| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply 16:53 - Dec 20 with 10390 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 22:53 - Dec 22 with 407 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 22:41 - Dec 22 by redrickstuhaart |
I did nothing of the sort. If you use the power of reading, you will see that I used words like "most". |
ok make it easy for me, in which post did you use the word "most". i'm sure it matters, but i can't find it. [Post edited 22 Dec 2023 22:54]
|  |
| 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 00:02 - Dec 23 with 329 views | Kievthegreat |
| 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? |
I feel like "Trans" is qualified by "cis". The (overwhelming) majority of women are cis women. A (extremely small) minority are trans women. They all identify as women, but the prefix recognises they are not the same in all facets. It seems to me, to be a useful way to distinguish that difference clearly, but not while othering trans women as 'not real women'. |  | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 00:08 - Dec 23 with 320 views | redrickstuhaart |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 22:53 - Dec 22 by lowhouseblue |
ok make it easy for me, in which post did you use the word "most". i'm sure it matters, but i can't find it. [Post edited 22 Dec 2023 22:54]
|
"Because in almost every " A WORD LIKE MOST... How is that "black and white".
Its not.
Why fuss over terminology. No need. Unless its driven by an underlying agenda. |  | | |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 09:19 - Dec 23 with 222 views | lowhouseblue |
| This has upset some of my colleagues deeply on 00:02 - Dec 23 by Kievthegreat |
I feel like "Trans" is qualified by "cis". The (overwhelming) majority of women are cis women. A (extremely small) minority are trans women. They all identify as women, but the prefix recognises they are not the same in all facets. It seems to me, to be a useful way to distinguish that difference clearly, but not while othering trans women as 'not real women'. |
but the 'othering' argument just doesn't work logically. the very act of distinguishing is unavoidably and essentially "othering". you have a collective term "women" which by established use includes both biology and gender. in the vast majority of situations that's the only word you need. but there are a small number of situations where unavoidably you do need to distinguish between biology and gender - and to do that you need to identify two separate sub-groups. if you label biological women as "cis women" by definition the ones who are only women by gender are not cis women and are labelled "trans women". and that is still othering. redefining language can't possibly avoid this - you need 2 terms. you also can't compel an unnatural use of language when meanings are long established and understood. in the small number of cases when you need to distinguish between biology and gender our established useage is women and trans women. there is no logical benefit to moving away from that since no alternative avoids "othering". again the act of distinguishing is unavoidably "othering".
and no one has suggested using "not real women" rather than "trans women".
it's like saying that because there's now "vegan cheese" we should refer to traditional cheese as "dairy cheese". why, when the appropriate use of the term "vegan cheese" provides all the extra information we might ever require? perhaps most of the time we never need to know and "cheese" is the only term we need. but when we do need to know then "vegan" tells us it's vegan and without the addition of that word it's not vegan. | |
| 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 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
