Christian parents sue government over school's transgender policies

[quote PurgatoryOfPotholes]Women with a learning disability in England have an average life expectancy of 65, GP data from NHS Digital have shown—18 years lower than those without.1

The inequality is greater in women than men. Men with a learning disability had an average life expectancy of 66 in 2017-18, compared with 80 in men without a recorded disability.

Patients with learning disabilities also had lower rates of cancer screening, most notably in cervical screening for women: only 31% had smear tests, compared with 73.2% of those without a learning disability.

www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l404[/quote]
thank you for this evidence
now can we send it to Keir Starmer and David Lammy

@CharlieParley There are several large hard-to-reach groups of women who do not understand that "cervix-haver" or "anyone with a cervix" includes them. If this language is used, instead of the much simpler "all women aged between 25 and 64 are invited...", these women will therefore not respond to their invitation letters and definitely not to health campaigns designed to improve the uptake of invitations to cervical cancer screening, which has been falling for over ten years.

So do you agree with me that the constant references to the cervix is not helpful and it is ridiculous that it seems to have become an obsession?

I think you've missed the point. No one is saying you must have a cervix to be a woman. The gender critical position is only women have or started life with cervices but clearly there are women who have had hysterectomies. No one is saying such women stop being women.

No I'm not missing the point, I've seen posts on MN and other sites specifically saying you're not a woman if you don't have a cervix. Maybe I notice as it is relevant to me and you just interpret it in the way you assume people mean.

Apart from that why go on about having a cervix as if it the only thing you can think of that a woman has that a man doesn't? It seems to be the go to body part in any discussion about sex.

Do you really think the parents were bothered by the dress, or the lie that the child has changed biological sex?

They're local to me, the mum and I have met a few times. Awful irony for them is that the home ed groups they tried couldn't have given less of a toss what a child wears so they didn't get much support there either.

I read "boy in a dress" as a way of describing the situation without referencing transideology. Like a man with a gold lame purse in the women's changing room, man in makeup in the female hospital ward, a naked man with long hair and a beard in the women's communal showers.

Isn’t Keira Bell’s lawyer anti-abortion? I can’t remember the details but I think agrees with stuff lots of us here wouldn’t.

This is not just about boys wearing dresses. This case is about an ideology that is now embedded in schools, local authorities, and Church of England leadership, and is causing serious long-term harm to thousands of children.

We believe it is wrong to encourage very young children to embrace transgenderism. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Gender dysphoria is something we as Christians need to address with love and compassion, but not in the sphere of a primary school environment

I agree with them here. I don't see an issue with a boy wearing a dress, but I do believe it should be because boys and girls can wear what they like; clothes don't define them and gender stereotypes are a made up social construct that limits us, rather than ah well boy in a dress is a girl.

This is, of course, one of the harms of this febrile environment and one of the ways to pave the road to greater implementation of authoritarianism and control frameworks.

I suspect if they tried to explain in clear language on mumsnet then they would be banned - banned for their blasphemy against gender ideology.

Dozer I wonder if that is because language around this whole topic is so strangled in a mire of redefinition and traps.

I found the article unclear on what the couple said had happened at the school, and what the teachers had said / done that they objected to, to the extent that they decided to remove and home school both their DC.

But why should this family not be able to live by their faith? Or are only Muslim women who cannot share spaces with men allowed because they are a more politically correct oppressed group? Worldwide Christians are the most oppressed religious grouping.

@Siepie

I didn’t know there were actual court cases for these things in the U.K. The US, yes. But I don’t compare the U.K. to the US as culturally we are very different. I imagine I’m not alone in this.

I understand you’re cross, however, I believe the average GC woman does care about LGB people. Especially the gaslighting of predominantly young lesbians to accept dick. It is the TRA’s, who think women are props and human shields.

@KimikosNightmare

Yr 9s are 13/14 years old.

On the one hand.

Homosexuality is redefined as nothing to do with bodies. By a major org that used to be all about advocating for rights acceptance of anyone who was same sex attracted.

The term homosexual is described as outdated and iirc medical or something.
Gay men and lesbians have same sex people insisting on access to the clubs, bars etc etc that were created by and for them.
Same sex sexual preference / rather than internal gender is described as genital fetishism etc.
Lesbians in particular are being pressed to (pretend) that heterosexual men are lesbians.
Get with the dick.

On the other hand.

Much more straightforwardly.
Anything not conforming to man woman strict roles.
Is bad.
...
...
Get with the opposite sex and shut up....

It's not a huge difference that I can see.

I just objected to them massively!

And abortion.

I agree with other posters that the Christian right doesn't exist here the same way as it does in the US. Christian conservatism (which shares many values with the US Christian right) does, and the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern are part of that.

I would have assumed that a board where Stonewall is often called homophobic would have posters objecting to the CLC/CC. Christian Concern speaks openly in support of conversion therapy, and against gay marriage. The Christian Legal Centre has taken cases for people wishing to prevent gay marriage, to prevent same-sex couples adopting, for people who have made homophobic comments to colleagues, etc.

Have whatever views you want on gender. But next time you want to claim that being GC helps LGB people, maybe have a think about whether you actually care about LGB people, or whether we're just a convenient prop for your cause.