| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply 16:53 - Dec 20 with 10391 views | Mullet |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67754359
There's a 12 week consultation open now if you want to have your say. I can say, it has been a minefield in recent years. We've had pupils who have totally hidden their transition from parents and lived two lives effectively.
Parents who were totally onboard and included us in everything. Parents who seemed to blame the school and refuse to accept their kids' choices leaving us in a difficult position.
I just don't see how this really solves anything, or makes a decision. Safeguarding, no matter the issue is always the top priority. In the same way you always call a child by what they prefer whether that's a shortened version or you don't use a certain surname because that parent isn't around or whatever, deadnaming a kid just seems abhorrent to me still.
This is becoming yet another strand of social care where schools are just expected to fix it seemingly. |  |
| |  |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:06 - Dec 21 with 1876 views | itfcjoe |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 16:58 - Dec 21 by StokieBlue |
Where should we be looking for the nuance in this statement?
"parrot the fallacy that ‘transwomen are women’ and ‘transmen are men’"
SB |
The nuance is that it is madness to put somebody who has been trans for 20 years, lived as the other gender for that time, built their life as so, maybe even had gender reassignment surgery in the same category as someone who has decided they are trans a few days before, haven’t changed they way they present, or done anything else.
They can’t both be be treated the same, but people are willing to admit there is a sliding scale between them and that just a straight categorisation doesn’t work. So the view that person 1 in the above example is a woman and person 2 is still a trans woman not a woman is seen as transphobic |  |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:08 - Dec 21 with 1849 views | StokieBlue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:04 - Dec 21 by lowhouseblue |
i'm not convinced that you are familiar with her writing or the research she has done. so i'll put yours down as an opinion based post rather than an evidence based one. |
No problem.
I wouldn't expect you to cite my post as evidence in any debate.
Glad you're starting to understand how this works.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:22 - Dec 21 with 1779 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:06 - Dec 21 by itfcjoe |
The nuance is that it is madness to put somebody who has been trans for 20 years, lived as the other gender for that time, built their life as so, maybe even had gender reassignment surgery in the same category as someone who has decided they are trans a few days before, haven’t changed they way they present, or done anything else.
They can’t both be be treated the same, but people are willing to admit there is a sliding scale between them and that just a straight categorisation doesn’t work. So the view that person 1 in the above example is a woman and person 2 is still a trans woman not a woman is seen as transphobic |
and trans women are not identical to adult females. they differ in terms of life experience and in terms of biology. those differences are undeniable. the question is in what situations is it appropriate to recognise those differences - there are of course very few such situations but they have been the focus of the public debate (prisons, refuges, medical care, sexual preference, sport). in those specific and relatively narrow settings the mantra that trans women are women doesn't work and has to be qualified. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:47 - Dec 21 with 1701 views | tcblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:06 - Dec 21 by itfcjoe |
The nuance is that it is madness to put somebody who has been trans for 20 years, lived as the other gender for that time, built their life as so, maybe even had gender reassignment surgery in the same category as someone who has decided they are trans a few days before, haven’t changed they way they present, or done anything else.
They can’t both be be treated the same, but people are willing to admit there is a sliding scale between them and that just a straight categorisation doesn’t work. So the view that person 1 in the above example is a woman and person 2 is still a trans woman not a woman is seen as transphobic |
Who are these people you think "decided a few days before"?
Do you really think folks just have a whim?! |  | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 18:08 - Dec 21 with 1644 views | itfcjoe |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:47 - Dec 21 by tcblue |
Who are these people you think "decided a few days before"?
Do you really think folks just have a whim?! |
Where did I say it was a whim? But there are clearly people so early in their journey that they are in no way the same as those who have been in that position for decades let alone years | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 19:06 - Dec 21 with 1555 views | tcblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 18:08 - Dec 21 by itfcjoe |
Where did I say it was a whim? But there are clearly people so early in their journey that they are in no way the same as those who have been in that position for decades let alone years |
Fair play, I misread your post, think you were talking about reassignment surgery.
Sorry | | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:03 - Dec 21 with 1494 views | itfcjoe |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 19:06 - Dec 21 by tcblue |
Fair play, I misread your post, think you were talking about reassignment surgery.
Sorry |
But I think this is the problem, in the online sphere - anyone who doesn’t agree that all transwomen/transmen are women/men is labelled a transphobe so it just leaves room for so much bad faith debating and bad actors in the field on both sides of the debate | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 21:10 - Dec 21 with 1446 views | Herbivore |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 17:06 - Dec 21 by itfcjoe |
The nuance is that it is madness to put somebody who has been trans for 20 years, lived as the other gender for that time, built their life as so, maybe even had gender reassignment surgery in the same category as someone who has decided they are trans a few days before, haven’t changed they way they present, or done anything else.
They can’t both be be treated the same, but people are willing to admit there is a sliding scale between them and that just a straight categorisation doesn’t work. So the view that person 1 in the above example is a woman and person 2 is still a trans woman not a woman is seen as transphobic |
To apply for a gender recognition certificate you have to have been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years so this again feels like something of a straw man. You talk about wanting nuance but you really aren't displaying much of it, offering up extreme examples and black and white statements that trans women aren't women and trans men aren't men. Think you probably need to reflect on yourself and your own positioning before you start suggesting that it's 'the debate's that's the problem. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 21:23 - Dec 21 with 1407 views | tcblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:03 - Dec 21 by itfcjoe |
But I think this is the problem, in the online sphere - anyone who doesn’t agree that all transwomen/transmen are women/men is labelled a transphobe so it just leaves room for so much bad faith debating and bad actors in the field on both sides of the debate |
I just misinterpreted your message, I still think you're wrong on.this one and have some transphobia. Or maybe there's a better word for those who don't recognise / understand the difference between sex and gender.
One is a fluid social construct, the other one is purely the physical attributes and genitalia at birth.
Honestly - do yourself a favour and try to talk about it with some folks who are living it. It opened my eyes.
Edit: and to reiterate, I was a transphobe, at least in terms of my ignorance. My greenhouse is full of holes [Post edited 21 Dec 2023 21:43]
| | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 08:30 - Dec 22 with 1289 views | itfcjoe |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 21:23 - Dec 21 by tcblue |
I just misinterpreted your message, I still think you're wrong on.this one and have some transphobia. Or maybe there's a better word for those who don't recognise / understand the difference between sex and gender.
One is a fluid social construct, the other one is purely the physical attributes and genitalia at birth.
Honestly - do yourself a favour and try to talk about it with some folks who are living it. It opened my eyes.
Edit: and to reiterate, I was a transphobe, at least in terms of my ignorance. My greenhouse is full of holes [Post edited 21 Dec 2023 21:43]
|
I don't really see much need for further debate, because on the majority of points you have I don't disagree, I don't deny the existence of trans people
I just have, over the years seen the online discourse on social media and in the press etc and there is a point that if you don't agree with the term - "Trans women are women" and "trans men are men" then you are transphobic.
From the way I intepret that, it has to mean that 'ALL trans women/men are women/men" where when I see the examples of the system being abused that have been high profile just as one example that is easy to show (i.e. some of the cases in prisons) then I'll never get to that point - I'll always remain in the 'SOME trans women/men are women/men' category.
For some people, that just puts be at the total other end of the binary and for what they read I may as well say I "trans women are men and trans men are women" which isn't my view in any way. There is no middle ground. | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 12:18 - Dec 22 with 1182 views | Mullet |
The fact that so many Tories are in hock to far right American lobbies and interest groups is worthy of serious investigation. It's clearly an old tactic of allowing them to talk to their domestic base and say "Look it'll happen here if you don't XYZ, just look at UK/USA". That was a big driver in the Underclass debate and Murray et al. during the Reagan/Thatcher alliance.
A colleague of mine who is LGBT+ made a very good point though, that kids who are in the position of transitioning and wanting to be out are also exposed to the political thoughts and orthodoxy of trans groups online.
A well-meaning counsellor raised a complaint from a transmasc pupil when periods were being discussed in PSHE. The pupil was upset that it wasn't acknowledged that men can have periods too. Obviously, that's a delicate and complex issue and one that wasn't covered as that pupil and any others in their situation might be singled out in a room etc.
We've also had a colleague wanting to invite Mermaids in to speak to/work with kids. They weren't happy when I cautioned management about this due to them being at the height of their controversy at the time.
It's a huge tightrope to walk, and there isn't a roadmap as such either. | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 14:14 - Dec 22 with 1119 views | itfcjoe |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 12:18 - Dec 22 by Mullet |
The fact that so many Tories are in hock to far right American lobbies and interest groups is worthy of serious investigation. It's clearly an old tactic of allowing them to talk to their domestic base and say "Look it'll happen here if you don't XYZ, just look at UK/USA". That was a big driver in the Underclass debate and Murray et al. during the Reagan/Thatcher alliance.
A colleague of mine who is LGBT+ made a very good point though, that kids who are in the position of transitioning and wanting to be out are also exposed to the political thoughts and orthodoxy of trans groups online.
A well-meaning counsellor raised a complaint from a transmasc pupil when periods were being discussed in PSHE. The pupil was upset that it wasn't acknowledged that men can have periods too. Obviously, that's a delicate and complex issue and one that wasn't covered as that pupil and any others in their situation might be singled out in a room etc.
We've also had a colleague wanting to invite Mermaids in to speak to/work with kids. They weren't happy when I cautioned management about this due to them being at the height of their controversy at the time.
It's a huge tightrope to walk, and there isn't a roadmap as such either. |
I just don’t think they’ll ever get anywhere with this supposed neo conservatives as per the Danny Kriger and Miriam Cates approach on family side and the Telegraph lot on free speech to the extremes - this US ultra libertarian view is massively over represented in the media and still has no real traction here and don’t see that changing if their exposure hasn’t made a dent on it
We are more European than American as a national psyche | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 14:39 - Dec 22 with 1070 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 12:18 - Dec 22 by Mullet |
The fact that so many Tories are in hock to far right American lobbies and interest groups is worthy of serious investigation. It's clearly an old tactic of allowing them to talk to their domestic base and say "Look it'll happen here if you don't XYZ, just look at UK/USA". That was a big driver in the Underclass debate and Murray et al. during the Reagan/Thatcher alliance.
A colleague of mine who is LGBT+ made a very good point though, that kids who are in the position of transitioning and wanting to be out are also exposed to the political thoughts and orthodoxy of trans groups online.
A well-meaning counsellor raised a complaint from a transmasc pupil when periods were being discussed in PSHE. The pupil was upset that it wasn't acknowledged that men can have periods too. Obviously, that's a delicate and complex issue and one that wasn't covered as that pupil and any others in their situation might be singled out in a room etc.
We've also had a colleague wanting to invite Mermaids in to speak to/work with kids. They weren't happy when I cautioned management about this due to them being at the height of their controversy at the time.
It's a huge tightrope to walk, and there isn't a roadmap as such either. |
it is incredibly difficult and must be very challenging in schools. you sound to me to be hitting a good balance. mermaids are controversial for real reasons. i do think that the mantra that 'trans men are men, trans women are women' doesn't help. but that's because we have always used the same words - man, woman - to refer to both biological sex and gender. that now creates confusion. gender doesn't affect whether someone can have a period or not. biological men don't have periods - it is pretty much the definition of the biological category - but biological females who identify their gender as a man can do. we need to be clearer when we're talking about gender and when we're talking about sex. it would avoid confusion when discussing things like periods etc | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 19:45 - Dec 22 with 953 views | Kievthegreat |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 14:39 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
it is incredibly difficult and must be very challenging in schools. you sound to me to be hitting a good balance. mermaids are controversial for real reasons. i do think that the mantra that 'trans men are men, trans women are women' doesn't help. but that's because we have always used the same words - man, woman - to refer to both biological sex and gender. that now creates confusion. gender doesn't affect whether someone can have a period or not. biological men don't have periods - it is pretty much the definition of the biological category - but biological females who identify their gender as a man can do. we need to be clearer when we're talking about gender and when we're talking about sex. it would avoid confusion when discussing things like periods etc |
Language has a role to play in this as gender identity and biological sex (excluding intersex and other cases for simplicity for this moment) are often used interchangeably, as are the terms that describe them. There is some alleviation is using prefixes like trans and cis which effectively adds some biological information into the gender identity term, but it's not perfect. Additionally some view the "cis" prefix negatively and wouldn't like to be called that.
In an ideal world, you might have a term relating to gender (say Man/Woman/non binary, etc... as that's closest to how we use it) and a term relating to biological sex that someone was born with (say male/female). That would in this example mean that we define it as "only people who are born female have periods", i.e removing the word women, because that would relate to gender, not biology. I think that would be an accurate and concise way to express the statement. However, I don't think there would be any appetite for that as it would remove gender identity from something that the majority of women go through, and a minority of other gender identities do.
In fact we have seen that. Take the incredulity surrounding "people who menstruate". This was a phrase used in some article which JK Rowling jumped on...
Are the majority of people who menstruate Women? Obviously yes. However there are Transmen, non-binary people who do too. Plus there are Women who don't. "People who menstruate" as a catch-all term is without doubt a more accurate expression than writing "women" in this example. If there was a agreed specific word for biological sex/sex someone was born, separate to gender identity then that would be accurate too, but would people as a whole accept "Women" not being the word for use in this situation? Seemingly not.
I think having different terms feels like a nice clean solution on paper, but I don't think it's as simple as that. |  | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:19 - Dec 22 with 907 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 19:45 - Dec 22 by Kievthegreat |
Language has a role to play in this as gender identity and biological sex (excluding intersex and other cases for simplicity for this moment) are often used interchangeably, as are the terms that describe them. There is some alleviation is using prefixes like trans and cis which effectively adds some biological information into the gender identity term, but it's not perfect. Additionally some view the "cis" prefix negatively and wouldn't like to be called that.
In an ideal world, you might have a term relating to gender (say Man/Woman/non binary, etc... as that's closest to how we use it) and a term relating to biological sex that someone was born with (say male/female). That would in this example mean that we define it as "only people who are born female have periods", i.e removing the word women, because that would relate to gender, not biology. I think that would be an accurate and concise way to express the statement. However, I don't think there would be any appetite for that as it would remove gender identity from something that the majority of women go through, and a minority of other gender identities do.
In fact we have seen that. Take the incredulity surrounding "people who menstruate". This was a phrase used in some article which JK Rowling jumped on...
Are the majority of people who menstruate Women? Obviously yes. However there are Transmen, non-binary people who do too. Plus there are Women who don't. "People who menstruate" as a catch-all term is without doubt a more accurate expression than writing "women" in this example. If there was a agreed specific word for biological sex/sex someone was born, separate to gender identity then that would be accurate too, but would people as a whole accept "Women" not being the word for use in this situation? Seemingly not.
I think having different terms feels like a nice clean solution on paper, but I don't think it's as simple as that. |
the trouble is that the dictionary definition of woman is: "an adult female human"
and the definition of female includes: "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs".
so woman definitely relates to sex not just gender. our language mixes up gender and sex. in most situations that's fine - who cares. we can't just deem 'woman' to be magically redefined to exclude the biological meaning. in the very few situations where it matters that biology is distinct from gender the simplest thing is to use the prefix 'trans' to distinguish. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:29 - Dec 22 with 879 views | Herbivore |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:19 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
the trouble is that the dictionary definition of woman is: "an adult female human"
and the definition of female includes: "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs".
so woman definitely relates to sex not just gender. our language mixes up gender and sex. in most situations that's fine - who cares. we can't just deem 'woman' to be magically redefined to exclude the biological meaning. in the very few situations where it matters that biology is distinct from gender the simplest thing is to use the prefix 'trans' to distinguish. |
But the word 'typically' is there for a reason, there are people born with a vagina who aren't able to bear children or produce eggs. I don't think anyone would claim that being infertile means that someone isn't a woman. | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:38 - Dec 22 with 852 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:29 - Dec 22 by Herbivore |
But the word 'typically' is there for a reason, there are people born with a vagina who aren't able to bear children or produce eggs. I don't think anyone would claim that being infertile means that someone isn't a woman. |
yes absolutely. you have explained the use of the word typically in that definition. typically means characteristic of. but an organism which typically produces a male gamete could not fall within the definition of female. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:39 - Dec 22 with 847 views | redrickstuhaart |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:19 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
the trouble is that the dictionary definition of woman is: "an adult female human"
and the definition of female includes: "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs".
so woman definitely relates to sex not just gender. our language mixes up gender and sex. in most situations that's fine - who cares. we can't just deem 'woman' to be magically redefined to exclude the biological meaning. in the very few situations where it matters that biology is distinct from gender the simplest thing is to use the prefix 'trans' to distinguish. |
It just doesn't matter. People know what is being talked about, but obsess over labels and semantics. | | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:43 - Dec 22 with 828 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:39 - Dec 22 by redrickstuhaart |
It just doesn't matter. People know what is being talked about, but obsess over labels and semantics. |
i don't disagree. but why then the obsession of some with forcing people to say "a trans woman is a woman" without any qualification? as you say, people know the difference, so why that mantra? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:45 - Dec 22 with 807 views | redrickstuhaart |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:43 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
i don't disagree. but why then the obsession of some with forcing people to say "a trans woman is a woman" without any qualification? as you say, people know the difference, so why that mantra? |
Because saying "you're different and we don't quite accept what you feel you are" is horrid.
Why does it matter? Who does it hurt? Get over it. | | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:46 - Dec 22 with 802 views | Herbivore |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:43 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
i don't disagree. but why then the obsession of some with forcing people to say "a trans woman is a woman" without any qualification? as you say, people know the difference, so why that mantra? |
Firstly, nobody is being forced to say anything. Secondly, if you sought to understand the lived experiences of trans people you might be able to answer those questions yourself. | |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:52 - Dec 22 with 785 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:45 - Dec 22 by redrickstuhaart |
Because saying "you're different and we don't quite accept what you feel you are" is horrid.
Why does it matter? Who does it hurt? Get over it. |
we accept and celebrate your gender being whatever you choose it to be. but in some situations it is also relevant that your sex is what ever it really is. why is that horrid? a trans woman is a woman, but with some qualifications. that's honest and truthful. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:58 - Dec 22 with 758 views | redrickstuhaart |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:52 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
we accept and celebrate your gender being whatever you choose it to be. but in some situations it is also relevant that your sex is what ever it really is. why is that horrid? a trans woman is a woman, but with some qualifications. that's honest and truthful. |
Because in almost every situation it doesnt matter, but people (perhaps people like you) insist on saying it every time to make a point. | | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 22:40 - Dec 22 with 690 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 20:58 - Dec 22 by redrickstuhaart |
Because in almost every situation it doesnt matter, but people (perhaps people like you) insist on saying it every time to make a point. |
if you read what i've said on this thread you'll see i've tried to define the very small number of situations when it might matter, but people (perhaps people like you) want to deal with absolutes. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 22:41 - Dec 22 with 689 views | redrickstuhaart |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 22:40 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
if you read what i've said on this thread you'll see i've tried to define the very small number of situations when it might matter, but people (perhaps people like you) want to deal with absolutes. |
I did nothing of the sort. If you use the power of reading, you will see that I used words like "most". | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
