Controlling Our Kids

0:00This episode is sponsored by HomeBase. HomeBase is built for small businesses trying to do it all. The neighborhood coffee shop, the local gym, the family run restaurant. With HomeBase, you can schedule your team, track time, run payroll, and manage hiring from one easy app. So you can spend less time chasing time sheets and more time running the business your customers love. More than 150,000 small businesses already use HomeBase to keep their teams on track. Start free at joinhomebase.com. HomeBase, built for small businesses that do it all. 617-26668-6868, the text number 704-70. We're talking about school districts trying to use SERP parents' rights in order to push agendas, maybe not compatible with parents more of values or religious beliefs. And we were speaking with Tom in New Hampshire before the break. And you were tying up your point, Tom, and I'm so sorry we got interrupted. So please continue. So the point that this is going to be,

1:00this actually could lawsuit. So it's one that's actively up in Supreme Court right now. It's the grand case. And the state is actually challenging the growing at the lower court. And I was actually able to talk to you to an general's office and hand him over all the significant research that I did at the archives, which clearly shows that the claim on decision was a user patient of the people's rights. So now the state has filed 125 page grief seeking to overturn that decision. If that decision's overturned, the Hampshire more or less doesn't have public funding anymore. That's all serious. That's all wow. And moreover, myself and about it doesn't other people have also filed a case. Mine is Murray versus Town of Winter, Met All. And that's going to be going up to the lower court, probably in the next month or so, it's been filed. I've requested to file an amicus brief

2:01on the intervene on the state's case. But I've already made all my filings and complaints in my case. And the point being that it's going to be very difficult, because I feel very strongly that this case will get overturned because of the historical documentation and relevance. They asked this question before. It was rejected by the people. Only the people, only the people, their constitutional amendment can grant that consent. It's never been granted. And therefore, the people will have an opportunity for the first time if they want to fund public education in the New Hampshire. And I'm going to be honest with you. The whole discussion that we've been talking about is put reservation on a lot of people's minds. You know, without the parental control, people might say no. And you're going to need a 2, third majority in order to make that happen. So it's going to be really interesting with these cases

3:03as they proceed through the courts and moreover what the people will ultimately decide. Yeah. And the future of public education, which also leads us to the future of education period. So that's going to be something to thank you so much for calling, Tom, and telling me all about it, because I think that's going to be a pretty interesting case to watch. And I will absolutely watch it with beta breadth to see what happens, because I'm very intrigued by more than a little scared about what's happening in our public schools and our private schools too, but the public schools in particular. People have gotten used to the idea that universities and colleges are bastions of socialism and wokeness and are teaching. In my personal opinion, you know, a lack of values and respect for other people in the schools. And it was really funny. I played this when we were talking a little bit about education a couple of weeks ago. People, I played a cut from Secretary of the Transportation

4:08Sean Duffy, whose child was applying to colleges. And she said to her father. And he had part of a podcast he was doing. He had this all in film. And she had said to him, well, if I feel like if I get into Harvard, dad, you and mom have to let me go, because it's Harvard. And his response is, no, we don't have to let you go to Harvard. And he was pretty supposed to not letting her go to Harvard. And she didn't go to Harvard, by the way, because we don't like the indoctrination that they're going to teach you. And I think people have gotten used to the idea that they have to be very wary of colleges and universities because of that. But one of the really scary things about this case on a New Jersey, and I think what Tom's case is going to affect, is the lower levels, too, all of public education. Because the case in New Jersey is about an elementary school. The school board is keeping, or the school administration, is keeping information regarding elementary school students from their parents. And they say, well, we need to protect them,

5:09because maybe their parents are going to be upset if they're transgender oriented. And it's like, well, maybe that's the parents right to be upset. Maybe the parents have a right to sit down and say, is this something you really want? Or is this something that you feel pressured into? Let's find out. Let's go see a doctor, or multiple doctors, whatever it is you need to do. That is a parents right to do that. And that is what the school wants to use, SERP. And that's a violation of the president, that the president, the parents, 14th Amendment rights. That is a constitutional violation to do that. Because the Constitution basically says that parents have a right to make critical mental health and well-being decisions for their minor children. I mean, it's not written in English the way I just read it, but it is what is implied in the Constitution. And besides 14th Amendment, there's also another problem there. There's another pillar of the plaintiffs' approach

6:13to this lawsuit with the School District of Chatham. And that is the First Amendment issue, which is free speech and compel speech as part of that First Amendment. The lawsuit is challenging the provisions requiring school staff to use a student's preferred name and pronouns. The plaintiff is arguing this forces teachers and administrators to engage in what they call compelts, peach, that may in fact violate their personal beliefs. I mean, I have no idea what the personal beliefs of my teachers were, nor should I, when I was growing up, because those were their personal beliefs. I have nothing to do with what they were teaching me. And requiring a teacher who finds, as a couple of callers have this morning, when they referenced Katelyn Jenner, and my use of the pronoun she, as Katelyn Jenner's preferred pronoun, basically said, well, you're buying into a sickness. And, okay, you have the right to believe that.

7:16What if there's a teacher who believes that, too? And yet that teacher is now forced to call little Johnny Mabel or use the pronouns, and this is against their personal beliefs. So that is a First Amendment issue that arises from this policy that New Jersey has. And plus, there's also an issue where the policy creates an environment where staff or students who disagree with a student's social transition face disciplinary action. And that's called chilling protected expression. So not only are your personal beliefs being violated, but you're punished if you don't fall into line. This episode sponsored by HomeBase. HomeBase is built for small businesses, trying to do it all. The neighborhood coffee shop, the local gym, the family run restaurant. With HomeBase, you can schedule your team, track time, run payroll, and manage hiring from one easy app. So you can spend less time chasing time sheets and more time running the business your customers love.

8:17More than 150,000 small businesses already use HomeBase to keep their teams on track. Start free at joinhomebase.com. HomeBase, built for small businesses that do it all. This is Sandy Shack. We're discussing New Jersey School District. Chathams is the name of the district who are ignoring parents' constitutional rights to raise their child in favor of student privacy. What does that mean? It means that they keep mental and physical health and safety information from parents. They keep secrets. That's a direct violation of 14th Amendment rights of the parents. They're parental rights and due process. It's also free speech violation. The way these guidelines are written in regard to both at compels speech. It's a compelled speech violation because it requires school staff and other students to use students' preferred name and pronouns, which may force teachers and administrators

9:19to engage in what's called compelled speech that may violate their personal beliefs and other students, too, for that matter. And it also is chilling a free speech because it creates an environment where staff or students who disagree with the students' social transition face disciplinary action. And that's a chilling protected speech violation. That's what that is because if you're punished for a slip on the tongue, you use the old name or pronoun because you just didn't think about it or because it's against what you believe in, that's chilling a free speech to punish somebody for what they say is a chilling a free speech. So don't you soon become afraid to talk to your fellow classmates? Because you might be punished if you make a mistake or if you're a teacher that how many times have you seen kids who now believe that they're unaccountable for things and they will miss so and so

10:21how dare you and attacks their teacher for using their wrong pronoun, even if it's a by mistake, never mind a violation of their personal beliefs. So that's the other thing that's going on up there that's pretty, I think, is a constitutional violation. And one of the tenets of this lawsuit brought by some elementary school parents in regard to what's happening in their minor child's school. Then another issue that's caused under the First Amendment as well is freedom of religion that this affects. Because this policy infringes upon the First Amendment rights of religious parents, because if you think about it by withholding information by a child's gender identity, the school is depriving the parents of the ability to guide their child through some deeply personal matters in accordance with their religious faith and their moral framework. That's really, in my opinion, one of the biggest issues

11:24with these guidelines in New Jersey. And then a fourth component of the lawsuit is basically the charge at the school board is essentially violating civil rights here, basically. I think that's pretty clear. The parents' constitutional rights, the civil rights, it's an abusive state authority. Because if you look at the civil rights statute is, I know this by heart, because I've dealt with it so many times, 42 USC Section 1983. It claims that this lawsuit claims that school officials acting under the color of state law are actively violating clearly established constitutional rights. And I think that is without a doubt the truth here what we see happening. So I think the school board in New Jersey has a lot to answer for. I mean, it comes down to, which is more important or deserves more deference here. The constitutional rights of parents,

12:25their parental authority, and the right to make actual critical mental health and well-being decisions for their child. Or, I think one of the things that the school board says it needs to protect against is unauthorized outings of LGBTQ students. But I don't know if that makes sense to me, unauthorized outings. I mean, exposing a student's transgender status without their consent, according to the school, could jeopardize the student's emotional or physical safety at home, which according to the school district triggers the school's duty of care to protect the child. That's what they're saying. But this is within their home. You're not taking an ad out in the tab. I mean, this isn't something you're announcing on a billboard or making a public announcement of. This is within the child's family unit. And there are, my guess is a lot of private issues

13:26within a family unit that aren't discussed outward that the school has no business being involved. And I don't think they have any business being involved in this one either. What do you think? Let's go to George and Winchester, George. Welcome to WRK, how are you? I'm doing good, thank you. Yeah, I just want to call on one thing you briefly said there about the privacy act. He's made a good point, like it's just a family, but it's being publicly made in the school system, all the other students are made aware of it. Yeah, it's more public that way. I mean, all you're really doing is just hinging it from the privacy of the parents. That's a really good point. That's nothing to do in the public. That's an excellent point, George, that completely went right by me. Absolutely, that's exactly right. How public is it when all your little friends now have to change your pronouns, your name, and notice that you're using the boys locker room instead of the girls locker room when, and you know, but you can't tell your parents, but the parents are something you can't tell. So I mean, that's that or your family members. I mean, that's an excellent point, George.

14:28George, do you think that children have a right to privacy? Yeah, I'm a nod at the next time. I believe the parents ultimately the care givers of the kids. And I mean, I believe, no matter what side of the fence around whether you agree with this, disagree with that, and the parents, one should be united. This is a tool to divide people. Yeah, that's how a lot of these moving sort of history works is the minority controls the majority by division. This is cause and division. The parents should be united on this, whether you agree with this or whether you disagree with this, you should be concerned that the parents' rights are being taken away. Yeah, it's a topic. Yeah, I agree with that. You should be more concerned. I don't care about the topic. I care about your rights. I'm not expecting the parents' rights. What if a topic comes up? I don't agree with you. You're going to bypass my thoughts on that as well. Yeah. Well, it's kind of like in the topic aside, do you remember there was a story, I think it was out of California at San Francisco, where students were taken to a mosque,

15:29and parents were not told that that was going to be happening. And the female members of the class were made to wear hijabs and taken to a mosque and basically proselytized and given currents and the whole bit and the parents were never told. Even though the parents usually have to sign permission slips for students to go anywhere off campus. They're not allowed off campus unless a parent has agreed. But to a mosque, it was allowed. Why? Because it fed in with the agenda of the school. So, I mean, that's the same thing, isn't it? A parent is not told that this is going to happen. Has nothing to do with LGBTQ, has to do with religion, but not with LGBTQ. So, that's exactly what you're talking about, I think, yes. Yes, exactly. We got us at the topic. And at some point, with the Muslim, I would just bring out nothing against it. But what happened if they never did that to Christianity? These people would have been executed. I'm so hungry. Well, you know, it's funny. And I was talking to a friend of mine

16:29who's a member of the LGBTQ community. And who has no problem with Palestine and Muslim? And it says, and thinks that the response to the Islamification of the US is, you know, clandworthy. I'm like, really? That just shocks me because I'm like, you know, do you have any idea what would happen to you in a radical or a conservative Islam country? Do you have any idea? And I said, they would kill you. They're not just going to say you can't get married or you can't vote. They're going to kill you. And his response was, no, they aren't. I said, really? Let me just give you an example. And I pulled up for him some stories on my phone regarding, you know, some gay people being killed with a bulldozer. That's their idea of stoning in current civilization or throwing off the top of a building. And then I showed him a speech that the president of Iran at that time, which was about 10 years ago,

17:31I gave when he was in New York, where it was a presser. And one of the press people said, well, how do you treat gays in Iran? And he said there are no gays in Iran. And, you know, because they don't recognize that they exist. Yet, you know, here you have this combination of liberal LGBTQ members of the community supporting anti-Israel pro-Islamification without understanding what that means for them. They have no, there's no effort to actually learn what this means. They've just been indoctrinated that it's better to be anti-Semitic than it is to be, you know, that's, that to me is shocking, George. I mean, I just have trouble understanding why we have this huge ignorant population that has no idea of what they're really protesting for, or standing up for. More or less following the lead, whatever it says.

18:33Yeah, like I said, I've given it that other people, you almost find any wrong death certificate if this becomes why I do realize. And they don't, and they don't realize it. And, and part of the reason why, George, I think, and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong, I think part of the reason why here is that the schools, now the elementary schools, I mean, we've seen it in the colleges already, you know, where you saw those protesters in, in, from Columbia University, they were asked during the, the big anti-Israel, you know, from the, from the river to the sea with their chanting and they were asked, do you know what that means? Well, there's a river. Okay, do you know why you're protesting? And I remember one protest are turning to the other and going, what are we protesting for? We just know they needed our help to protest and we came down. And that's, I mean, we've seen that now in the colleges, but what's really scary to me, with this case out in New Jersey, is this is elementary school. And they're more concerned with teaching kids to use other pronouns or to keep secrets from parents, than they are about reading, writing, and arithmetic.

19:35We're raising a generation of stupid people, essentially. And not stupid because I'm not saying they're stupid because they want to transition. I'm saying they're stupid because they don't know, the schools have become DEI facilities instead of education facilities. So these people don't even know how to look up what they're standing up for. That's my fear, George. Am I in reading too much into it? No, no, I think you're hitting a lot of points right on. And the scary thing about it is, I mean, if you look at history's civilizations and when it's been tried to major culture shifts by certain groups and leaders, I mean, they divide the population into three categories, the old, the middle class, and the young. The old, don't worry about it. It's going to be dead some, the middle class. You're going to win some, lose some. And then the young who are easily malleable. Oh, George, thank you so much for the call. I think you hit, we're talking about the erosion of parental rights in local schools and how they think that parents no longer have a say

20:38in what happens to their child. On the text line, 508 says, regarding schools with holding information about children from parents regarding sex changes, pronoun changes, I would ask just who helped inculcate this information to children in the first place. This, defying the scotus and withholding information for parents are next steps and it's now not so secret agenda to encourage the breakup of families. I think that is correct. I think that's exactly what's happening. 207 says, a fourth or fifth grader has no reason to believe that they are transgender unless someone put the idea and their pliable minds. How does the conversation start to begin with? That's a good question too. I have absolutely no idea on that. Another 508, Sandy, good morning. What if one of these students decides that they identify as a conservative Christian child of God? How would the school react? Would they respect the child's beliefs or would they immediately call the parents? On another note, one of my neighbors is a middle school teacher

21:39who has one year left before retiring. She teaches at an affluent town just outside of 128 with a fairly large Jewish community. This town recently had several Muslim families move in. The teenage boys have made some anti-Semitic comments and do not believe that they have to answer to my neighbor because she is a woman. Everyone is afraid to even broach the issue. Well, that is one of the problems that we have is, there's no assimilation going on. There's basically people bring their culture over as they should and they should have pride and revere their culture, that doesn't mean you don't absorb and assimilate into the culture where you moved. Otherwise, why did you come? That's my question if you were so apporant and why are you here? Just a little aside, because I didn't want to really go into the Islamification. But I think it is applicable to this topic, as we were talking with some of the scholars before and that is a trend of schools not letting you know

22:39when kids are going on a field trip to a mosque or kids, they're not letting you know when anything happens with your child. But in particular, the guidelines we're talking about today is the Chatham School District in New Jersey, which says that voluntary state guidelines requiring, require them to keep secret any effort a child makes and we're talking elementary school. Any effort a child makes in changing their pronouns, changing their name, wanting to turn transgender, going to another restroom or locker room, they keep that secret from the parents. And that is more important than a Supreme Court holding that says no, no, no, no, parents have a right to raise their child and you must bring them in on it. Now, the specific New Jersey state guidelines, which Chatham says are more important than the Supreme Court decision, explicitly says that a student's wishes should govern the release of information regarding gender identity and instruct schools

23:41to avoid outing students to parents if doing so could threaten the child's safety at home. Well, I want to know who decides if the child's safety is threatened, do they launch an investigation, do they make an effort to find out? And if so, who's doing this? Who's doing the investigation? I tend to think not, they're assuming a threat, which most likely doesn't exist. We're talking, this is, we're talking ten year olds. And so you think that child's gonna be threatened if they say, hey, mom, I would prefer to wear, you know, a dress, I don't think so. I think that the mom might say, well, we need to talk about this. I don't think they're going to threaten their child. Isn't it more likely that this guideline is actually designed to drive a wedge between the child and the parent? So the schools don't have to compete for authority over the child, which is kind of what our, our textor just said.

24:43That seems to me to be more on the lines of what's happening here. And it seems to be a trend toward icing parents out in both New Jersey and in other places as another caller we just said mentions. Because in a very big pushback against the parental rights movement, the New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Plaquins sued a bunch of schools that tried to pass mandatory parental notification rules. So the AG of New Jersey actually sued school systems that said, yeah, the parents really have a right to be informed and we're gonna notify them because we don't think your guidelines are accurate in this a Supreme Court case. And he's suing to stop them. He is suing to stop them. And the New Jersey Superior Court, which is no, upheld an injection blocking them from implementing parental notifications. So because they said it would cause a reputable harm to vulnerable students. Again, who's deciding who's vulnerable here?

25:46What classification is vulnerable? And where is the threat? Their parents are the threat? And again, who decides which students are, aren't they assuming that all students are LGBTQ students? If they're saying that they're all vulnerable, isn't that actually creating a protected class of students and treating them at a higher, giving them a higher level of protection than other students who, you know, I find this so hypocritical and nonsensical. What do you have any idea what the parental notification laws are in your child's school? I mean, it's not something to be honest with you. I would have looked up before this started happening. So I'm just saying, do you know? Because it looks to me like this is something you should know. Because what are you going to do

26:46when you find out that your school says, no, we don't have the right to tell you anything? Next thing you know, there was an issue during COVID. They were taking kids to get vaccinations without parental discussion or permission. They're just doing it. So where do we drive the line? That's one of the questions we have. Tommy from Brockton, welcome to WRKO. How are you Tommy? This topic really angers me because as your previous college, George said, this is a way to drive a wedge between families. And imagine me a 66 year old guy having a conversation with your 13 year old daughter about when I was in the prime of my youth and my sexual exploits with young women. That would be totally inappropriate

27:48in discussing in my view. And if there were a father out there, I hope that if an individual ever did that with his 13 year old daughter, he would do what Buford T. Pusser did in the movie Walking Tall, mainly use a Louisiana slugger. We have just gone with this. I don't know what it is with white liberals in this country, but there's just this permissiveness of that everybody has to be accepted. We have to have everybody like us. I don't have a problem with same sex relationships or same sex people. And there are same sex people that are speaking out against this, thank God. There are, absolutely. You know, and I'm no longer on social media because I just can't take the stuff that I see on there now. You're like the third person I've spoken to, by the way,

28:50in three days who've told me they have foresaic in social media for that reason. Oh, I just got off Facebook. I can't take it any longer. The virtue signaling and the anti-Trump stuff, you know, but it bothers me because when I went to Sunday School in my teen years, I can remember male elders talking about the term heavy petting. And mainly what it was was they were trying to focus on premarital sex in respecting females. Now the same church that I was baptized in and Bethany congregationalist church, I won't mention the town, but on their Facebook page, they now celebrate trans affirmation. And in my high school, I went in a few years ago, just to tour it for, you know, to get some records.

29:52And in the English and the social studies department, on the second floor, there was just everything plastered on the walls about LGBTQ plus. And I had biracial grandchildren and there was this was 2022 after the George Floyd summer. And it said, I am white, you cannot make me black. And I'm thinking to myself, what, you know, if those grandkids were in that school, what kind of teachings are these teachers telling them to what despise one of their white parents for things that happened in the past? And it's just this cultural Marxism that has gone on in this country that we've got to stand up against. Yeah. And taking away parental rights, when I was a kid, you had to get permission from the school nurse if you were going to take an aspirin.

30:52Yeah, me too. And now that's turned around where, well, we're not going to tell your father that you identify his female. I mean, just stop it. Well, the interesting thing that I'm seeing, Tommy, is that that's happening at the, at the, you know, the grade school level, the local school district level, like in New Jersey, it's the child school district that's doing it. But the interesting thing that is on a national level, the federal court level, it's, the landscape is shifting dramatically just in this past year. From the court, I mean, while New Jersey state courts have consistently blocked parental notification, the federal courts are shifting away from that, which is creating the openings for these lawsuits that are coming. I mean, this past spring and March, the case I was talking about earlier, Mirabelli versus Bonta, you have the U.S. Supreme Court intervening in a California case.

31:53And indicating that parents are highly likely to succeed on their first and 14th Amendment claims regarding notification, while California tried to, why to kill parental notification, the U.S. Supreme Court got involved and said, yeah, no, rethink that. And then there was also a case earlier this year where the federal government found that state policies that instruct schools to hide gender support plans from parents or in direct violation of the family educational rights and privacy act FERPA. The DOJ and the nationwide U.S. Department of Education rule the parents have an absolute statutory right to inspect all educational records of their minor children. That's a step in the right direction, but that has not been litigated. And then just this month, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a formal federal lawsuit against Kansas City Public Schools. The DOJ is saying that the school district was unconstitutionally

32:54facilitating secret gender transitions for minor children without notifying parents. And so they're trying to rein them. And basically over 10 states have passed or advanced laws in this past year mandating parental notification within very tight windows, usually 72 hours if a student requests a social transition at school. Now, I think that has to be much broader and not just regarding social transitions, I mean, sexual transitions, but I think it's a step in the right direction. And this Chatham lawsuit represents a direct collision between the school district relying on state guidelines and New Jersey state court rulings which prioritize student privacy and the new federal momentum. And the U.S. courts, U.S. Supreme Court's Mirabelli action, which strongly reaffirmed federal parental rights

33:57over state level educational mandates, which are usually voluntary, which they are in this case. So we're seeing a movement on the federal level away from icing parents out. And while we are seeing it in the local states, so one by one, we're picking off states and bringing it back. And I think what this requires, Tommy, is an effort on each of us to let the school boards know that we're watching them. I think we need, I think if you have children in school, need to call up and ask point blank, don't hedge around, what are your parent notification policies? And what areas do you not notify me? I want to know. And if you can get it in an email writing, even better, find out exactly what it is, wherever, whatever state you're in, find out what it is. Because there is a shift happening, but it's happening from the federal level.

34:57And we need it to see down to the state level. Otherwise, I think we've lost the whole generation to stupidity, basically. And because you have state people who don't necessarily have the best interests of an individual child at heart, versus a family for whom that child is everything. And I think that's one of the problems, one of the many, many problems that you have with the socialist, takes a village to raise a child. It really doesn't. It takes a family to raise a child. Or at least a caring parent to raise a child, whether that parent be biological, not who cares. It just means somebody whose entire being is about protecting that child. And that's not the school system. That's what I'm saying. Thank you for the call, Tommy. I appreciate it very much. In this struggle over parents' rights, it appears to be, to me, and I might ask the question, actually, is it being fueled by the liberal establishment

35:58and their zeal to break up the nuclear family, destroying a nuclear building block of Western civilization? Or is it more of an effort to create a, well, essentially, a group of people who are helpless, who don't know what to do because they're controlled by the state if they're not controlled anymore by a school administration that has an agenda that has a political agenda, as opposed to what's thinking what's best for the child. I think both art play here. I think that LGBTQ rights are being used as a cudgel to keep teachers and women, too, by the way, not just women as a subsection of that as well, in line. And oh, maybe women have just gotten too vocal and too powerful. I don't know. And I want to point out there's a story that happened

36:58in California. Sorry, Colorado. There's a Colorado teacher. She's an award-winning Colorado teacher at that, just so you know. She's not just a Schlock teacher, not that there are any Schlock teachers. I'm just saying, she is, you know, she was a revered teacher. And she's facing a lot of scrutiny after a complaint that accused her of spreading anti-transgender messaging by wearing, she had this t-shirt that said, XX does not equal XY. There's an equal sign with a slash through it. So XX does not equal XY chromosome t-shirt to a professional development training event that happened earlier this year. And her name is Stacey Adair. And she says that the school told her they got an anonymous complaint. Nobody said anything to me the day I wore the shirt. She was named teacher of the year in 2025 of the Teacher Freedom Summit. And I would say that people didn't even know what her t-shirt meant, yet somebody

38:00was complaining about it. And she says she doesn't think that people knew what it meant, because she was telling one of her friends about getting a complaint about her t-shirt. XX does not equal XY. And the friends going, that's math, right? And she's like, well, no, it's genetics. So a week after the meeting, she was called in. She was given a questionnaire about why she had worn the shirt and was instructed not to wear clothing with controversial messaging going forward. And she's like, what is going on? And then she became fearful for her job, worried that she's under heightened scrutiny now. And she doesn't understand why she's be edged out or why she's been picked out for wearing that particular shirt. And it looks like it's an example or emblematic of a larger power struggle that's happening in schools over ideology and control. And they're using, in my opinion,

39:00transgender ideology and the issue of transgenderism to beat up people. The same way they used to use racism to beat up people. If you disagreed with somebody who was a minority, you were obviously erases. Well, no, I don't agree with what they're saying. Well, you must be a racist then. So now they're doing that. But instead of using minorities and racism, they're using transgender issues and LGBTQ issues. And basically calling you transphobic or homophobic, if you do anything that questions anything regarding transgenderism or an LGBTQ issue. And this appears to be what has happened to this award-winning teacher. Her case began when she just took what she wears t-shirts all the time that have words on them, you know, word t-shirts. And she wore it to a professional development event, which is a routine training for teachers during the back to school season. And she wears these shirts all the time. And she had a math fax t-shirt to meet

40:03a member of the president's cabinet, secretary of education, Linda McMahon, when she came to the school. And the school district doesn't have a policy against wearing political or disruptive clothing. But she didn't view this as either of those things. She didn't see her shirt as overtly political or disruptive, especially since, are you ready for this? At this training seminar, there were no students present. There were no students present at the, students were not part of this. Not a single student anywhere around. This was just other teachers. So she just grabbed a t-shirt that she felt like wearing that day. And she says, I just wear these shirts because they're fax. I feel like someone has to be stating the truth. And so she decided she wanted to wear that. So no students present, how was her shirt disruptive? She thinks basically that she may have been, she may have been singled out

41:05because she helped strip the teacher's union grip on her district earlier, a couple of years earlier. She had helped topple two members of a school board who were backed by the union. Without those people on the board, the board allowed the district's contract with teachers to lapse because they didn't vote to renew it. So basically, so she thinks they're trying to pay her back now for doing something that the union did not approve of. And so they're using the LGBTQ community to do it. They're bashing her over wearing that t-shirt. XX does not equal XY. Do you think that's an offensive t-shirt? Is that a political message? Or is that just a biological genetic message?