Teacher upset with my child questioning about trans child

I didn't ask for and don't want any number of academic books, textbooks, or authoritative refernce works, that discuss anything, and I'm pretty sure if you had an inkling of how fucking dismissive and condescending your reply was you'd not have written it. I just asked for a simple, single, reference that you gives the definition of gender that you proclaimed.

Merriam Webster is available online, which despite being American, says gender is (among other things) "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex".

I think it’s perfectly normal for people to want to use their own words to describe their own experiences. There’s nothing remotely unusual about that, and certainly nothing unique to trans people.

What’s extraordinary is the insistence that trans people shouldn’t be afforded that same freedom — that someone else’s interpretation of their experience must take precedence over their own.

And then to turn around and accuse trans people of policing language and imposing their experiences on others, simply because they want to describe themselves in their own terms!

The complete inversion of who’s imposing their interpretation on whom, and the hypocrisy of it, is quite astounding

There are any number of academic books, articles, scientific textbooks and authoritative reference works discussing gender and its relationship to sex. You could start with these:

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Mikkola, M. Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender. Stanford University.

1. American Psychological Association (2018). Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022). Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation.

1. American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology: Gender.

1. World Health Organization. Gender and health

But your entire argument depends on assuming that “woman” can only ever mean adult human female, and therefore that including trans women makes the word mean its opposite. That’s precisely the assumption I’m challenging.

People applied EXACTLY the same logic to marriage. They insisted that definitionally a marriage could only mean a union between a man and a woman, and that extending it to same-sex couples would fundamentally change its meaning. Some may still believe that this has degraded the institution of marriage, but the meaning of the word hasn’t somehow collapsed. It still describes a marriage, including between a man and a woman. Its application has simply expanded.

The analogies illustrate a simple principle: words can acquire broader meanings without losing their existing uses or compromising understandings of those. You haven’t demonstrated why that principle can’t apply here. You’ve simply repeated your preferred definition and treated it as proof that any other usage must be wrong.

I don't really understand why your daughter is questioning the teacher? I have the world's most curious child and after one explanation, my DC would have moved on from this.

Are you bringing your child up in a home that supports and welcomes difference and inclusivity? Of sexuality and race, if not gender differences yet? E.g. sometimes two men love each other and get married, it's not always just a man and a woman. Or yes, Rudi's mum is brown and her dad is white and Rudi is a bit of both, just like the ginger cat and the black cat have kittens that are mixed.

Yes, I believe the word “woman” meaningfully includes trans women. I don’t think that in any way threatens or undermines its more general use to refer to adult human females.

A parent may say “this is my daughter”, even though they’re not biologically related. The relationship is real, the language is meaningful, and nobody thinks that using the word “daughter” in this context somehow undermines its biological meaning.

Language is perfectly capable of accommodating different experiences and relationships without its established meanings collapsing. Recognising one use doesn’t invalidate another.

Your examples are not comparative in any way to a male person using the word woman to refer to him.

Marriage means a relationship arrangement between individuals. Your example is irrelevant because same sex marriage is still a relationship arrangement. The legal definition was limited to heterosexual couples in some countries, it had other legal meanings where polygamy was allowed. The word referred to the relationship status. That never changed.

Family also always had meanings that were not strictly limited to the nuclear family.

Your examples are not relevant to the demanded changes you not only claim are normal and everyday, but they also are not relevant because the meaning doesn’t then include the opposite of what was the intended meaning.

For the term ‘marriage’ to be comparable, it would also have to include the opposite state such as divorce. Meaning that if someone was saying ‘I am getting married’, they could mean either entering a specific relationship arrangement that was marriage or they were divorcing.

“Accommodating minority difference doesn’t require language, or the concepts it describes, to collapse.”

Repeating this doesn’t make it any accurate or truthful than when you first typed it out when you are referring to language terms that then mean the opposite state when the term refers to one of only two possible states of being. This is obvious tbh

Yes, I believe the word “woman” meaningfully includes trans women. I don’t think that in any way threatens or undermines its more general use to refer to adult human females.

A parent may say “this is my daughter”, even though they’re not biologically related. The relationship is real, the language is meaningful, and nobody thinks that using the word “daughter” in this context somehow undermines its biological meaning.

Language is perfectly capable of accommodating different experiences and relationships without its established meanings collapsing. Recognising one use doesn’t invalidate another.

But you’re building your own conclusion into the question. I don’t accept that trans people have somehow “acquired” words and changed them to mean their opposites. I’m arguing that language can expand to accommodate different experiences without its existing meanings disappearing.

There are plenty of examples. Marriage expanded to include same-sex couples without ceasing to describe heterosexual marriages. Family can describe biological relatives, adoptive families and chosen families without the concept of biological kinship disappearing. And “they”, historically a plural pronoun, is also used for individuals without losing its plural meaning.

In each case, language accommodates people or circumstances that don’t fit a narrower understanding of the term, while retaining its other uses.

Accommodating minority difference doesn’t require language, or the concepts it describes, to collapse.

This is obvious tbh.

So when transwomen say they are 'women', what do you think they mean by the word 'woman' and how is that different or is it different from the use of the word 'woman' to mean 'adult human female'? Do you think we should just expand the word 'woman' to mean anyone who identifies as one?

But you’re building your own conclusion into the question. I don’t accept that trans people have somehow “acquired” words and changed them to mean their opposites. I’m arguing that language can expand to accommodate different experiences without its existing meanings disappearing.

There are plenty of examples. Marriage expanded to include same-sex couples without ceasing to describe heterosexual marriages. Family can describe biological relatives, adoptive families and chosen families without the concept of biological kinship disappearing. And “they”, historically a plural pronoun, is also used for individuals without losing its plural meaning.

In each case, language accommodates people or circumstances that don’t fit a narrower understanding of the term, while retaining its other uses.

Accommodating minority difference doesn’t require language, or the concepts it describes, to collapse.

This is obvious tbh.

Please provide the other groups of people who have acquired the use of commonly use language and changed the meaning of those words to then include the opposite of the original meaning as well as needing the words to still mean the original definition.

I look forward to you providing examples of groups who have done this since you have repeated asserted it was a normal occurrence.

You keep making claims that you never seem to be able to evidence.

I think it’s perfectly normal for people to want to use their own words to describe their own experiences. There’s nothing remotely unusual about that, and certainly nothing unique to trans people.

What’s extraordinary is the insistence that trans people shouldn’t be afforded that same freedom — that someone else’s interpretation of their experience must take precedence over their own.

And then to turn around and accuse trans people of policing language and imposing their experiences on others, simply because they want to describe themselves in their own terms!

The complete inversion of who’s imposing their interpretation on whom, and the hypocrisy of it, is quite astounding

“It’s a genuine aspect of human experience, not an ideological position that people are demanding everyone else subscribe to.”

It is an ideological belief that someone is what they say they are when they are materially not what they say they are. And if a group has then changed the meaning of common use language to support their personal belief system, it again is an ideological move.

There are no biological markers that support gender identity. Therefore any person making a claim that they are the opposite sex is making that claim purely based on their own personal conceptualisation of the life experience of someone who is the opposite sex. It also may need a rejection that the life they are experiencing, is just another valid life experience of someone of the sex category that their body belongs to. This is philosophical in nature as it is not someone living the life of the opposite sex, because that is impossible.

“They’re asking that the use of certain words accommodate minority differences and diversity.”

There is no ‘asking’. There is demanding and there are negative ramifications for many people who don’t want to comply to the demand. It would be rather a ridiculous claim at this point to deny this.

“This is perfectly normal. Language evolves and accommodates different meanings and uses across social contexts all the time, without its existing meanings somehow collapsing.”

And yet, the words that are usually those that mean the very opposite of their original meanings, are purely used socially and most likely to be a societal trend that is temporary. This group is also expecting that laws and policy support this language demand. And that has been successful to a point. Policies changed and reflected that demanded language. Government guidance too until legal cases clarified laws and changed that.

When laws and policies change to suit that language change, it does indeed collapse the original meaning. Until that original meaning is then specified and defined in the law or policy.

Hence the clarification by the Supreme Court for the FWS case. Hence the IOC regulations now have sex clearly defined. It seems to be at best disingenuous to claim otherwise.

“Asking someone to refer to you in a way that respects your experience isn’t the same as demanding that they adopt your beliefs about biological sex.”

Yes. It is.

“You can acknowledge another person’s experience without sharing their understanding of it.”

A male person claiming to have a transgender identity, is a male person claiming to have a transgender identity. They are not having an experience that is in anyway a ‘female’ experience.

“You’re turning an ordinary question of interpersonal respect and linguistic flexibility into an extraordinary claim about people being forced to deny material reality. That leap is entirely your own”

This is gaslighting.

Language ceases to be meaningful when it cannot communicate a message that it understood. When a male person demands female language is used for them, it renders that language as no longer having meaning that is specific. I understand from your posts about this particular aspect of the ideology you support that you don’t agree that the language becomes meaningless. This does not change the objective fact that if the word ‘woman’ means both male and female humans, it has been rendered meaningless. It is simply another synonym for the word ‘human’ and is no longer specific to mature female humans.

Your denial does not change the reality of that change.

I think it’s perfectly normal for people to want to use their own words to describe their own experiences. There’s nothing remotely unusual about that, and certainly nothing unique to trans people.

What’s extraordinary is the insistence that trans people shouldn’t be afforded that same freedom — that someone else’s interpretation of their experience must take precedence over their own.

And then to turn around and accuse trans people of policing language and imposing their experiences on others, simply because they want to describe themselves in their own terms!

The complete inversion of who’s imposing their interpretation on whom, and the hypocrisy of it, is quite astounding

Being gender incongruent isn’t a belief system. It’s a genuine aspect of human experience, not an ideological position that people are demanding everyone else subscribe to.

furthermore, it's misleading to that that trans people have somehow “acquired” or appropriated language. They’re asking that the use of certain words accommodate minority differences and diversity. This is perfectly normal. Language evolves and accommodates different meanings and uses across social contexts all the time, without its existing meanings somehow collapsing.
The idea that accommodating an additional use of a word renders it meaningless is simply absurd. Words routinely have multiple meanings, and context allows us to distinguish between them.

Asking someone to refer to you in a way that respects your experience isn’t the same as demanding that they adopt your beliefs about biological sex. You can acknowledge another person’s experience without sharing their understanding of it.

You’re turning an ordinary question of interpersonal respect and linguistic flexibility into an extraordinary claim about people being forced to deny material reality. That leap is entirely your own

Funny, isn't it, that the TRAs demand the right to use any language they choose to describe their own experience, but object intensely when anyone else does that. They are the ones trying to police the language someone uses to describe their own experience whenever that experience conflicts with the experience a transgenderist is trying to impose upon them.

So you're saying that

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy

Is the same as

Gender is the knowledge, recognition and meaning that we give to sexual differences

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

I haven’t said anything about single-sex spaces — that’s not what this conversation is about.

This conversation was about pronouns, and whether referring to someone with male anatomy as “she” necessarily constitutes a lie. I was explaining why it doesn’t.

You can refer to someone as “she” while being perfectly aware that they have male anatomy. You’re not necessarily making a claim about their body; you’re recognising their experience. One doesn’t deny the other.
That's precisely what the teacher in the telegraph story was trying to explain to the child. Far from harmful- that was an entirely appropriate , educational , developmentally appropriate and pro-social conversation to have.

You then accused me of trying to “muddle” sex and gender, alongside your insistence that “sex words” have fixed, objective meanings. I’ve been explaining why that doesn’t follow.

Sex and gender are not separate phenomena — gender is the meaning we create when we perceive, interpret and make sense of sexual differences. And words aren’t biological facts. They’re part of how we recognise, categorise and give meaning to those differences. Those meanings are created and shared by people, not dictated by nature.

You can insist that these words must be used in one particular way, but that’s simply trying to police other people’s language. And it’s particularly egregious when you’re trying to police the language someone uses to describe their own experience, insisting that your interpretation must carry more weight than their own.

To then declare that anyone who doesn’t comply with your rules is “lying” — well, it doesn’t get much more Orwellian than that.
You’re mistaking your own rules about language for reality itself.

You can insist that these words must be used in one particular way, but that’s simply trying to police other people’s language. And it’s particularly egregious when you’re trying to police the language someone uses to describe their own experience, insisting that your interpretation must carry more weight than their own.

One of the more ironic expressions of genderism, given the emphasis on such sins as "deadnaming" and "misgendering", and the insistence that calling a man a man is transphobic and bigoted.

I haven’t said anything about single-sex spaces — that’s not what this conversation is about.

This conversation was about pronouns, and whether referring to someone with male anatomy as “she” necessarily constitutes a lie. I was explaining why it doesn’t.

You can refer to someone as “she” while being perfectly aware that they have male anatomy. You’re not necessarily making a claim about their body; you’re recognising their experience. One doesn’t deny the other.
That's precisely what the teacher in the telegraph story was trying to explain to the child. Far from harmful- that was an entirely appropriate , educational , developmentally appropriate and pro-social conversation to have.

You then accused me of trying to “muddle” sex and gender, alongside your insistence that “sex words” have fixed, objective meanings. I’ve been explaining why that doesn’t follow.

Sex and gender are not separate phenomena — gender is the meaning we create when we perceive, interpret and make sense of sexual differences. And words aren’t biological facts. They’re part of how we recognise, categorise and give meaning to those differences. Those meanings are created and shared by people, not dictated by nature.

You can insist that these words must be used in one particular way, but that’s simply trying to police other people’s language. And it’s particularly egregious when you’re trying to police the language someone uses to describe their own experience, insisting that your interpretation must carry more weight than their own.

To then declare that anyone who doesn’t comply with your rules is “lying” — well, it doesn’t get much more Orwellian than that.
You’re mistaking your own rules about language for reality itself.

Yes, absolutely. That’s a more applied way of expressing the same idea. The WHO describes some of the forms that gender takes in society — the characteristics, norms, behaviours and roles associated with sex. I’m explaining the underlying process through which these meanings arise: how we perceive, understand and give meaning to sex and sexual differences.

In other words, they’re different ways of describing the same phenomenon. One focuses on how gender manifests in society, the other on what gender fundamentally is and how it arises

We interpret what we see.
This does not alter the underlying reality.

So please explain why some male people should be allowed into spaces and services legally reserved for female people by use of single sex exemptions.

Are you saying it is because these males perceive themselves as female?

Are you saying that, if every observer present at the time thinks this male person is female, then they have become female?

Are you saying that if only some of the observers think this male person is female then they have become female?

Are you saying that if some/all the observers think this male person is female, he hasn’t become female, but it is nevertheless OK for him to use female spaces?

Are you saying that a male person who thinks they pass well as female should be allowed to use female spaces, regardless of the feelings of the female people present at the time?

Or what?

Because I do not see what anyone’s perceptions of another person’s appearance have anything to do with it.

Sex is a fact, not in the eye of the beholder.

Which part are you finding to be garbled nonsense?

Do you acknowledge these two things , or are you disputing them? If the latter , can you explain how?

• reality exists independently but we can only perceive and understand it through our minds.
• We don’t create reality by looking at it, but we inevitably interpret what we see.