Transgender schooling row
Discussion
Rude-boy said:
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.
People have committed suicide over this, so it's far from a joke. From your phraseology, I seriously suggest you do some more reading about the process is in this country. The NHS is not "lopping the knackers off" "unsure boys".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.
This is an interetsing article:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/simon-marcus-j...
Its a thought I share. many of these are too young to know
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/simon-marcus-j...
Its a thought I share. many of these are too young to know
Europa1 said:
People have committed suicide over this, so it's far from a joke. From your phraseology, I seriously suggest you do some more reading about the process is in this country. The NHS is not "lopping the knackers off" "unsure boys".
Jokes are not always funny. Some can be rather sick to be honest.Yes i used made up phraseology, well a made up word and a few slack slang words, but whilst i would never profess to know reams about the topic i have an understanding of it.
One case i heard of recently was an intersex child (not everything formed as well or as much as it should have been) who's parents, with medical support and advice, chose to raise their child as a girl. Said child had their testicles removed sub 24 months old. That child is now an adult and trying to come to terms with the fact that not only have they been raised as a girl, when they identify far more as a boy, but that they will never be able to live the life that they could have had without that choice being made for them when they could not talk, let alone understand the impact of the decision that they are making.
It is a serious issue, but is it as big an issue as it is being made out to be (as in the numbers of people affected) as some of the more vocal types are making it out to be? Possibly it is but then i know many who were tomboys who most certainly are full grown very happy women now but age 12 might well have said that they thought they were more boy than girl. Likewise I would and did happily play with friends barbie dolls, skipping, and the like, when i was a child, just as much as i enjoyed taking apart shotgun cartridges and blowing up action men before a few hours of Scalextric.
A lot of this is about trying to say that people don't fit into yes or no boxes. Well well done that person! Thanks for telling anyone with half a brain that everyone is different, all they are doing though is creating more boxes to try to put people into and in the process potentially causing far greater harm from the Streisland effect of such situations with otherwise happy and settled children.
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
t
t mammoth over head with big stick. Eat mammoth.t
t 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.
TooMany2cvs said:
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?
I'm completely nonplussed. 
TooMany2cvs said:
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?
Who said it did?TooMany2cvs said:
Strikes me that this really is just the next step .....etc etc ...
...switched off there.
Rude-boy said:
One case i heard of recently was an intersex child (not everything formed as well or as much as it should have been) who's parents, with medical support and advice, chose to raise their child as a girl. Said child had their testicles removed sub 24 months old. That child is now an adult
Whatever happened, wherever it happened, whenever it happened (at least 16 years ago) - I will put good money on it being nowhere NEAR that simple, and it certainly wouldn't happen in the UK now like that.Decisions to go down the binary route with people who have intersex conditions have been happening for decades, with similarly life-long impacts. I already mentioned "Middlesex" a few pages back.
Rude-boy said:
A lot of this is about trying to say that people don't fit into yes or no boxes. Well well done that person! Thanks for telling anyone with half a brain that everyone is different, all they are doing though is creating more boxes to try to put people into
How about just not bothering with the boxes? Or, at the very least, accepting that not everybody fits straight into A or B, and a C ("It's complicated") might be useful occasionally...?Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 19th October 18:54
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. I'm interested to see you argue this isn't the case.
Nature doesn't intend anything. What would it do it's intending with? What ever behaviour individuals, communities, societies and cultures display are manifestly natural - although they may be undesirable. Unnatural as in 'against the ordinary course of nature' is an awful word when used in a discussion such as this.
Your idea of male behaviour is not universal, it is born out of your culture.
gregs656 said:
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. I'm interested to see you argue this isn't the case.
Nature doesn't intend anything. What would it do it's intending with?Ask Tuna he used the word, I used it when responding to his post in kind.
gregs656 said:
Your idea of male behaviour is not universal, it is born out of your culture.
My idea of male behaviour is based on biological factors, and a healthy bit of socialisation/culture/whatever you care to call it thrown in. It may well be born out of my culture, but I can actually think for myself, thank you.popeyewhite said:
Ask Tuna he used the word, I used it when responding to his post in kind.
No you definitely used it. He used it in response to someone else, taking a similar position to me - you say the same thing here for example in an earlier post
popeyewhite said:
As for the other million or so species, nature intended them to behave like boy/girl
How does nature intend anything when you used the phrase in this post? Can't you just accept it is a meaningless phrase?
popeyewhite said:
My idea of male behaviour is based on biological factors, and a healthy bit of socialisation/culture/whatever you care to call it thrown in. It may well be born out of my culture, but I can actually think for myself, thank you.
How we understand gender roles in a society like ours has nothing to do with biology to be honest, it is everything to do with our cultural attitudes to men and women. gregs656 said:
No you definitely used it. etc
Yes, that's the same post addressed to Tuna.Semantics your thing is it?
gregs656 said:
How we understand gender roles in a society like ours has nothing to do with biology to be honest, it is everything to do with our cultural attitudes to men and women.
I don't think you understood my reply.It's a different post, on a different page? You've said it at least twice, and it makes no sense.
Here's Tuna's view
Simple question isn't it?
It's important because so much hate flows from this general idea.
Here's Tuna's view
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.
and yours -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. I'm interested to see you argue this isn't the case.
So, what does nature do it's intending with? Simple question isn't it?
It's important because so much hate flows from this general idea.
Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 19th October 21:29
popeyewhite said:
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 etcIn the specific case of gender, the test is the mental and physical wellbeing of the people after they undergo treatment. The medical profession take this sort of thing very seriously - they're rather keen to move on from casting demons out with leeches and other such nonsense. And all the evidence is that allowing people to express their gender as they choose gives consistently better results than telling them that gender fluidity doesn't exist.
I'm not going to argue the rest of your points because it's clear from what you say that you have 'beliefs' that you carefully guard against any challenge or evidence. That makes me quite angry because it's people like you who go on to do immense harm with the excuse that your 'theory' is just as legitimate as the hundreds of studies and thousands of trained medics who've actually looked at real evidence.
Tuna said:
Unfortunately you're using the word theory in exactly the lax way I suspected - you're describing a belief that is used to justify your behaviour.
I don't think you read my post properly.Tuna said:
I'm using theory in the sense that a scientist or medical expert would - a hypothesis that we can test against the evidence. It's a really important distinction because your sort of 'theory' can be used to excuse any attitude and action you chose. The scientific sort of theory can be (and is) tested time and time again against the things we chose to do as a result.
Good for you. It doesn't change the definition of the word though, which is basically a tried or formulated explanation for something...and don't be so damn cheeky.Tuna said:
In the specific case of gender, the test is the mental and physical wellbeing of the people after they undergo treatment.
You don't say
Tuna said:
The medical profession take this sort of thing very seriously
- do go on...
Tuna said:
- they're rather keen to move on from casting demons out with leeches and other such nonsense. And all the evidence is that allowing people to express their gender as they choose gives consistently better results than telling them that gender fluidity doesn't exist.
Sorry you've lost me here - better results in what? The treatment? No? But anyway allowing people who want to be gender fluid to be gender fluid gives better results? What theory describes that startling revelation ?Tuna said:
I'm not going to argue the rest of your points because it's clear from what you say that you have 'beliefs' that you carefully guard against any challenge or evidence.
Is it? How interesting. I've really only got one philosophy on the subject and I've posted it earlier. but you know me better than I know myself so if you say I've got others I'll have a little dig...Tuna said:
That makes me quite angry because it's people like you who go on to do immense harm with the excuse that your 'theory' is just as legitimate as the hundreds of studies and thousands of trained medics who've actually looked at real evidence.
Yes you see the thing is there are a number of theories out there, all really centre around socialisation and/or genetic gender as the precursors to the way we gender identify. All have a number of proponents, however as none have been proven that's why they're called THEORIES.Edited by popeyewhite on Thursday 19th October 23:54
TooMany2cvs said:
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.t
t 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.
t mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.But as normal, I am enjoying your posts and your polite handling of the expected responses here.
Halb said:
Just to be nitpicky, the dead before 30 thing was for those who went out and fought the mammoths, once that danger-point was passed most lived long lives, the st mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.
But as normal, I am enjoying your posts and your polite handling of the expected responses here.
Actually, and at the risk of being a smart-Alec, the low average lifespan was mainly because of very high infant mortality. You're absolutely correct in that once the danger point was passed most lived long-ish lives.t mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.But as normal, I am enjoying your posts and your polite handling of the expected responses here.
Halb said:
Just to be nitpicky, the dead before 30 thing was for those who went out and fought the mammoths, once that danger-point was passed most lived long lives, the st mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.
Childbirth wasn't exactly kind to the half of the population who sat back and waited for mammothburger, either.t mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.It wasn't until the 20th century that life expectancy for either gender reached 50...
popeyewhite said:
Halb said:
Just to be nitpicky, the dead before 30 thing was for those who went out and fought the mammoths, once that danger-point was passed most lived long lives, the st mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.
But as normal, I am enjoying your posts and your polite handling of the expected responses here.
Actually, and at the risk of being a smart-Alec, the low average lifespan was mainly because of very high infant mortality. You're absolutely correct in that once the danger point was passed most lived long-ish lives.t mortality rate and high danger for hunters brought down the average.But as normal, I am enjoying your posts and your polite handling of the expected responses here.
TooMany2cvs said:
Childbirth wasn't exactly kind to the half of the population who sat back and waited for mammothburger, either.
It wasn't until the 20th century that life expectancy for either gender reached 50...
Childbirth was part of my post, just the words were in there. It wasn't until the 20th century that life expectancy for either gender reached 50...
I'm guessing that average is for Western Europe, in the UK hygiene levels only reached Roman levels post NHS. which helped to raise the overall average too along with better childbirthing.
My point was that once past the danger zone, the chances of a long life for a human were better.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff