'Inclusive education is non-negotiable'

It is absolutely the best way to cause a siege mentality, a sense of isolation, a sense of grievance and resentment, to restore segregation in communities by ensuring that women can't access public spaces because they're all now mixed sex and enabling of male sexual acting out, to push parents to remove children from the public school system -

In fact it pretty much stands 30 years of government work on its head, and sets up all the right ingredients for major crisis.

I don't honestly credit any government individual or body with sufficient intelligence and foresight at this point to think this is Machiavellian dark arts as opposed to basic blind stupidity and self interest. I do think they've been played like a fiddle by individuals with major personality disorders and failures of social function, who call themselves 'anarchists' and wish to trash society. Rather like a toddler throwing toys around.

This must end next week
I get a bad feeling about this. I have seen on other threads that pps suspect that Andrew Moffat (et al) have deliberately chosen to bring this issue to a head in a Muslim area.

I have also seen (I can't remember where) that Moffat claimed that his inclusivity material would be part of the move towards Islamic de-radicalisation.

If the protestors put their case before a judge and the judge decides to uphold the injunction then this could be seen as indirect establishment endorsement of the No Outsiders programme.

It depends if the judge decides that the injunction be upheld and the school should not re-instate No Outsiders, in which case we may have the continuation of an uneasy truce for a while.

If the injunction is upheld indefinitely and the school re-instates No Outsiders, then we have all of these parents and their supporters in the position where they feel that the state is forcing them to hand over their children to be indoctrinated with an ideology with shich they do not agree. This will naturally foster a deep sense of injustice (and rage in some) which is anything but deradicalising.

If people break the injunction, the police will be called and we will have a direct stand off between Muslims and police in the street. Jess Philips has framed this in extremely combative terms and it is quite possible that she will get the combat that she seems to be calling for. This may not happen but this is the risk.

If the protestors are forced to back down and the school continue with No Outsiders then it will be seen to be a state-approved programme and very few people will dare to oppose it. This is the best way to develop a siege mentality and sense of isolation in the Muslim community especially as they have been very noticeably been left unsupported by the lily-livered and complicit mainstream Christian churches.

Except there are people who claim to be transage, transabled, transracial and transpecies.

Try again.

So why on earth should we even begin to accept that a man is a woman?

Preposterous!

A man is not a woman.

A boy is not a girl.

They can choose their own race or age
No, don't think that's ever been an accepted trans definition at all.
Neither's identifying as another species really.

Trans (or whatever since nobody seems to be able agree with each other as to what it is) can identify as anything they want as far as I’m concerned. Literally anything. They can choose their own race or age. They can identify as their species of choice or even an inanimate object. Just don’t expect everyone else to go along with your fantasy or humour you. Identify as a fox if you want but I’ll still be calling the police if you kill my chickens and shit in my garden

I'd rather that than have them thinking they have to live as someone else not true to them to conform to make society "happy."

You do realise that this is what transgenderism is, don't you? A need to change their bodies to conform to a stereotype. A feminine boy can't just be a feminine boy, he has to become a 'transgirl'.

Although if you want my opinion about 'trans', LimeKiwi, I think it is mainly about reinforcing gender stereotypes, it is also sometimes about sexual fetish, and it is sometimes about a delusional belief that the body is 'wrong'. It can also be a sort of quasi-religious belief about gendered souls which sometimes end up in the 'wrong' body.

I think that it is a regressive notion (sex-role stereotypes are outdated), and it is sexist and misogynistic in the notion that women somehow identify with all the sexist shit which has always been associated with being a woman. There is also a lot of homophobia inherent in trans ideology - a gay man who transitions to become a 'transwoman' becomes straight by doing so - making it a type of conversion therapy.

LimeKiwi
I don't have my own personal definition of what 'trans' is, because I'm not pushing it as a concept. When other people introduce it into a discussion, I have to know what their definition is, so that I can understand their argument.

For example, your definition seems not to include non-binary people and crossdressers, but Stonewall's does. Many men crossdress for fetishistic purposes, which I don't think is an appropriate thing to teach primary school children about, so it's important to know if you include them in your definition of 'trans', since you want children to be taught about 'trans'.

Genuinely asking as wanted to know what your definition was seeing as we're asking each other questions.
Yes I think it's OK to teach children that it's OK to be "different", OK to be you.
I'd rather that than have them thinking they have to live as someone else not true to them to conform to make society "happy."
Who are we to say what's normal or not?
There's so much we don't know fully yet

You asked me so I answered with what I thought.
You still won't say what you think though, why?

LimeKiwi
You're the one who thinks children should be taught about 'trans' in school. Why are you asking me for a definition? If you don't know what it is, why are you so sure that it's suitable for teaching to children?

Well it's gone to the high court now...

https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/424/andertonparkkprimaryschoollprotestshighhcourtawardssinteriminjunction?utmmsource=Facebook&utmmedium=social&utmmcampaign=SocialSignIn

Oldcrone - OK, maybe I wasn't clear in asking. I'll ask now again then, what do you think trans is?

I definitely get a proselytizing vibe about this guy who himself is gay and seems to have swallowed the Stonewall handbook. I also don’t think it’s about just teaching the curriculum and it comes off as him saying to himself well I’m going to teach those Muslim kids right.

I don’t know why I find the dolphin thing so uncomfortable but just get a sense of....I don’t know dishonesty and being underhand. If the kids aren’t old enough to actually teach these things in plain language then perhaps they should wait until later.

It’s far more truthful to talk about adult / older people being in same sex relationships rather than resort to pandas etc (ok the parents at this school probably wouldn’t like it still but I’d prefer that personally)

I didn't realise you'd asked me that (and I still can't see where you did). I'm not an authority on this, though, and I'm not sure my definition (if I had one) would be important.

You said: I honestly can't see a problem with letting children know it's OK to be gay or trans. So I wondered what your definition was, because it's important to know what you're saying is OK. I gave you Stonewall's very broad definition as a starting point, to see if that was what you meant, or if you had a different or narrower definition of what you thought should be taught to children.

Oldcrone as in what do you think trans is, as you just reeled off Stonewall and not what you yourself think.

I asked what you think

Did you? I must have missed that. What I think about what, exactly?

And can you answer any of my questions in my last post? Or are they too hard?

Returning to the OP it's the denial of science which really grates. No, human beings are not jelly babies on a spectrum from barbie to GI Joe. No, humans cannot change sex. No, there are no such things as lady brains. No, people who are intersex are not there to be appropriated into someone else's quasi religious cult. No, clown fish may be sequential hermaphrodites but that has absolutely fuck all to do with mammalian reproduction.

By all means encourage tolerance towards other people's beliefs. If thinking the earth is flat helps them get through the day, far be it from me to kick that psychological crutch out from under them. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe the earth is flat. And certainly don't use the fact that teachers in school carry authority to teach children that the earth is flat.

I hate the way homosexuality and trans is conflated too. I’m not with the protesters in terms of being homophobic but do have some sympathy with the age of the children and a sense of indoctrination about it (ironic when many themselves are religious fundamentalists and do the same thing in terms of religion).

One of the books is about two male penguins who adopt a boy. This child like language about fluffy animals is where I find it a bit squeamish. As someone who doesn’t have a problem I’d much rather teachers actually tell children it’s ok for two men or women to each other rather than go on about crap like this. The other book was about a boy who liked to dress like a mermaid and you can see where that one came from.

The teacher heading it does seem to be on a bit of a person crusade as well rather than just following the usual guidance and going far further than what many other schools do which is a bit stupid (or perhaps deliberately provocative making a name for themselves) in a Muslim dominated school.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48351401

Oldcrone - that's just reeling off Stonewall though.
I asked what you think

You know, (well I assume you do really) know full well what trans means.

Well according to Stonewall, it means "transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois."

Trans - biological man or woman feeling they were born into the wrong sex so transition.

So according to you, it's just people who transition. I think that's probably transphobic, since you're excluding crossdressers like Eddie Izzard and 'Pips' Bunce from your definition. As well as all those gender free mumsnetters.

What do you mean by feeling they were born into the wrong sex? Is that like a disabled person feeling that they shouldn't have been born disabled? Or someone 5' tall who feels they should be 6'?

live as the opposite sex.

This is an interesting one. How do you do that? Remember it's 2019, not 1920. The only way you could really do that, is things like a man getting pregnant and giving birth, but you've realised that's impossible. I suppose a woman living like a man could learn to pee standing up. What else?

Sorry you said you're skirting me, not the other way round. That'd explain how you missed my post then

Michelle - I assume you missed the post where I answered? So I didn't "skirt"

Ah, you're looking for a whole lot of attention on this thread too I see. With pretty much exactly the same posts.