavy handed approach simply entrenches existing views and polarises people. You're already seeing me as an enemy because I don't agree with your methodology and way of achieving inclusivity. Those parents, the moderates, that were on the fence, now find themselves being phoned by transphobic parents and recruited to the cause. Activists scored an own goal, and people suffered as a result.
People who disagree with you are not 'an immoral force for evil' - and that includes me. Hyperbole does you a disservice. I've listened to what you've said and I agree with your premise and not with your methodology. We both want the same end point. Screaming 'You're a bigot and evil and everything you say is garbage because you don't agree with me' doesn't bode well for a tolerant society. You went off like a bomb at the first indication that I didn't agree whole heartedly, you went straight into personal attack mode - and decided you 'don't want to hear any more'. What it really suggests that you'd like to run society on your own terms. That isn't a tolerant inclusive society, that's a tyranny.
