Transgender kids article in today's Guardian

So far as Equality legislation at its simplest if I were a man but decided I was transgendered if I had done so whilst still an employee my employers would have had to accomodate me and could not pass me over for promotion simply because I was no longer a man. They would breach equality legislation if they refused to call me "she" rather than "he".

But that has no bearing on the very particular needs and special cases applying to people who can get pregnant.

Still lost - alternatively it can be interpreted to mean that women who can't or don't want to bear children aren't real women. Which is pretty misogynist.

Intrinsically linking the capacity to get pregnant with womanhood is not just cissexist, but it’s actually quite misogynistic

I assume this refers to self-identified men who are non- transitioned becoming pregnant.

If one feels one is in the wrong body why would one then do the single most important thing which only a biologically female body can do?

People don't have a right to identify however they like under the equality act. They have to go through the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate.

I don't think that takes any basic rights away from women. If women were forced to identify as a gender rather a sex, I would see that as a major breach of women's rights. We are protected on the basis of our biological sex, not some notion of gender identity.

CEDAW is here:

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

However that has nothing to do with the fact that 'female' and 'woman' are terms used to describe a person that can bear children, has a uterus etc

But according to the Stavvers set female and woman areterms which can be used to describe a person with a penis.

And according to medical records from Australia persons with those attributes can be (say they are) men.

Briar, I assume they mean it completely literally as that is how they represent their views online.

stavvers.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/why-im-pro-trans-and-pro-choice/

briar I repeat this all the time, but it is extreme gas lighting

Its such a nonsense, I have no idea how it has gathered any kind of credence

briar I repeat this all the time, but it is extreme gas lighting

Its such a nonsense, I have no idea how it has gathered any kind of credence

almond that is interesting about CEDAW? Do you have links?

How does it knit with the Equality Act, which protects the right of a person to identify as what ever sex they want, regardless of genitalia/surgery/hormones/whatever?

Stavvers and her ilk believe that the concept of sexual dimorphism (the fact that the human species has two distinct biological sexes) is essentialist and incorrect. She thinks that a penis can be a women's sexual organ just as much as a vagina can and vice versa.

I don't understand this. Do they actually believe this to be true or do they just enjoy being trendy and writing offensive comments to lesbians on the internet?

The UK is signed up to CEDAW. It is part of basic human rights for women that the government recognises and protects the reproductive role of women (defined by biological sex) and also removes stereotypes around gender roles.

So the nature/nurture thing is done and dusted, from that perspective. It is a breach of my DD's human rights if schools or any any other government organisation tries to tell her about pink lady brain makes girls nurses or whatever.

Funny how the "new conventional thinking" is just like the old conventional thinking.

Its the nature v nature 'debate' isn't it? Which has gone on forever, and will never end

However that has nothing to do with the fact that 'female' and 'woman' are terms used to describe a person that can bear children, has a uterus etc

Except Cole he told Louis when he was alone with Louie in his mother's house his preference was likely to be Cole.

I found this article when looking for something else entirely. I assume many of you disagree with the quote below.

m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/a-boys-life/307059/

"Today, the notion that gender is purely a social construction seems nearly as outmoded as bra-burning or free love. Feminist theory is pivoting with the rest of the culture, and is locating the key to identity in genetics and the workings of the brain. In the new conventional wisdom, we are all pre-wired for many things previously thought to be in the realm of upbringing, choice, or subjective experience: happiness, religious awakening, cheating, a love of chocolate"

Logic not logo

I felt the little boy 'Cole' was trying to please both his parents by being a 'boy' for dad and a 'girl' for mum. It seemed to be a way fur him to make sense if his family situation .

I thought the five year old boy was constructing a male identity fir himself that was unconventional - lady GaGa. Dressing up, twirling, singing. I thought that perhaps it was easier fir the parents to think of their child as inhabiting the 'wrong' body and 'fixing' him to confirm to social norms rather than facing the fact that their little boy was an individual not conforming to gender norms and therefore needed their support with that.

The teenager ... Ach I don't know. Still too young for these drastic decisions I think. I don't think many 14 year olds are comfortable in their own skin. But if becoming a transwoman helps then who am I to judge?

Its language...humans invented language and the word 'female' to describe those humans who menstrate/get pregnant/give birth/lactate

I think TG people talk about female 'gender'. And that's where the logo falls apart; as gender is a social construct AND, if they are only talking about femininity/gender, then why the desire to be legally recognised as female sex or have sex changes?

The very thing, and the only thing which defines us as male or female is our body and the associated biology and lived experiences

Yes! Exactly.

I think the whole concept of having 'the wrong body' is nonsense. For it to be true, then we have to believe that people exist as 'souls' or 'spirits' and are deposited into our bodies, just as vessels. So TG people just got given the wrong vehicle for their male/female soul to inhabit earth in?

Rubbish

The very thing, and the only thing which defines us as male or female is our body and the associated biology and lived experiences

"how people think it's wrong that people embrace their kids and help them growing up in the gender they feel they are"

But they are not, are they? From birth the parents are pushing them into a set of stereotypical behaviours which they feel are appropriate to the biological sex - pushing them into one narrow view of gender construction. And then when the poor kids find that narrow set of behaviours revolting, they get pushed into thinking they must be a member of the opposite sx after all, because they clearly aren't right as they are.

Tbh I am beginning to think of transgender kids as more victims of emotional abuse, the parallels are striking to me.

Nooka is right too, the period of puberty and adolescence can be terrifying enough, I wouldhave thought - I did think - particularly for girls who suddenly find out that so many men consider them prey. Yet oddly the transgender debate only gets so heated when talking about men who want to cross gender to being women. Bringing their socialised sense of entitlement with them.

I thought that Sarah Ditum's article was excellent and highlighted a serious concern about reporting suicides. I work in a university and we are incredibly careful about reporting suicides that happen within our own community for very similar reasons. Reading reports of suicides can be very triggering to vulnerable individuals. I read that article as being a plea to be careful about what was reported and how it was reported, not discouraging discussion per sey. The other link is to someone's facebook page, so just personal commentary surely?

I do think that there is a big difference between saying someone's sexual preferences are boring and implying that they are ethically wrong by giving them an 'ism'. I am only interested in men, and my preference for bear types (big and bearded) means that I wouldn't ever be sexually interested in someone who was born a woman. I don't think that is either boring or any type of sexist, it's just what floats my particular boat. My dd fancies people with an androgynous look does that make her more interesting/less prejudiced? Who we fancy probably does have societal/cultural factors, but for each individual I think it's fairly innate, I doubt very much that I could change and become attracted to small androgynous men instead, or dd could do the same and like big hairy guys.

And the post I replied to has gone. I'll ask for mine to go too.

Cathy Brennan and Sarah Ditum both posted articles / comments discouraging discussion.

m.facebook.com/iambugbrennan/posts/632097490235536

www.newstatesman.com/sarah-ditum/2015/01/if-you-believe-trans-lives-matter-dont-share-leelah-alcorns-suicide-note-social