Transgender schooling row

[amusingduck]

Can anyone explained the supposed difference between "Boy" and "(Young) Man" and "Male"?

[bobmcgod]

p1esk said:

What a load of bks. It's no wonder a (seemingly increasing) proportion of our young people are growing up confused and not knowing what the hell they are.

Now then, before anybody gets too irate about that, and produces rude and ignorant reponses, let me say this:

I believe everybody should be treated with respect, consideration and compassion, and I would always try to behave like that towards others, even if one feels (as I do) that there's a lot of weirdness now surrounding the issue of sex and gender.

Now if, purely from their own feelings, and not influenced by other people who may be encouraging them to question who and what they are, an individual truly feels that although they were born as a boy they now feel sure they would rather be a girl (or vice versa) then they should be in receipt of understanding and support from those who are a position to help them.

I freely admit that I do not have a full understanding of this subject area, but from what I'm hearing I do seriously wonder what is to become of our species, because it seems to me that nature is malfunctioning more frequently these days, and if that is true, what is causing it?

Y'see, I've long felt that the boy/girl thing is a wonderful arrangement when it works as nature intended, which in my mind means that they pair off and form long term relationships as mutally supportive partnerships, and hopefully produce the next generation of good and decent human beings.

So there you are, that's me and my traditional values and old fashioned ideas I guess. Sorry about the somewhat disjointed waffle.

Best wishes all,
Dave - apparently male when last surveyed, and perfectly OK with that..

PS. Eileen, to whom I've now been married for 54 years, was still happily female when last examined.

Maybe to try and help with the understanding.

You use the phrase "when last examined" so I'm assuming that you mean the physical assets or the "sex" of the people you are describing (yourself and Mrs p1esk). Where as gender is what the individual identifies as.

Your sex is male and I'm assuming you identify as male. The problem lies with how some people do not identify their gender the same as their sex. Studies have shown (please do not ask me to find them) that gender identity starts as young as 5. There are so many different types because people have the ability these days to read a label and either feel it suits them or it doesn't. They can then talk to others to see if they feel the same way. It's very easy if you do identify the same gender as your born sex. There's nothing to be confused about. There's nothing to doubt. There's nothing to make you feel like you're wrong or don't fit in. If this helps, great. If not then just ignore me, either way I doubt any of this will have any affect on you or your life.

Good day.

[Tuna]

p1esk said:

I freely admit that I do not have a full understanding of this subject area, but from what I'm hearing I do seriously wonder what is to become of our species, because it seems to me that nature is malfunctioning more frequently these days, and if that is true, what is causing it?

Y'see, I've long felt that the boy/girl thing is a wonderful arrangement when it works as nature intended, which in my mind means that they pair off and form long term relationships as mutally supportive partnerships, and hopefully produce the next generation of good and decent human beings.

An unfortunate turn of phrase there. There have been quite a few studies that show that it is generally healthy for a species to have a certain proportion of progeny who are not traditionally straight and fit gender norms. It's long been recognised that having one or two members of the tribe that are literally prepared to die for their brothers is beneficial. The Romans specifically identified and valued gay soldiers. Many cultures have had eunuchs and so on.

Just because the boy/girl thing is a wonderful arrangement, doesn't mean it's the only one 'nature intended' - it just happens to be dominant.

If you wonder why it's perhaps more visible, you've got to realise society has changed a lot. Three hundred years ago there was pretty minimal distinction between the appearance and roles of men and women - everyone wore brown(!), and most worked in the fields if they were strong enough, or at home if not. Apart from having babies, your gender and appearance didn't come into it.

Now though, we've become completely obsessed with how we look and what roles people should take. Elizabethan men wore powdered wigs and women corsets. In the last 100 years we've invented a million and one ways to 'improve' your appearance - from ridiculous clothes to hair transplants and boob jobs. When mainstream media tells you you're a failure if you don't look like the Kardashians or Daniel Craig, it's not too surprising if people rebel against it.

So the change is that now those people who a few hundred years ago had no exposure to 'gender politics' or identity are seeing that there is a whole world of options that they can take. And we're being pounded daily by stuff that tells us that we have to live up to a bunch of ridiculous ideals and rules which adds to the pressure. Stuff that a couple of centuries ago would have shown up as one guy in the village being a bit over friendly to his mates and a woman dying an old maid now comes out as the guy heading for Manchester and becoming a drag queen and the woman marrying a lovely wife.

I really doubt there is much change in the number of 'non traditional' people, just that now they can express it more visibly.

[popeyewhite]

Tuna said:

The Romans specifically identified and valued gay soldiers.

Your comment is disingenuous. I don't think they did specifically identify (whatever that means) and value gay soldiers. For a start they had no idea what 'gay' or 'homosexual' was. It was simply that the male form was worshipped as being beautiful by society as a whole. This culture changed very quickly when male to male relationships resulted in no new baby soldiers being born, marriage between men and woman was made compulsory and Roman armies were re-stocked.

Tuna said:

Many cultures have had eunuchs and so on.

This was mutilation for subjugation and nothing to do with any gender issue.

Tuna said:

Just because the boy/girl thing is a wonderful arrangement, doesn't mean it's the only one 'nature intended' - it just happens to be dominant

I think there are a handful of worms/fish/snails which are hermaphrodite, who knows which part of the animal nest builds, woos the the other half with colourful displays etc. As for the other million or so species, nature intended them to behave like boy/girl.

Tuna said:

If you wonder why it's perhaps more visible, you've got to realise society has changed a lot. Three hundred years ago there was pretty minimal distinction between the appearance and roles of men and women - everyone wore brown(!), and most worked in the fields if they were strong enough, or at home if not. Apart from having babies, your gender and appearance didn't come into it.

Hmmm.....

Tuna said:

So the change is that now those people who a few hundred years ago had no exposure to 'gender politics' or identity are seeing that there is a whole world of options that they can take. And we're being pounded daily by stuff that tells us that we have to live up to a bunch of ridiculous ideals and rules which adds to the pressure.

And now people are being pounded by the LGBT lobby as well or whatever who would have us believe in gender fluidity. Which of course is another form of social conditioning which people on here seem so fond of mentioning as if it's a fact. Which it isn't - it's one theory amongst many.

[TooMany2cvs]

popeyewhite said:

And now people are being pounded by the LGBT lobby as well or whatever who would have us believe in gender fluidity.

Only where those people are refusing to grant others even the most basic of respect, by insisting everybody fits THEIR opinion of what's "right".

[popeyewhite]

TooMany2cvs said:

popeyewhite said:

And now people are being pounded by the LGBT lobby as well or whatever who would have us believe in gender fluidity.

Only where those people are refusing to grant others even the most basic of respect, by insisting everybody fits THEIR opinion of what's "right".

You take my reply out of context, but ok: You're wrong, we're all exposed to the wailing of the LGBT lobby - it has nothing whatsoever to do with granting others respect as it's unavoidable if you take a paper or watch the news. It is all around us, and we are discussing it here. I doubt this would have happened a decade ago. And in that way, as I've said, it fits as social conditioning.

[TooMany2cvs]

popeyewhite said:

TooMany2cvs said:

popeyewhite said:

And now people are being pounded by the LGBT lobby as well or whatever who would have us believe in gender fluidity.

Only where those people are refusing to grant others even the most basic of respect, by insisting everybody fits THEIR opinion of what's "right".

You take my reply out of context, but ok: You're wrong, we're all exposed to the wailing of the LGBT lobby - it has nothing whatsoever to do with granting others respect as it's unavoidable if you take a paper or watch the news. It is all around us, and we are discussing it here. I doubt this would have happened a decade ago. And in that way, as I've said, it fits as social conditioning.

I'm not "pounded" (which is the word you used) by the LGBT "lobby". Because I'm quite happy to accept the sexuality and gender identity of other people. It doesn't affect me one jot what somebody describes themselves as or who they prefer to shag.

The only way it can really be any kind of issue for you is if you think everybody must fit into your nice little boxes.

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently, or what I defined my gender as? If I told you, would it make any difference AT ALL to your life?

[Funkycoldribena]

TooMany2cvs said:

I'm not "pounded" (which is the word you used) by the LGBT "lobby". Because I'm quite happy to accept the sexuality and gender identity of other people. It doesn't affect me one jot what somebody describes themselves as or who they prefer to shag.

The only way it can really be any kind of issue for you is if you think everybody must fit into your nice little boxes.

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently, or what I defined my gender as? If I told you, would it make any difference AT ALL to your life?

Wear what you like but there's only two boxes.Full stop.
If you dig up.a body and extract DNA there's only two ways it can go.

[Yertis]

TooMany2cvs said:

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently

I've always pictured you in sandals, and home-woven garments of the sort that early medieval people wore, studying MoT legislation and its non-impact on classic car users. (For which incidentally I thank you )

[amusingduck]

Funkycoldribena said:

TooMany2cvs said:

I'm not "pounded" (which is the word you used) by the LGBT "lobby". Because I'm quite happy to accept the sexuality and gender identity of other people. It doesn't affect me one jot what somebody describes themselves as or who they prefer to shag.

The only way it can really be any kind of issue for you is if you think everybody must fit into your nice little boxes.

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently, or what I defined my gender as? If I told you, would it make any difference AT ALL to your life?

Wear what you like but there's only two boxes.Full stop.
If you dig up.a body and extract DNA there's only two ways it can go.

XXY?

[p2c]

TooMany2cvs said:

popeyewhite said:

TooMany2cvs said:

popeyewhite said:

And now people are being pounded by the LGBT lobby as well or whatever who would have us believe in gender fluidity.

Only where those people are refusing to grant others even the most basic of respect, by insisting everybody fits THEIR opinion of what's "right".

You take my reply out of context, but ok: You're wrong, we're all exposed to the wailing of the LGBT lobby - it has nothing whatsoever to do with granting others respect as it's unavoidable if you take a paper or watch the news. It is all around us, and we are discussing it here. I doubt this would have happened a decade ago. And in that way, as I've said, it fits as social conditioning.

I'm not "pounded" (which is the word you used) by the LGBT "lobby". Because I'm quite happy to accept the sexuality and gender identity of other people. It doesn't affect me one jot what somebody describes themselves as or who they prefer to shag.

The only way it can really be any kind of issue for you is if you think everybody must fit into your nice little boxes.

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently, or what I defined my gender as? If I told you, would it make any difference AT ALL to your life?

As a trans person I am pounded daily by anti trans media reporting, Whilst there may seem like a lot of trans commentary, with few exceptions it is not trans positive or by trans people, What looks positive to most is in fact very harmful to trans people and I am not alone in the trans community in thinking that. We have very little voice of our own in the media.

Only yesterday we had the Radio 4 link posted as being "good" it was not and I highlighted a couple of the main issues on whichever thread it was on, a good chunk of the trans community is complaining about it today. If on the rare occasion a trans person gets to write an article its edited to include transphobic language to sensationalise it and pedal trans troupes

So no, the general population is not being pounded by trans issues, the media are pounding trans people with trans issues.

ps comment not directed at TooMany2cvs

Edited by p2c on Thursday 19th October 15:44

[Tuna]

popeyewhite said:

I think there are a handful of worms/fish/snails which are hermaphrodite, who knows which part of the animal nest builds, woos the the other half with colourful displays etc. As for the other million or so species, nature intended them to behave like boy/girl.

I'm not about to get into a debate about genetics etc. - that's a whole subject in itself and full of controversy and fights over research and semantics. However, it seems to me that nature's pretty good at getting things 'right' that matter - five fingers on our hands, dangly bits where they're needed and so on. The fact that things like non traditional sexual orientation run at a steady few percent of the population suggests nature is quite happy with that. It's not as if it's a trait that propagates well.

What I object to is specifically when people start using phrases like 'what nature intended'. Nature intends nothing, and there's no moral or natural high ground to being specifically straight, gender conforming, etc. etc.

Claiming that these things aren't what 'nature intended' puts you on a slippery slope towards denying the rights of anyone who doesn't fit some completely artificial mould. It legitimises the uncomfortable feeling you get when you're around people who are different to you and becomes the justification for a whole bunch of anti-social and unpleasant practises.

popeyewhite said:

And now people are being pounded by the LGBT lobby as well or whatever who would have us believe in gender fluidity. Which of course is another form of social conditioning which people on here seem so fond of mentioning as if it's a fact. Which it isn't - it's one theory amongst many.

Your use of the phrase 'one theory amongst many' reminds me uncomfortably of the evangelical Christians who use such muddy phrases to deny that understanding has moved on since Victorian times where much of our 'traditional' beliefs were set in stone.

Don't get me wrong, there is of course a risk that a small minority completely over compensates for the prejudices and challenges they have faced. There are enough cases of incorrect diagnosis that you have to take the possibility of error seriously and - particularly with children - consider the implications of getting it wrong.

However, it's completely disingenuous to point to those extreme cases and use that as an excuse to 'write off' the more modern understanding of gender. I've worked with a couple of transsexual people and undoubtedly their choice to change was the right one for them and they were healthier and happier for doing so. There is absolutely no excuse for preventing people from expressing non-traditional gender and sexuality if they wish to do so and are capable of understanding and accepting the consequences.

[Tuna]

Funkycoldribena said:

If you dig up.a body and extract DNA there's only two ways it can go.

Those two ways being:

1. Arrest for grave robbing or

2. A series on Channel 4

[TooMany2cvs]

Funkycoldribena said:

Wear what you like but there's only two boxes.Full stop.

So if somebody simply added a third box - "Non-binary" or "It's complicated" - you'd be happy?

Or, come to that...

Funkycoldribena said:

If you dig up.a body and extract DNA there's only two ways it can go.

I'm no geneticist, but AIUI chromosomes in DNA really aren't that simple.

Have a read of this - from a decade ago...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/q-a-mix...
and then this...
http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome
and you'll see it really isn't as simple as "Is there a Y chromosome?" - and, even then, that's only the physical side of it. Who are you to decide whether somebody else's mental understanding of themselves is wrong?

Perhaps also have a read of Jeffrey Eugenides' novel Middlesex.

Yertis said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently

I've always pictured you in sandals, and home-woven garments of the sort that early medieval people wore

Trust me, I would not be relying on my weaving - not unless I lived somewhere a LOT warmer and drier...

[Europa1]

p2c said:

Only yesterday we had the Radio 4 link posted as being "good" it was not and I highlighted a couple of the main issues on whichever thread it was on, a good chunk of the trans community is complaining about it today.

Edited by p2c on Thursday 19th October 15:44

"Range of views", "interesting" and "thought provoking" were the terms used.

[popeyewhite]

TooMany2cvs said:

I'm not "pounded" (which is the word you used) by the LGBT "lobby". Because I'm quite happy to accept the sexuality and gender identity of other people. It doesn't affect me one jot what somebody describes themselves as or who they prefer to shag.

Tuna used the word 'pounded'. I asked if you could keep my quote in context - apparently you are unable to.

TooMany2cvs said:

The only way it can really be any kind of issue for you is if you think everybody must fit into your nice little boxes.

are you still addressing me?

TooMany2cvs said:

Do you have the first clue as to what I happen to be wearing currently, or what I defined my gender as? If I told you, would it make any difference AT ALL to your life?

I'm just as bemused at this statement as to the rest of your post. If you would like me to have a guess at your apparel I will?

[popeyewhite]

Tuna said:

What I object to is specifically when people start using phrases like 'what nature intended'. Nature intends nothing, and there's no moral or natural high ground to being specifically straight, gender conforming, etc. etc.

If you've been given dangly bits, nature intends you to act in a manner likely to attract a mate - display male behaviour if you will. I'm interested to see you argue this isn't the case.

Tuna said:

Claiming that these things aren't what 'nature intended' puts you on a slippery slope towards denying the rights of anyone who doesn't fit some completely artificial mould.

No, it doesn't mean you should deny anyone's rights. How people treat others is based on many more factors in general that what nature intended.

Tuna said:

It legitimises the uncomfortable feeling you get when you're around people who are different to you and becomes the justification for a whole bunch of anti-social and unpleasant practises.

Again, one theory, one explanation for certain behaviours of which there are many. Personally I don't feel discomfort from any such described scenario.

Tuna said:

Your use of the phrase 'one theory amongst many' reminds me uncomfortably of the evangelical Christians who use such muddy phrases to deny that understanding has moved on since Victorian times where much of our 'traditional' beliefs were set in stone.

Well that's a shame. Try this: Of a number of theories that seek to describe human behaviour etc etc

Tuna said:

Don't get me wrong, there is of course a risk that a small minority completely over compensates for the prejudices and challenges they have faced. There are enough cases of incorrect diagnosis that you have to take the possibility of error seriously and - particularly with children - consider the implications of getting it wrong.

True.

Tuna said:

However, it's completely disingenuous to point to those extreme cases and use that as an excuse to 'write off' the more modern understanding of gender

Also true..The problem is not everyone agrees on the 'more modern understanding'.

Tuna said:

I've worked with a couple of transsexual people and undoubtedly their choice to change was the right one for them and they were healthier and happier for doing so. There is absolutely no excuse for preventing people from expressing non-traditional gender and sexuality if they wish to do so and are capable of understanding and accepting the consequences.

I agree with you if the people concerned are adults and not schoolchildren, and it doesn't change the fact that X = man, Y = woman, regardless of what clothes they wear or how they feel.

[TooMany2cvs]

popeyewhite said:

If you've been given dangly bits, nature intends you to act in a manner likely to attract a mate - display male behaviour if you will.

tt mammoth over head with big stick. Eat mammoth.
tt woman over head with smaller stick. Drag woman back to cave.
Die horrible death before 30.

That's basically how it worked for most of humankind's time on this planet.

popeyewhite said:

Tuna said:

I've worked with a couple of transsexual people and undoubtedly their choice to change was the right one for them and they were healthier and happier for doing so. There is absolutely no excuse for preventing people from expressing non-traditional gender and sexuality if they wish to do so and are capable of understanding and accepting the consequences.

I agree with you if the people concerned are adults and not schoolchildren,

Great. That's pretty much how it works - anybody who isn't legally an adult needs to involve their parents/guardians in any big decision.

But, of course, you're not really happy with it being their decision, and you're not really happy with accepting that decision, are you?

popeyewhite said:

and it doesn't change the fact that X = man, Y = woman, regardless of what clothes they wear or how they feel.

For most people, yes.

But is that really the be-all-and-end-all to it? Aren't we just a little more enlightened than assuming the contents of somebody's underpants define their role in life?

Strikes me that this really is just the next step after deciding that half of the population weren't actually inherently inferior, and perhaps ought to be allowed to be educated/vote/work after all, simply based on whether they have willies or not. At the end of the day, "willy or not" is just as effective as worrying about anything as technical as chromosomes for 99.9%+ of the population, so why even bother with such new-fangled technology? Just have a quick Crocodile Trump, and you don't even need to ask the question. <squeeze> Hunter-gatherer or homemaker-childbearer?

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 19th October 17:24

[Rude-boy]

It's all a bit of a joke really though isn't it?

I mean the fall out from this is going to be utterly epic.

Imagine you were a an 'unsure' boy and it was determined that the best option was to lop your knackers off and raise you as a girl. But by the time they are 18 they are showing far more male characteristics than ever they do female.

Honestly i have to say that I struggle to any justification for allowing anyone who has yet to complete the puberty process and lived in that body for a period of time to have free elective strapadicktomes or castration.

In the last few weeks i have heard more and more stories of 'gender neutral' people who have thought that they were in the wrong body of their mental gender when they were younger but by their later teens and early twenties have realised that they are in the right body. All a bit late if they had surgery.

Seems to me that we are going down a path where yes, right now we may have a number of people with mental issues as a result of being in the wrong body, but in 20 years time we'll have the same but with people who have been raised in a contra gender to their physical one and possibly also people who have had surgery at a young age which destroyed their life as an adult because they honestly did think when they were 10 that they should have been born a girl/boy/not what they are.

[TooMany2cvs]

Rude-boy said:

Imagine you were a an 'unsure' boy and it was determined that the best option was to lop your knackers off and raise you as a girl.

Gender reassignment surgery is not exactly getting a really unsuitable tattoo on a whim.

Well, there may be the odd rogue surgeon who would do it for a very large pile of cash, without a massive amount of pre-operative counselling and several years living as a female, but you'd probably have a very high chance of not actually surviving the surgery. But it certainly happening like that on the NHS...

Anyway, post-op would allow you to legally tick the other box out of that wide choice of two. That's not what's being talked about here.