Teacher upset with my child questioning about trans child

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

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

Rubbish. The policing of language is not an expression of the wish "to describe themselves in their own terms", it is an expression of the wish that everyone else describe them as they demand.

They want to be addressed by others in a manner that is compatible with their dignity and wellbeing, yes.
Also very , very normal.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to be rude x

I think it’s perfectly normal for people to want to use their own words to describe their own experiences.

My experience of the six foot two inch man in a blonde wig is that he's a man, so I'm bloody well going to refer to him as "he". And his "experience" can go to hell.

It's beneath my dignity and bad for my wellbeing to lie about someone's sex.

Then don't. I don't think you need to. You are not required to be friends with any trans person, or to interact with them in any way at all. Yes you may have to share certain public spaces with trans people- that's living in society- , and if you speak to them just use their name. If you speak about them- do so however you wish, just maybe not in earshot. Surely these are just basic principles for rubbing along.

I think it’s perfectly normal for people to want to use their own words to describe their own experiences.

My experience of the six foot two inch man in a blonde wig is that he's a man, so I'm bloody well going to refer to him as "he". And his "experience" can go to hell.

I see. So do you insist on addressing women by their married names, even when they haven't changed them?

What about telling gay women that lesbians don't exist? My grandmothers both did this (to the same woman).

How about refusing to learn an unfamiliar name from another culture, and insisting on calling someone by a name you made up instead? Very common a few decades back.

Trans people exist, and your apparent fury towards them doesn't alter that fact. They live normal lives, and deserve respect just as any minority does. A tiny minority who have always existed, and will keep being born.

Transphobia is simply a new iteration of older bigotries. Spending all day calling trans women 'he' is a tragic waste of anyone's life.

I see. So do you insist on addressing women by their married names, even when they haven't changed them?

What about telling gay women that lesbians don't exist? My grandmothers both did this (to the same woman).

How about refusing to learn an unfamiliar name from another culture, and insisting on calling someone by a name you made up instead? Very common a few decades back.

Trans people exist, and your apparent fury towards them doesn't alter that fact. They live normal lives, and deserve respect just as any minority does. A tiny minority who have always existed, and will keep being born.

Transphobia is simply a new iteration of older bigotries. Spending all day calling trans women 'he' is a tragic waste of anyone's life.

What bizarre examples! Totally inapposite.

They want to be addressed by others in a manner that is compatible with their dignity and wellbeing, yes.
Also very , very normal.

Does this mean you accept it is an issue of welfare and dignity of the speaker, as well as the spoken-of?

The definition of marriage was expanded from a union between a man and a woman to a union between two people.

Can you give a similar concise explanation of how the definition of woman can be expanded to include some men without it losing its meaning completely?

Of course the speaker’s feelings and wellbeing matter too. But I don’t regard the two positions as morally equivalent.

One person is saying, “This is who I am, this is my experience, please refer to me respectfully.” The other is saying, “I must refer to you in a way that conflicts with your wishes, because I can’t tolerate doing otherwise.”

Those are fundamentally different requests.

Of course, if someone genuinely finds it distressing to recognise another person’s gender, I acknowledge that their distress is real, whether or not I consider their beliefs reasonable. They’re entitled to their feelings and to set boundaries around their own interactions, including choosing not to engage with someone.

But that doesn’t mean their discomfort should have priority over the dignity of the person they’re describing.

Recognising that both people have feelings doesn’t mean their competing demands carry equal moral weight.

And I don't want to deny that I have a son by referring to him as my daughter. He can call himself that, inaccurately, if he wishes, but he cannot demand that I do so. And when there is an implied threat of estrangement, it becomes coercion. Which you appear to approve. Do you?

Or are the words son and daughter expanded to include, respectively, daughter and son? In which case they are redundant, as we can just use "child", except that it often misleads when said child is an adult.

Eta: ... and this is an example of the impoverishment of language. Redefining words in such a way as to completely blur their meaning makes it much harder to express that meaning.

Of course the speaker’s feelings and wellbeing matter too. But I don’t regard the two positions as morally equivalent.

One person is saying, “This is who I am, this is my experience, please refer to me respectfully.” The other is saying, “I must refer to you in a way that conflicts with your wishes, because I can’t tolerate doing otherwise.”

Those are fundamentally different requests.

Of course, if someone genuinely finds it distressing to recognise another person’s gender, I acknowledge that their distress is real, whether or not I consider their beliefs reasonable. They’re entitled to their feelings and to set boundaries around their own interactions, including choosing not to engage with someone.

But that doesn’t mean their discomfort should have priority over the dignity of the person they’re describing.

Recognising that both people have feelings doesn’t mean their competing demands carry equal moral weight.

Of course the speaker’s feelings and wellbeing matter too. But I don’t regard the two positions as morally equivalent.

One person is saying, “This is who I am, this is my experience, please refer to me respectfully.” The other is saying, “I must refer to you in a way that conflicts with your wishes, because I can’t tolerate doing otherwise.”

Those are fundamentally different requests.

Of course, if someone genuinely finds it distressing to recognise another person’s gender, I acknowledge that their distress is real, whether or not I consider their beliefs reasonable. They’re entitled to their feelings and to set boundaries around their own interactions, including choosing not to engage with someone.

But that doesn’t mean their discomfort should have priority over the dignity of the person they’re describing.

Recognising that both people have feelings doesn’t mean their competing demands carry equal moral weight.

Of course the speaker’s feelings and wellbeing matter too. But I don’t regard the two positions as morally equivalent.

One person is saying, “This is who I am, this is my experience, please refer to me respectfully.” The other is saying, “I must refer to you in a way that conflicts with your wishes, because I can’t tolerate doing otherwise.”

Those are fundamentally different requests.

Of course, if someone genuinely finds it distressing to recognise another person’s gender, I acknowledge that their distress is real, whether or not I consider their beliefs reasonable. They’re entitled to their feelings and to set boundaries around their own interactions, including choosing not to engage with someone.

But that doesn’t mean their discomfort should have priority over the dignity of the person they’re describing.

Recognising that both people have feelings doesn’t mean their competing demands carry equal moral weight.

I think you’re confusing coercion with another person having boundaries of their own.

You’re entitled to your feelings about how you refer to your child. But your child is equally entitled to have feelings about being referred to in a way they find hurtful, and to decide what kind of relationship they’re comfortable maintaining.

If your child says, “Being called your son is distressing to me, and I don’t want to keep putting myself through that”, that isn’t necessarily coercion. It’s an expression of their own needs and boundaries. Just as you can choose what language you’re willing to use, they can choose what interactions they’re willing to participate in.

Of course, there’s much more at stake emotionally when you’re talking about your own child rather than a stranger. I don’t underestimate that. But ultimately, you have to ask yourself what matters more to you: maintaining your relationship with your child, or insisting on referring to them in a particular way, knowing how distressing they find it.

It is not respectful to require someone to lie and deny their own experience. Obtaining submission to that sort of ‘respect’ through demands and threats of social condemnation is coercive control.

So you think there is a moral imperative for me to reinforce my son's trans identity? I think there is a moral imperative for me to be a rock of reality. I think nearly everyone would agree that having a trans identity usually means a difficult path in life. I do not believe that the destination that some are encouraging my son towards, that of bodily modification via artificial hormones and surgery, is in any way positive. This is the same as my belief that cosmetic surgery for a woman in the pursuit of a "beauty" standard is not a positive development, so it's not "transphobia", it's a rejection of extreme pursuit of some unattainable standard set by some parts of society.

As it's not possible to achieve the trans goal of becoming the desired person, and my son is surrounded by people, most of whom don't actually care very much about him, who cheerlead knowingly or unknowingly for him to risk his health in pursuit of an impossible dream, it is my duty to stand firm in favour of realism and physical reality. He knows deep down that I, and DW, have always loved him and supported him through his struggles, but trans identity believers tell him otherwise and try to separate him from all his family, including those who are trans allies!

Of course the speaker’s feelings and wellbeing matter too. But I don’t regard the two positions as morally equivalent.

One person is saying, “This is who I am, this is my experience, please refer to me respectfully.” The other is saying, “I must refer to you in a way that conflicts with your wishes, because I can’t tolerate doing otherwise.”

Those are fundamentally different requests.

Of course, if someone genuinely finds it distressing to recognise another person’s gender, I acknowledge that their distress is real, whether or not I consider their beliefs reasonable. They’re entitled to their feelings and to set boundaries around their own interactions, including choosing not to engage with someone.

But that doesn’t mean their discomfort should have priority over the dignity of the person they’re describing.

Recognising that both people have feelings doesn’t mean their competing demands carry equal moral weight.