Teacher upset with my child questioning about trans child

The fundamental problem with your argument is your assumption that respecting someone's pronouns necessarily amounts to telling a lie. That's not an objective fact. It's your own rigid interpretation of what pronouns mean.

You've then constructed an entire argument about deception, psychological harm and safeguarding on the basis of that assumption, without actually establishing that any deception or harm is taking place.

You're confusing your own beliefs about language with reality itself. It's wild.

The fundamental problem with your argument is your assumption that respecting someone's pronouns necessarily amounts to telling a lie. That's not an objective fact. It's your own rigid interpretation of what pronouns mean.

You've then constructed an entire argument about deception, psychological harm and safeguarding on the basis of that assumption, without actually establishing that any deception or harm is taking place.

You're confusing your own beliefs about language with reality itself. It's wild.

The fundamental problem with your argument is your assumption that using the correct sexed pronouns necessarily amounts to being disrespectful. That's not an objective fact. It's your own rigid interpretation of what pronouns mean.

I'm not saying it's objectively or universally disrespectful. Of course it isn't. Respect isn't some fixed, objective property of particular words. It's about how we treat one another in interpersonal interactions.

If someone tells you that being referred to in a particular way is hurtful or uncomfortable for them, that's a reality of their experience, regardless of whether you personally understand or share it.

You can acknowledge that experience and respond with consideration without having to abandon your own understanding of biology or language. That's the distinction you seem to be missing.

I'm not saying it's objectively or universally disrespectful. Of course it isn't. Respect isn't some fixed, objective property of particular words. It's about how we treat one another in interpersonal interactions.

If someone tells you that being referred to in a particular way is hurtful or uncomfortable for them, that's a reality of their experience, regardless of whether you personally understand or share it.

You can acknowledge that experience and respond with consideration without having to abandon your own understanding of biology or language. That's the distinction you seem to be missing.

My point was about how gay people USED to be treated, discriminated and discussed - very inaccurately exactly! People expressed similar fears, with very little evidence of those fears being committed. A bit like trans is now.

That we know of. The same as gay people lived a lie and concealed who they were for many, many years. People used to call being gay ‘a delusion’, a ‘phase’, a ‘kink’.

Well no. There’s a clear, obvious difference.

Gay people were discriminated against over something that was known and verifiably true. Humans can be attracted to same sex individuals.

Trans identified people are asking for privileges based on something we know NOT to be true. They humans can change sex. They can’t.

Granting gay rights affected no one else.

Giving biological men the ‘right’ to access women’s single sex spaces would dismantle women’s sex based rights.

Can you seriously not see the difference?

But homosexuality wasn't always accepted as something real and legitimate. For a very long time, same-sex attraction was dismissed as a lifestyle choice, a product of cultural influence or social contagion, a perversion, a mental illness, a safeguarding risk and even a fundamental threat to society. In many places and contexts, it still is.

There are striking parallels with the way gender incongruence is portrayed today.
Gender incongruence is a genuine, medically recognised phenomenon, just as same-sex attraction is a genuine aspect of human diversity. It isn't a lie or an invention.

As for whether someone can "change sex", that's a rhetorical device you keep calling on, but lets be precise - what do you actually mean? Can someone change their chromosomes? No. Can they change their name, pronouns, clothing and social presentation? Of course!! So why are you so determined they shouldn't?
Can they undergo masculinising or feminising hormone treatment, altering their secondary sexual characteristics? Yes. Can they undergo surgical interventions that alter the appearance and some functions of their anatomy? Yes.

Why are all these things so threatening to you? That's what you need to ask yourself.

Same sex attraction has always been observed as human behaviour.

The question was whether we gave it the same legal and societal standing as opposite sex attraction.

Biological men who think they are women are not women however. There is no scientific, verifiable, objective criteria that makes them anything other than men. That is the bottom line.

Gender incongruence can also be observed as human behaviour. The question is also whether we give it legal and societal standing. For a while we were moving towards that - currently there is a very unhealthy backlash against that progress - just as the 80s were r.e. gay rights.

But homosexuality wasn't always accepted as something real and legitimate. For a very long time, same-sex attraction was dismissed as a lifestyle choice, a product of cultural influence or social contagion, a perversion, a mental illness, a safeguarding risk and even a fundamental threat to society. In many places and contexts, it still is.

There are striking parallels with the way gender incongruence is portrayed today.
Gender incongruence is a genuine, medically recognised phenomenon, just as same-sex attraction is a genuine aspect of human diversity. It isn't a lie or an invention.

As for whether someone can "change sex", that's a rhetorical device you keep calling on, but lets be precise - what do you actually mean? Can someone change their chromosomes? No. Can they change their name, pronouns, clothing and social presentation? Of course!! So why are you so determined they shouldn't?
Can they undergo masculinising or feminising hormone treatment, altering their secondary sexual characteristics? Yes. Can they undergo surgical interventions that alter the appearance and some functions of their anatomy? Yes.

Why are all these things so threatening to you? That's what you need to ask yourself.

Gender incongruence can also be observed as human behaviour. The question is also whether we give it legal and societal standing. For a while we were moving towards that - currently there is a very unhealthy backlash against that progress - just as the 80s were r.e. gay rights.

But homosexuality wasn't always accepted as something real and legitimate. For a very long time, same-sex attraction was dismissed as a lifestyle choice, a product of cultural influence or social contagion, a perversion, a mental illness, a safeguarding risk and even a fundamental threat to society. In many places and contexts, it still is.

There are striking parallels with the way gender incongruence is portrayed today.
Gender incongruence is a genuine, medically recognised phenomenon, just as same-sex attraction is a genuine aspect of human diversity. It isn't a lie or an invention.

As for whether someone can "change sex", that's a rhetorical device you keep calling on, but lets be precise - what do you actually mean? Can someone change their chromosomes? No. Can they change their name, pronouns, clothing and social presentation? Of course!! So why are you so determined they shouldn't?
Can they undergo masculinising or feminising hormone treatment, altering their secondary sexual characteristics? Yes. Can they undergo surgical interventions that alter the appearance and some functions of their anatomy? Yes.

Why are all these things so threatening to you? That's what you need to ask yourself.

Gender incongruence can also be observed as human behaviour. The question is also whether we give it legal and societal standing. For a while we were moving towards that - currently there is a very unhealthy backlash against that progress - just as the 80s were r.e. gay rights.

What Lacksie is demonstrating in real time is the adultification of children by transactivists. The refusal to see them as children, below the age of consent and yet to develop the necessary critical thinking skills / insight that comes with maturity. The fake parallels with being lesbian / gay, promoting all the aspects of sex change and ending by asking why that's so threatening to posters - on a thread about 5 year old children !! Note how few comments are about children but swerve to adult demands and beliefs.

Pretending to a child that they're the opposite sex is cruel - as is pretending to other children that a child has magically sex changed. Until very recently, people have been forbidden from pointing this out as a major safeguarding issue. Finally the govt has woken up and located these children clearly under the safeguarding framework

Which is why transactivists spend so much time on here trying to argue the opposite:

https://www.transgendertrend.com/childhood-social-transition/

But homosexuality wasn't always accepted as something real and legitimate. For a very long time, same-sex attraction was dismissed as a lifestyle choice, a product of cultural influence or social contagion, a perversion, a mental illness, a safeguarding risk and even a fundamental threat to society. In many places and contexts, it still is.

There are striking parallels with the way gender incongruence is portrayed today.
Gender incongruence is a genuine, medically recognised phenomenon, just as same-sex attraction is a genuine aspect of human diversity. It isn't a lie or an invention.

As for whether someone can "change sex", that's a rhetorical device you keep calling on, but lets be precise - what do you actually mean? Can someone change their chromosomes? No. Can they change their name, pronouns, clothing and social presentation? Of course!! So why are you so determined they shouldn't?
Can they undergo masculinising or feminising hormone treatment, altering their secondary sexual characteristics? Yes. Can they undergo surgical interventions that alter the appearance and some functions of their anatomy? Yes.

Why are all these things so threatening to you? That's what you need to ask yourself.

as the ideological demands of parents demanding a sex / pronoun change for a 5 year old versus the rights of other 5 years olds to be safeguarded from the adult belief in sex change won't be easy to navigate. But it's an improvement from the previous practice of adult transactivists imposing this on children and schools

Again this is just your own (incoherent) ideological framing based on your personal beliefs about sex/ gender. It ain't got nothing to do with the guidance - there is nothing in there about the need for "5 year olds to be safeguarded from the adult belief in sex change", because that's a load of incoherent waffle.

Just because you don’t agree with something it doesn’t make it “incoherent”.

Can you explain how you get from asking a child to refer to another person respectfully to assuming that this must have a negative impact on their mental health? What is the actual harm you're suggesting?

As for this particular story, as I said at the beginning of the thread, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, and I'm not convinced we have the full context or details.

We're talking about five-year-olds here. At this age, children's understanding of sex/ gender is still developing, and is shaped by social conventions, such as clothing, hairstyles and appearance. As has been pointed out several times on this thread, children of this age typically haven't yet developed a full understanding of sex/ gender "constancy".

Of course the needs of all the children should be considered in a classroom. But I don't see why you're assuming that accommodating one child's differences must necessarily be harmful to the others.

What Lacksie is demonstrating in real time is the adultification of children by transactivists. The refusal to see them as children, below the age of consent and yet to develop the necessary critical thinking skills / insight that comes with maturity. The fake parallels with being lesbian / gay, promoting all the aspects of sex change and ending by asking why that's so threatening to posters - on a thread about 5 year old children !! Note how few comments are about children but swerve to adult demands and beliefs.

Pretending to a child that they're the opposite sex is cruel - as is pretending to other children that a child has magically sex changed. Until very recently, people have been forbidden from pointing this out as a major safeguarding issue. Finally the govt has woken up and located these children clearly under the safeguarding framework

Which is why transactivists spend so much time on here trying to argue the opposite:

https://www.transgendertrend.com/childhood-social-transition/

Here you go

From Read More Piaget Please
https://x.com/prof_curiosity1/status/2045390010560520341

'The effect on children who do not adopt a transgender or non-binary identity is also real and also underdiscussed. Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework describes the school as a mesosystem, one of the key environments within which children develop their understanding of the social world.

When the school environment introduces a framework that treats biological sex as mutable, that requires children to accept that a peer who presents as a boy may be correctly described as a girl, and that to question this is to cause harm, it creates cognitive dissonance for children whose concrete operational understanding of the world is organised around stable physical categories. For younger children in particular, this is not an expansion of their understanding. It is a demand that they suppress the evidence of their own perception in deference to a socially enforced claim. The developmental costs of teaching children that observable reality is less reliable than asserted identity have not been studied. They deserve to be.'....
....'Developmental science does not support the introduction of gender identity frameworks to children before the cognitive, moral, and identity-forming capacities required to engage with them are in place. It does not support the use of schools as environments for the transmission of a contested identity framework to children who are, by developmental definition, in the most suggestible and identity-forming period of their lives. And it does not support the assumption that exposure to that framework is neutral for children who do not adopt its categories, because no exposure to a framework that reorganises the cognitive and social environment of development is ever neutral.

The children in those classrooms did not ask to be part of this. They deserved better than to become the unexamined subjects of an intervention that the institutions responsible for their care had not thought carefully enough about.'

It's very accurate to see gender identity as a massive experiment on children (and the rest of society).
So many trans groups full of self identified "experts" weighing in on school systems, parenting, safeguarding - pronouncing on how schools should be organised when their professed expertise turns out to be no more than a study of themselves and their niche desires / wishes. 😂

Bullying and intimidation stopped professionals, parents and others from pointing out complete absence of child development, psychology and safeguarding expertise in everything they demanded.

Fortunately their power is draining away with even the govt recognising how dangerous transactivism is to the young - hence the new guidance linked upthread.