Figured Out What A Horse Is

In the US, there is no meaningful legal definition for educational/academic neglect in any of the 50 states or federally. What this means is that a child can be "homeschooled" and exclusively be taught how to cook and clean, reach the age of 18 being unable to read, write, or count, and this alone is not considered neglect. That 18yo, should they even have the knowledge that suing exists, has no legal grounds to sue their parents for denying them an education.

In over 40 US states, a convicted child abuser can homeschool their children. So someone who has done time for child abuse and somehow regains access to their child(ren) can decide upon returning home that they want to "homeschool" their kids. Those children are now locked in a home with their abuser where nobody can see them.

There are no welfare checks.

There are no routine assessments.

There aren't even databases — state or federal — keeping track of how many homeschooled kids there actually are.

Meaning a child can be locked in their home for their entire life with their convicted abuser, learn absolutely nothing, never go to the doctor, and so long as that child is fed, clothed, and the abuse isn't physical or sexual, that child has almost no chance of rescue and no legal ground to seek restitution if/when they escape.

The only way homeschooled children get rescued is if they're beaten, starved, or physically neglected and they're able to get the right person to see that. Otherwise? They have to wait until someone finds out they were murdered as a result of their parents "homeschooling".

And feral homeschool parents love to jump down my throat about this, and then get even more pissed when I tell them I'm a homeschool alumni.

Because I know it's not all homeschoolers. But even one is too many, and the lack of protections should scare everyone. If you're a good homeschool parent, nothing will change. If not, you deserve whatever comes your way as a result of adequate oversight.

> look inside

"intrinsic gender," on the other hand, is what I used to refer to the sense of the word "gender" that a lot of trans people are talking about when they discuss social gender dysphoria and euphoria. it's the internal sense of category that's resistant to external impositions

but then we also use the word "gender" to refer to subconscious sex, which is the term Julia Serano coins in Whipping Girl to name the phenomenon we're talking about when we talk about bodily dysphoria. it is the "gender" being "affirmed" by gender affirming healthcare like HRT and bottom surgery

because we use the word "gender" to discuss both "intrinsic gender" as I termed it above, and subconscious sex, there's been a certain strain of argument from some trans people that says that medical transition reaffirms societal gender norms about bodies, and that bodily dysphoria must only result from externally imposed norms about what kind of body corresponds to what gender, and thus it would just go away if the gendered associations were unlearned

I'm strongly of the opinion, though, that our bodies are not like clothes! gender dysphoria related to clothing would generally have to do with one's intrinsic gender clashing with the gendered norms of their culture surrounding clothes, but I believe "gender" dysphoria related to the body itself is really, in large part, subconscious sex dysphoria, and this component cannot be alleviated by changing norms or associations. I strongly believe I would still seek HRT and bottom surgery if I lived my whole life in a cultureless vacuum