To be HORRIFIED that this might be taught in my daughters school

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

Have any of you come across this? Do you know if this, or other lessons have been presented to your primary (or secondary) age children?

www.transgendertrend.com/teaching-transgender-doctrine-in-schools-a-bizarre-educational-experiment/

"Biology has no meaning to me."

I am not saying this isn't how they see it. I am saying they are wrong. And I believe they have reached this point because the meaning of gender and sex have been conflated so often.

Exactly. And that is precisely what educators should want no part of.

The smae goes for public service broadcasters, now you mention it mystic. They should at least cotextualise, but that's probably expecting too much of the BBC Breakfast sofa occupiers.

Wait, William I'm confused - are you saying that they're wrong in their stated belief or that they don't actually believe what they think they believe?

The people saying that gender roles and stereotypes are the only reason people are trans are incredibly ignorant. Trans people do not transition because 'they enjoy things that are traditionally enjoyed by people of a different gender'.

If you are a female, then you are a female, someone telling you that you are a male doesn't make you male, having a vagina also doesn't inherently make you female. In the same way that being in a relationship with a woman as a bisexual woman doesn't make you a lesbian.

The 'trend' is not a trend, it's a change in societal understanding of trans people, and the age that people figure out their gender identity. It's also a reduction in trans young people dying by suicide, as well as an attempt to reduce violence towards trans men and women.

Gender identity, much like sexuality, is innate and can be very varied (kinda like the kinsey scale or similar) so no, not all people are women, or men. Some people are both, some are neither, some change depending on when you ask.

Is it wrong to allow children to transition? Yes and No. Children should be allowed to explore their gender identities, and should be encouraged to be open and honest about their feelings, but also to know they can change their minds. I don't think surgery should be offered to the under 18 age group, because it's permanent. But hormones can be reversed if needs be, and puberty can be 'postponed' which allows the young person more time to figure things out. We wouldn't dream of telling a child they are 'too young' to know their sexuality?

As for the OP, no I don't think that's wrong and YABVU. Language is important and it's incredibly arrogant to assume you know everyone's gender identity, and it's not difficult or offensive to use gender-neutral language. Otherwise you're assuming you can guess someone's gender from their appearance which is pretty rude.

The people saying that gender roles and stereotypes are the only reason people are trans are incredibly ignorant.

Has anyone said that?

Trans people do not transition because 'they enjoy things that are traditionally enjoyed by people of a different gender'.

No indeed. I'm not sure you've understood the criticism of the notion that people enjoy certain things according to their 'gender'.

Loopsdefruits:

The people saying that gender roles and stereotypes are the only reason people are trans are incredibly ignorant. Trans people do not transition because 'they enjoy things that are traditionally enjoyed by people of a different gender'.

Okay, so if it's not about traditional gender stereotypes - clothes, activities, behaviours - and it's not, as you say in your next paragraph, about biology, then what exactly does it mean to be a man or a woman? Can you define those two genders? (Identifying as both or neither still seems to require that there's some essential male- or female-ness to define oneself against, so I'm wondering how you'd do that if not by reference to biology or stereotype)

I'd say that I don't have a 'gender identity.' I'd also say that I'm a woman, but all that means to me is that I'm an adult human female.

having a vagina also doesn't inherently make you female. In the same way that being in a relationship with a woman as a bisexual woman doesn't make you a lesbian.

Vagina-owners are female/women.

Having a vagina is a key indicator of the biological state of being female. It just is. Vagina ownership and xx chromosome ownership normally go together. Vaginas and womanhood have a very very close correlation. That's science, not oppression.

Which isn't to say that intersex people, gender dysphoria and trans people don't exist or shouldn't be treated respectfully.

Maybe if we all used the existing languge of English in the existing way, we'd find there was more common ground?

loops if you mustn't assume the gender of anyone without asking them, how do you go about saying for example

"90% of boys in the region attend school while only 30% of girls do"

?

Or,

"Girls are often married off shortly after puberty, to men much older than them"

Or

"When boko haram raid a village, they typically murder the boys and abduct and forcibly "marry" the girls"

???

I'm quite serious. How should these things be talked about, without assuming anyone's gender? If you can answer me that in a way that makes sense then I will be a lot happier, and start to use it in conversations where people were previously grouped and treated according to their sex (dick/cunt).

Or by using "gender neutral" language.

So far I have seen attempts that I am not at all comfortable with, for example referring to girls as "menstruators" which feels extremely reductive and also is biologically a bit iffy anyway.

I am really serious. How are we to talk about these things, which happen because of SEX, in our post sex world?

Okay, so if it's not about traditional gender stereotypes - clothes, activities, behaviours - and it's not, as you say in your next paragraph, about biology, then what exactly does it mean to be a man or a woman? Can you define those two genders?

I would really like to know this too.

And there must be an answer if loopy claims that gender identity is innate, right? There must be some actual tangible thing that is being deemed innate here?

Loops can you explain to me what it is that makes me female other than my ownership of vagina, uterus, ovaries, lactation-capable breasts and other associated equipment?

I've just paused to try to dredge up some inherent (as you used that word) sense of 'femaleness' from a corner of my brain/psyche and I'm coming up completely blank. There's nothing in me that 'feels' female, beyond the physical.

loops, sorry, not loopy. Awkward.

22 million questions in a row there for loopy, probably a tall order!

One tiny thing I feel the need to point out. A few people have referred to hormones that postpone puberty as a 'safe' option, one which 'leaves no lasting effects'. Fact is, we don't know how safe they are yet, there has not been any sort of study and they are being prescribed off label.

Think about why you are repeating that they are safe without actually knowing that, and who that might benefit.

Biology is irrelevant is the same as saying the truth is irrelevant- where is this rubbish coming from.
Scientific theory is disproved all the time. But the potential to produce eggs/width of pelvis/higher fat distribution/XX chromosomes/mitochondrial DNA inheritance is from the female/breast tissue/menopause and for me most irritatingly periods, are all distinctly female characteristics that aren't too difficult to distinguish.

This internal gender ID thing.

It has been posited by people who by definition have some kind of feeling around this, ie transgender people, to explain their situation. Which is fine. The difficulty is that it has then been assumed that because TG have this deeply held feeling of internal gender, which is unrelated to stereotypes etc, so MUST everyone else. They feel it, and they are in accord with it.

Problem is, how many non TG have actually been asked this?

Thread on here ages ago, out of what 100 or 200 respondents, only about 2 said they had this feeling.

Other thing I wonder -it is MTF who seem more in number and loudness etc. Do men have this feeling more than women? Which would imply some kind of difference maybe social who knows. But. Men have all this "real man" stuff thrown at them, while we exist more as accessories to said real men, we are wives, daughters, mums etc. While men are MEN and whole entities in their own right. Does this concept of internal gender ID make more sense to them (men) for some reason? Because it sure doesn't to me.

There are some things you know you feel and some you know you don't although you believe others do. eg I am an unspiritual person. I have no part of me whatsoever that has any feeling or whatever of any kind of "higher force". I have friends who have various beliefs, it's just a thing they know, in themselves, about themselves.

I feel the same about an internal sense of gender ID as I do about spirituality. I can accept some people have a feeling like that. I don't.

Either I am one of an apparently very small number of agender people but coincidentally there are many of us here on MN, or someone has got their assumptions wrong.

Fuck me Kennington, you essentialist.

You'll be claiming that we're mammals next, FFS.

ArcheryAnnie-- "If "defining yourself genderwise" means that anyone with a penis can go anywhere they like, including into women-only facilities (refuges, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, etc etc) then where are the women supposed to go in order to have any sort of hope of privacy or safety?"

You are right, Annie. And that is why, in real life, I will always favor/vote for segregation based strictly on biological sex (including surgically transformed sexual organs). In my ideal world, everyone would be free to define themselves. But in reality, we need to err on the side of doing the best for the most number of pp., and unfortunately those who do not conform are the minority.

But hormones can be reversed if needs be, and puberty can be 'postponed' which allows the young person more time to figure things out

But unfortunately it doesn't work like that, because almost 100% of children who are prescribed blockers go on to cross sex hormones. They don't get the chance to work things out because going through natural puberty is essential to enable them to work it out. They don't get the benefit of going through natural puberty and having their bodies and brains become mature. So they're kept in a pre-pubertal limbo and have no idea what it's like to fully live in their sexed bodies. Not a good standpoint to judge from, unfortunately for these kids. Child abuse, imo.

But unfortunately it doesn't work like that, because almost 100% of children who are prescribed blockers go on to cross sex hormones. They don't get the chance to work things out because going through natural puberty is essential to enable them to work it out. They don't get the benefit of going through natural puberty and having their bodies and brains become mature. So they're kept in a pre-pubertal limbo and have no idea what it's like to fully live in their sexed bodies.

Plus, we have no idea of the risks of taking puberty blockers long-term. They were developed for children who go into puberty very early and need them for only a couple of years. They were never intended or tested for longer-term use and we have no idea of any possible side effects. As ageing says, puberty is a complex process that affects the entire body, including the brain. Puberty blockers are not just stopping trans children develop sexual characteristics - they are stopping them develop at all.

As for hormones - we already know they have a host of side-effects in adults, e.g. increased risk of blood clots with both HRT and testosterone. And that's in adults who usually only take them for a few years, mostly later in life. Who knows what the effects will be when they are started in pubescent children and continued for decades? We don't have a clue -we are literally experimenting on trans kids.

I am sure you have all seen this.

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/editors-note-gender/

Has anyone talked about the fact that a 9 year old has dyed hair? Admittedly, for a shoot, and for all we know, at no other time. But if I were asked to be in a photo for the press at age 9 and there was some suggestion from somewhere that my hair might be dyed, it would have been given short shrift.

Alternatively, perhaps Avery always likes to have dyed hair, and does. I cannot imagine a conversation taking place in 1980 between a 9 year old and his / her parents that resulted in permission and assistance to dye hair.

What are the priorities here? I can imagine asking to dye my hair, as a 9 year old. The suggestion would definitely have been laughed off the face of the planet - not because dyed hair is terrible, but because as a 9 year old it would have been assumed I should be thinking about, and doing, other things. (also what does it cost? We would probably not have spent that money on something so silly. yes I had piano lessons; no I did not have lots of clothes or any cosmetic stuff that cost anything)

9 year olds don't have the money, skills or autonomy to do this themselves. Someone somewhere has decided that Avery having subtly dyed pink hair is a priority. What does that say about values? just that is slightly blowing my mind.

"Get on with your life, you're fine" - was said to me when I complained about my red curly embarrassing hair. Has anyone ever said "get on with your life, you're fine" to Avery?

It has been posited by people who by definition have some kind of feeling around this, ie transgender people, to explain their situation. Which is fine. The difficulty is that it has then been assumed that because TG have this deeply held feeling of internal gender, which is unrelated to stereotypes etc, so MUST everyone else. They feel it, and they are in accord with it.

Does a feeling or state of being have to be something you can recognise as a thing in itself? You might not appreciate the feeling of being at room temperature as a thing unless someone turns the heat up or down, and you have never experienced this before. If you have never been hungry or eaten until you feel stuffed, you might not recognise the comfortable absence of either as an explicit feeling in its own right.

In either case you might scratch your head and say "I don't know" if someone was to ask you what these feelings feel like. That would be your room-temperature privilege talking :)

I want to know why the feelings of the minority can affect the majority. We're not talking about racism, where we can remove a prejudice to right a wrong.
The demand is that women can no longer define themselves, to please the minority.
Which is slightly ironic, is it not? I want to be you but not if you are you.

The author of this piece has not cited or referenced any of the statements they have made re: government funded, ofsted approved etc.
Therefore I would not take what they are claiming as gospel.
If the author can back up their claims I'd take it more seriously.

Ok, that is a lot of questions haha I am going to attempt to answer them all I just need to put them in one place to figure out what I think. There have been some really good points, and I definitely want to address them to the best of my ability. So please bear with me :) and don't stress about the 'loopy' it's fairly accurate :P