training, for real?

Elizabeth J. Meyer and Bethy Leonardi report that “Transgender, non-binary, and gender-creative young people are increasingly visible in schools” These are occasions where children report on occasion of being asked the right questions or given options by perceived authority. Meyer and Leonardo see it this way “Educators are being challenged to improve their practice in order to be more affirming of this expanding expression of gender diversity”  The identification of these children (referred as young people, a ruse to allow these the language of power over adults) is bound to happen in the school setting. Meyer and Leonardo also notice these “trans youth, who we defined as any child whose behaviour does not match stereotypes for their sex category assigned at birth, or who identifies with a gender different from their sex category assigned at birth” There is really no problem with children expressing themselves in ways that are not stereotypically symmetrical with their sex. Who says that a child has to act in a stereotypical way? This may be much ado about nothing. The creation of types of gender to “label” a person with seems trite, quite silly. Why not allow the children to act as they will without creating gender “categories” for them?  Inventing a multitude of “genders” seems a reactionary endeavor, leading to confusion and chaos. This entire struggle to find the right language is missing the point of behavior, if there were no reaction to the expressed behaviors then there would be no need to train educators to be “affirming” in any different way than to just be polite.  Referencing someone with their name rather than a pronoun seems helpful enough.  If the child is in distress about gender, it may be helpful to be affirming, but what kind of improvement would be necessary? One would assume that educators would be trained with their education or be naturally polite and firm.  If not able to manage a classroom and individual students, how can those educators be trainable at all?