Six years old is a little too young for that. You never truly know the reasons for the child "wanting" this. It could simply be that they truly want it, OR it could be very bad parents forcing the child to say that they want it. 6 years old is just too young.
I don't know, as a member of the LGBTQ community, I have much difficulty understanding the "T" part. I can only offer my experience. I pretty much knew my sexual preference by age 11. But at age 6??? I don't recall having the foggiest notion. I do recall that I was an effeminate child. However, if my parents had misconstrued it and went through these drastic measures to reassign my gender, I would have despised them for it. However, that is just my case.
From what I read so far in this case, it appears the child may be "gender expansive." Whatever that means. I'm not certain taking steps to force the child to be a "girl" is the called for action here.
You seem to be conflating gender assignments with sexual preferences. Gender and sexual preference are not the same thing. I think this is why you are saying 6 is too young and it is too young to be discussing sexual preferences.
If 6 was too young for gender, we would need to stop assigning gender to children at all. One thing we know for sure, is that the parents assigning gender at these "gender revels" before the child has even been born is definitely too early. It just happens to work most of the time because most people are cisgender (i think its 95%).
I think the larger point is it doesn't fucking matter and there should not be a coordinated effort to influence children one way or the other at such a young age because they haven't bothered to explore the situation themselves yet. "Get them while they are young" is a saying because children are malleable and easily influenced, and that is why the Postmodernist Deconstructivist Critical Theorist Marxists such as yourselves target such young children, because they are to young to have figured any of it out for themselves yet. All you are saying here is if the gender fluid/trans/non-binary/attack helicopters don't get to have the identity they want then no one can have an identity. This is at the core of why Critical Theory is so toxic. It uses the logic that equality is brought by denying others their rights and justifying it by acting in the name of some so called victim class.
You are off topic on this homeschooling rant anyway, you asked how I thought best to limit extremism and I replied. Your assumptions about "religion spreading like wildefire" are based on nothing and not as much of a big deal as you think it is anyway. I might also point out just because a lot of home schooled kids have religious parents doesn't mean home schooling makes people more religious. Furthermore, who the fuck do you think you are demanding that parents submit their children to the state for indoctrination anyway? If they want to raise their children religious that is their business. People raising their children to be religious is horrible to you but mutilating the genitals of children and chemically castrating them is fine?
Every private school is evidence for what he is saying. I teach at a school where my philosophy aligns and parents seek out our school because of that. "creating global thinkers" is a big part of our mission and we don't have flags in our classrooms.
Teachers at private schools have a responsibility to teach the values of the school's mission and every mission is biased. Unbiased would be to teach the kids about abortion and concentration camps and let them decide for themselves what is right and wrong but most schools will teach it with a certain bias like "killing babies is wrong" or "telling women what to do with their bodies is wrong" and "putting a group of people in concentration camps is wrong" or "there are consequences for your actions" .
Many private school missions even have politicized language in them. Look for words like "equality" "global" "diversity" vs "individual" "successful" "productive" and you can pick up on the code. Then you also have religious rules. A teacher who is not teaching in accordance with religious rules at a religious school can be fired. Someone like you would not make long at my school even if he was teaching something like computer science that, in theory, has nothing to do with political views but in a public school, you would be protected. That is why public schools reduce extremism. They provide more balance.
Every private school eh? You are a teacher and no one ever told you all inclusive statements are generally wrong? Furthermore you have no evidence of this, this is just a list of assumptions on your part. You seem to be under the impression that state run or public schools are without bias. Generally I find those who claim to be the most unbiased usually are desperately attempting to hide it. The state and public schools most certainly do have bias, you just think that is A-OK because they align with your own. That is not the same as being unbiased, which frankly is not possible. Some how your bias is more appropriate that the bias of others in your mind. Some one like me would make you look incompetent in your own classroom by knowing more about the subject matter than you as a teacher. I have done it before. You have no business "educating" anyone, except for maybe being a living example of the failures of Marxism.
Of course you would frame the ability to have open debate as something to be punished, but that is how public and state schools operate isn't it? Punishing those who disagree with the state narrative is something to be proud of in your eyes. Public schools reduce extremism? I guess that's why there is so much violence at them right? I am sure you think it is the fault of guns, and not the fact that it is designed to be a human meat grinder beating out any sense of individuality, critical thought, or free thinking from young minds. The fact that you are in a position to indoctrinate others is terrifying.