Propaganda aimed at 'trans kids' in today's Guardian

Very Special Little Souls.

Indigo children, according to a pseudoscientific New Age concept, are children who are believed to possess special, unusual, and sometimes supernatural traits or abilities.

There seemed to be a wave of the critters when DS was little.

Haven’t met a mum announcing ‘of course Django is an indigo child, that’s why he is so spirited...’ for ages (whilst Django was chewing the heada off the dahlias).

@LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD NO! What were Indigo Children?

@ChattyLion

I don’t think it’s ethical for broadcasters, newspapers etc to refer to ‘trans children’ at all. They wouldn’t refer to ‘Labour children’ or ‘Conservative children’ or ‘Communist children’ or ‘Fascist children’ would they?

Absofuckinglutely! Perfectly put

‘Trans children’ will got the way of ‘indigo children’ (remember them?)

I don’t think it’s ethical for broadcasters, newspapers etc to refer to ‘trans children’ at all.

A poster in a now deleted thread talked about 'trans children', so I asked them to explain what they meant. They said a child who 'needs to transition'. I asked for a more detailed explanation of what they meant, but I didn't get an answer before the thread was deleted, but they asked me what I thought a 'trans child' was. I said I didn't know, because I don't think it's possible for a child to be 'trans'.

To expand on that, I think a 'trans child' is a child who has been persuaded by the trans cult to think that there is something wrong with their body. Or that the way they want to live is incompatible with their sex, so they need to change their body to resemble the opposite sex in order to live as they want to.

I still haven't seen a definition of what it means for a child to be 'trans' which indicates that my definition is wrong. These children are caught up in a dangerous ideology which is being supported by media outlets like the Guardian which are behaving in a totally irresponsible manner.

Does the Cloaca question means what toilet to use. I don't get it otherwise.

Empty words and no boundaries

Exactly this.

The debate has kicked off a little in Australia. I suspect due to two factors Twitter coverage of the Yaniv debacle and the recent announcement from Cricket Australia.

As to the article... what's the saying? I can stick feathers in my butt, ain't gonna make me a chicken...

Sadly over here, with the exception of a few radfems and brave academics, the only people speaking loudly and publicly are very right wing or Christian conservative. Still on the bright side, the general public aren't buying it but are not outraged enough, yet....

"Sadly for you, not everyone can be a chicken"

... but don't worry, anyone can be a woman.

Despite it not saying they were pre-moderating, several attempts at commenting about puberty blockers didn’t get posted. I think I’m on a watchlist. Fuck ‘em. If they don’t want to hear what’s actually happening to kids then they are complicit when it all comes out in the wash.

This is Guardian Australia so will be a separate editorial team. But interesting question as to whether they are bound by the same editorial guidelines as the UK team.

Starts out great with the you are perfect bit. Then it gets dodgy with "your queerness" the future is non-binary, contact your community!

Appalled this has been published even by the Guardian.

I was confused by the 'cloaca question' - I had to look it up and as Catinaflap says above it's a medical condition - but I didn't understand how it was being used in this context.

At first, I thought it was like the 'It Gets Better' campaign in the U.S. which I thought was great - supporting children who might be bullied or miserable in school so that they know that life can and often does get better. It frequently emphasised how talented, intelligent, hard-working, introspective, deep kids are not the cool kids in school but go on to have fulfilling, exciting, varied lives later.
This seemed.....different.

Wow! Catina I'd not heard of the 'cloaca question' till this: it sounds horribly like obstetric fistula which occurs with obstructed labour which, afaik, isn't seen in the developed world. Or shouldn't be. I saw it in Africa - wouldn't wish it on anybody. Regressive indeed. Or a fetishists dream.

Also, isn't chicken a word used in certain groups for a young boy?

They don’t love my child, don’t want the best for him, don’t even know him.

Love provided in the form of emojis is very cheap.

On-line support cannot replace the support of parents, but if you are drawing a cartoon, not parenting a child, it's a kind of support that can be offered freely, without any regard for the real lives of children you will never meet.

parents of children who are dealing with this IRL

I just looked up the Guardian’s own editorial guidelines- nothing helpful in there about not providing children with irresponsible political propaganda.

Also can anyone spot the missing groups in this list of important protected characteristics?

12 Discrimination
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

www.theguardian.com/info/2015/aug/05/the-guardians-editorial-code

They are lying though
They don’t love my child
They don’t want the best for him
They don’t even know him

Empty words and no boundaries

So true, 2BthatUnnoticed, so true.

Ugh they express this blatant propaganda in a cartoon..?! Because the issues involving children are just so simple, of course a cartoon is appropriate

I don’t think it’s ethical for broadcasters, newspapers etc to refer to ‘trans children’ at all. They wouldn’t refer to ‘Labour children’ or ‘Conservative children’ or ‘Communist children’ or ‘Fascist children’ would they?

(and IMHO they shouldn’t actually refer to ‘religious’ children either. )

These are all adult concepts, beliefs and labels that kids are going along with.

The kids may well passionately believe in these things very strongly but they are kids - by definition they are without the life experience, judgement or maturity to really understand or possess the freedom to think what they think for themselves, as distinct to what the adults around them think. They are by definition impressionable, highly sensitive to and easily influenced by the views around them. As all humans are but children particularly so.

So instead of saying ‘trans child’ which is a political concept, newspaper should go no further than to say ‘child from a family and/or social environment that believes in genderism’.

Just like they would say ‘child from a Christian family’ or ‘child from a family of long-standing Liberal Democrats’ or whatever.

These are all adult views and beliefs, which the children that the Guardian would irresponsibly call ‘trans children’ are brought up into, and/or exposed to via social media or school.

It should be against editorial guidelines to ascribe political views to any child under 18.

The social environment thing is so insidious. It’s totally the elephant in the room yet we know that (mostly female) kids are being rushed through a system to drug, permanently alter and potentially mutilate their normal natural bodies as a result. Where is the proper psychological support for them? Why is the Guardian not acting more responsibly about this? Do they not know that there is a national scandal brewing and the Times has been exposing via professionals’ whistleblowing, the very very worrying reality for these kids once they are given this label?!

I think their heart is in the right place.

They are lying though. They don’t love my child, don’t want the best for him, don’t even know him. Empty words and no boundaries.

Chickens eh?

Are they expecting eggs for breakfast?
Are they waiting for the cock to crow in the early hours of the morning?

The farmer will know.

Loved by people who haven't even met yet

Yes, I found that a bit .

I think the word 'love' is used very lightly on-line, and it's potentially very dodgy.

"Don't argue with the chicken"

Even TRA chickens are fond of #nodebate

'The future is non-binary' - WTF does that mean?

If we're talking of some future where sex stereotypes become obsolete and everyone presents as so outwardly androgynous that women are no longer subjected to sexual harassment from strangers or sexist assumptions and restrictions in the workplace, and new generations of men materialise who have universally rejected patriarchal power roles so society demands that emotional and domestic labour is shared equally amongst its members, and its structures reflect that... Well, bring it on.

If it means that men can appropriate female oppression, fetishise female experience, wear womanhood like a sex-play costume and colonise female spaces, then fuck off.

(Oh wait - it actually means nothing.)