The BBC is pushing an adult trans activist agenda onto children

Once the growth plates on the bones have closed a person has finished growing and cannot grow taller. Thereafter, the only option to increase a person's height is (painful) surgery. Puberty blockers can delay the growth plate closure, leading to slightly taller adult height.
If a young person, born female who wishes to become physically male, has been taking puberty blockers then moves on to Testosterone, a growth spurt is anticipated, giving them a small boost in their height.
Sadly, being short is a major cause of dysphoria amongst female-to-male transgender people and once the bone growth plates have closed, there is no easy solution to gaining height. If a person was a fully developed 5ft 3in in their female presentation, they will transition to be a 5ft 3in man. Sadly, short men are hugely discriminated against in our society and short trans men doubly so. Puberty blockers, MAY help an individual in this way.

Children are being taught that stereotypes are bad, and there are no such things as "girls' toys" and "boys' toys", but at the same time they're being taught that if they like the 'wrong' toys for their sex, then they might be transgender.

If a little boy likes dressing up in princess dresses and playing with dolls, is he 'living as a girl' or is he just a boy who likes those things?

Where do you draw the line between someone who is 'living as' the opposite sex and someone who is simply not conforming to stereotypes?

Anything which can be done by both sexes can't be described as living as the opposite sex since both sexes can do it. Some men like to wear dresses and make up just because that's what they like, or because they get a sexual thrill out of it. Some men wear dresses and make up and say that means they're living as a woman. But since there are some men who do this and don't say they're living as women, this is something which can also be described as living as a man.

The only things which are 'living as' one sex or the other are things which only one sex can do because of their anatomy: a man who rapes someone using his penis is living as a man because women don't have penises; a woman who becomes pregnant with help from a fertility clinic is living as a woman because men can't get pregnant.

And having a gender identity is pointless if you think sex stereotypes are bad - why would you want to describe yourself in terms of those stereotypes?

It's up there with 'What does "live as a woman" mean?' and ''What is a gender identity?' as questions which are never answered.

Which is annoying, because they're incredibly easy questions to answer!

Obvs the first has two possible answers - living while being female, and living in accordance with the local stereotypes associated with being female. The second looks confusing at first glance because of the standard conflation between sex and gender, but again it's simple: sex identity is what sex you know you are based on your body, and gender identity is where you locate yourself in relation to those pesky local sex-stereotypes.

“Was on” not “wasn’t”. Presenter Nick made short work of Ayla.

The Stonewall trustee on LBC wasn’t 1:26 to 1:32. Ayla Holdom. The pilot. Has a young baby now, so daughter will know one of her mums is trans.

Why isn't a better solution to just let people wear clothes, have hobbies, have any preference of hair or makeup without it defining or confirming a gender identity?

Good luck with getting an answer to that from genderists.

It's up there with 'What does "live as a woman" mean?' and ''What is a gender identity?' as questions which are never answered.

Why isn't a better solution to just let people wear clothes, have hobbies, have any preference of hair or makeup without it defining or confirming a gender identity?

The cynic in me says 'because there's big money in affirmation surgery' but I think there's more to it than that.

If everyone can wear whatever they like then my aversion to the trappings of femininity becomes a mere choice - with the assumption that I could choose otherwise where this is expedient.

Obviously going forward, the incidence of dysphoria would be reduced if everyone were free to wear what they like, so I'm all in favour of that plan. But we're not living in that utopia right now, and it doesn't help anyone in the real world to pretend that we all have totally free choices over how we present.

I'm probably not making as much sense as I'd like (homeschooling while MNing) but I'm looking at this sentence: It's a much less intrusive way of letting children develop and thinking about the kids who develop serious sexed-body dysmorphias: sexualised violence and abuse are key components, we are not talking about a cohort who gets the luxury of developing normally.

Insisting kids adopt identity labels is a bloody stupid idea though. Settled and stable identities are a normal adult feature; expecting twelve year olds to have 'em is just daft.

Actually I think the main point of their campaigning is to get everyone to accept the notion of "trans children".

I'm sure this is what is behind it. One of their aims is to de-sexualise being transsexual (in the eyes of the general public). Nobody would ever describe a child as 'transsexual', because this would be sexualising the child, but if we describe them as 'transgender' or simply 'trans', this seems to make it acceptable. These 'trans children' then become a human shield, used to push through legislation which allows men into women's prisons and women's sports. 'Trans children' are clearly vulnerable and in need of sympathy and concern in a way that people like Caitlyn Jenner and Jane Fae are not.

This is from a YouTube discussion (no longer available) between TransYouth Family Allies executive director Kim Pearson and transgender activist Autumn Sandeen, who states:

“I’ve always said there are two groups that are going to make change in transgender legislation and the “gender identity and expression” related language in legislation. It’s going to be trans youth because … they demystify it and take the sex right out of the trans experience.”

mirandayardley.com/en/this-is-an-all-out-political-war-the-gender-recognition-act-and-beyond/

Thanks ^^

I wasn't agreeing in any way with trans ideology, just wanting to see if I was understanding their position.

Why isn't a better solution to just let people wear clothes, have hobbies, have any preference of hair or makeup without it defining or confirming a gender identity? It's a much less intrusive way of letting children develop.

My understanding is the trans advocacy groups campaign to get trans children to transition early because the outcome (passability I guess?) is better when started younger.

Actually I think the main point of their campaigning is to get everyone to accept the notion of "trans children".

I know it's common these days to assume that "trans" is a pre-existing condition that results in a need for surgery, hormones, etc, but this is completely at odds with the etymology of the word. Go back a few decades, and a person acquired the attribute "trans" (short for transsexual) by undergoing transition (ie surgery).

The pre-existing condition is dysphoria/dysmorphia. Kids with this condition are not "trans" (though some will go on to become so).

What they're campaigning for now is to ensure all children with dysphoria become transsexual.

As for puberty blockers for girls, so far as I know they prevent girls from reaching their full adult potential height. In other words: less likely to pass.

I have seen people suggest that the girls have less breast tissue to remove should they go on to have surgery, but less is not none, and the surgery is still required.

Thank-you Stephanie and Transgender Trend for continuing to challenge this nonsense

My understanding is the trans advocacy groups campaign to get trans children to transition early because the outcome (passability I guess?) is better when started younger.

And this only applies to boys, since it is testosterone that causes the irreversible effects which stop them from 'passing'. There is no similar 'benefit' for girls taking hormone blockers during puberty, yet the majority of GIDS patients are now girls.

Well done Transgender Trend for repeatedly focusing on how this ideology harms children. The way the BBC enables adults with a personal interest in this agenda to target children via children's programming is reprehensible.
Long overdue for this embarrassing and inappropriate programme to be removed.

That letter is excellent. It explains the concerns clearly and rationally.

My understanding is the trans advocacy groups campaign to get trans children to transition early because the outcome (passability I guess?) is better when started younger. This would of course require puberty blockers and eventually hormone treatment, and that's where the GC side has major concerns. How can be a child give consent to such life-changing decisions and medication? And with a figure of 80%+ of children with gender disphoria growing out of it naturally, there shouldn't be a push for medication at all while they are under-age.

It is very much an adult agenda, dangerous and misleading for children.

Oh so true, my teens grew up with CBeebies and CBBC but I won’t let my primary school aged child near it.

The Beeb is busy shooting itself in the foot just as the other providers are walking in and stamping all over the things they used to do well (drama, radio, news). All because they can’t establish their key market isn’t interested in watching modern blackface.

They should take note of Marks and Spencers demise due to ruffles and stupid embellishments.

It is quite a loss though because only a few years ago BBC children’s programmes were the best and most trusted by a long way. The pushing of gender ideology on children has wiped that all out.

How far the mighty have fallen!

DC are banned from BBC/CBBC/CBeebies exactly because of this. Refuse to even let them look at the bite size school work on there, there’s much better businesses out there for children, BBC has long since proven they've not got children’s interests at heart.

This is excellent. I'm sick of them constantly shoving drag at me, apparently with no idea that many, many women find men dressing up as spiteful parodies of women profoundly insulting. And the BBC are leading and pushing this. I think I'm going to be writing a personal letter to Tim Davie this afternoon. My licence fee is due in a couple of months and I'll have to discuss with my partner whether we want to pay it or not. I use the BBC less and less so removing player from our laptops and phones won't a big deal.

Brilliant letter! Thank you for writing it and for sharing it here.