..to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools?

[ConcernedMum100]

AIBU to think Stonewall should not be involved with schools...

Historically, Stonewall has done amazing work and led the way for equality. However, over recent years their priority seems to be a different sort of activism, which has caused many of their original supporters to abandon them.

I want to stress that I am very much in favour of primary schools teaching about diversity and different types of families including same sex parents, etc. I believe that's very important. I do however have reservations with Stonewall for various reasons, as follows:

-Its school resources with regards to transgenderism and gender identity, such as An Introduction to Supporting LGBT children, breach the Department of Education’s guidelines in many ways, including the sexist and regressive suggestion that children enjoying clothes or toys typically associated with the opposite sex is a sign they may be transgender. The resources also say that children are given a label at birth (they mean their sex is recorded) and that sometimes this label will have been wrong. They are not referring to the tiny percentage of babies born with a DSD, but children whose gender identity is supposedly different to their sex. Whatever that means. The resources also say that a school should not tell the child’s parents about their gender identity if the child does not want them to. Which means they’re suggesting schools change a child’s name and pronouns without informing the parents. Seeing as they communicate that children with gender dysphoria are often vulnerable and even suicidal, this seems very irresponsible.

-Its stance on child safeguarding. Stonewall have been very clear that they disagree with the High Court’s ruling which concluded that children under the age of 16 are highly unlikely to be able to consent to puberty blockers. They are in favour of medicating children as young as 10 years old, who are experiencing gender dysphoria and say they want to live as the opposite sex. This follows research showing puberty blockers do not have a positive effect on the children’s mental health, but do cause issues with brain development and bone density. Nearly 100% of children who have taken puberty blockers go on to take cross sex hormones which will likely lead to loss of sexual function and infertility. There has been an alarming increase in children identifying as trans over the last few years and the reasons for this is unknown, and there has been no research to understand the apparent strong link between autism and gender dysphoria, nor homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

-Its stance on women’s single sex spaces. Via both Tweeting and their school resources, Stonewall have made clear they believe women and girls do not have the right to single sex spaces at time when they may be vulnerable, because they believe males who identify as women (the prerequisite of which is to declare themselves a woman-no need for any medical treatment or diagnosis) should be treated as females in every aspect of life. This means access to women’s communal changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, toilets, and rape shelters, to name a few examples.

-Its stance on women’s sports. Stonewall disagreed with World Rugby’s decision to prevent transwomen competing in women’s rugby. This decision was reached by World Rugby because they found that to include TW in the women’s teams would be unfair and unsafe (in increased risk to the women on the team by at least 20-30%) Stonewall appear to believe (and say) that inclusion comes above all else, even the safety of women and girls and their right to fair competition.

I don’t feel comfortable that an organisation with these highly controversial and political viewpoints has access to primary school children, whether it’s via face to face sessions, training school staff, or learning resources.

Of course Stonewall are not the only organisation which has these worrying beliefs. However, they are the biggest and most well funded. They are also listed on the Department of Educations “experts” page, despite breaching its own guidelines, which I think is wrong and also makes it very difficult for parents to complain to schools.

What are your thoughts?

Except we are banned from speaking about it, asking questions, bringing up safeguarding fears... we are told to instead BE KIND. Who are we being forced to be kind to? When it comes to protecting their offspring most mothers in the animal kingdom aren’t thinking about being kind.

Important post OldCrone.
It's worth pointing out that keeping secrets from parents not only goes against basic child safeguarding legislation (Working Together) but also stops parents from protecting their child from harm. Schools have always had to balance and negotiate safeguarding children and working with parents. This is the first time lobby groups have come along and demanded that parents are excluded from their children's lives. So sinister as every bit of evidence demonstrates that children in the care of the state / alienated from their families do very poorly in terms of life chances.
That is why only the courts are allowed to remove parental rights and responsibilities It is shameful that any lobby group attempts to do this or encourage schools to step outside their legal responsibilities and even more shameful that so many professionals are too scared of being called bigots to stand up for child safeguarding according to the law.

@ringydinghy

Nice try, goady fucker. Your very short posting history outs you as nothing but a troll, a misogynistic one on top of the rest. Off you fuck back to twitter.

[quote BrumBoo]@ringydinghy

Nice try, goady fucker. Your very short posting history outs you as nothing but a troll, a misogynistic one on top of the rest. Off you fuck back to twitter.[/quote]
I don't think they meant it in a nasty way.
You don't want to get yourself banned.

Tensions rise but soon forgotten.

I don't think they meant it in a nasty way.

Oh give over. Anyone who uses the word 'normal' in this context is just trying to phobia bait. Along with suggesting on another thread that horrible women are trying to destroy men's careers by accusing them of being abusers, it's obviously what their agenda on MN is. If MNHQ want to ban me for pointing that out before anyone falls for the frothing troll, that's their perogative.

@jj1968

What we do know is that 80% of children who are 'gender questioning' if they have no intervention will settle down in their body sometime after puberty and all will be fine. Many posters on here have reported similar feelings.

What we also know is that when gender dysphoria is persistent and insistent and lasts into the first stages of puberty those children almost always go on to be trans adults. Gender clinics are well aware of this, which is why it has been the policy at GIDS to wait until puberty has actually begun before blockers might be proscribed. Around one in 200,000 young people were being proscribed blockers by GIDS annually prior to the Kiera Bell case and most of them were 15 and over. That's 161 people out of nearly 3000 referrals to the services and the vast majority of gender discordant children will never get anywhere near GIDS. The children receiving treatment were exceptional and had undergone stringent assessment over several years.

The claim that any child who is a bit gender nonconforming will be first transed by the school, who will then force them to medically trans is hyperbolic nonsense. That this is all some devious plot by a small LGBT charity (often it's claimed ultimately controlled by trans Jewish billionaires) even more so. Pure conspiracy theory on a level with Qanon. Puberty blockers are used incredibly rarely in the UK - way below what you would expect give the proportion of people who are trans adults most of whom say their gender dysphoria began in often very early childhood. I think it's ery sad that those children at GIDS who all reports say were thriving will now have to grow up to be the trans adults they almost certainly will become and tell their stories of how internationally recognised treatment roles were not followed in their case because of an anti-trans moral panic that swept across the nation. When their voices are finally heard the conversation will change, and I hope they find a way to sue for the psychological damage that has been done to them by ripping this desperately needed treatment away from them and leaving them with almost no support.

And that doesn't mean they should be given support by the various Freudian and Jungian psychotherapists who are opportunistically circling desperate to get their hands on trans kids to try out their latest pet theories on them.

It isn't an anti trans moral panic, nor actually is it sweeping across the nation. People are reluctant to talk about it because of the continual comparisons with section 28. But this issue relating to kids is not the same. Keira Bell stated that she was certain at 16 that she needed hormones and did persist and insist and then regretted. The tenets of medicine are "first do no harm". So it is a balancing act. That is not to say that trans people do not suffer and that is not acceptable. There is not a blanket ban on blockers, the judgement stated that for over 16s it may be sensible to involve a court. It does seem sensible to have a second opinion, when a life alterting decision is being taken. Women are usually advised for example not to consider sterlisation in their twenties or thirties. There is guideance to wait and see and it is a protection and not a prohibition.

Nobody should be made to feel unwelcome or outside due sex, gender presentation, race or disabilities. That is fundamental. Schools also need to teach tolerance and respect. Bullying of anyone for any reason, including how they present should be serious enough to consider expulsion.

However, it is completely different to teach children about beliefs presented as facts. Any such beliefs should be phrased as objective and factual statements.

In terms of religion, this can be “these people believe x” and teach about all main religions. Religious intolerance is a pestilence and we should teach the children main facts and to respect people’s beliefs.

In terms of sex Ed, this should be brief, factual and focused on consent, respect, safety and boundaries. Here, I don’t think we need that much detail. Sexualisation of children is a massive issue.

The parents should be fully aware of the contents of both religious education and sex Ed.

JJ, when you get 76 children in one school saying they are trans, and an increase of 4000% showing up to gender clinics, mainly girls, it's a perfectly normal reaction to ask why. What are they being taught?

There has been a huge rise in referrals to adult services over the same time period, this reflects an increasing tolerance of trans people in society and more trans people feeling able to come out and access treatment: www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/10/transgender-clinic-waiting-times-patient-numbers-soar-gender-identity-services

A large scale study from the US shows that that ages of people who identify as trans are fairly evenly distributed, 0.7% of of 13-24 year olds identify as trans compared to 0.6% of 25-64 year old and 0.5% of over 65s: williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/age-trans-individuals-us/

When the Tavistock began publishing referral figures barely any GPs had heard of them let alone parents and their kids. The so called trans tipping point, when Laverne Cox appeared on the front of Time magazine, was in 2014 - this was followed by a spate of high profile trans celebrities emerging as well as trans characters appearing in mainstream media who were not perpetual murder victims, sex workers, serial kilers or the punchline of jokes as they had been portrayed as for decades previously. Meanwhile the UK press became seemingly obsessed with trans people and in particular GIDS. It seems inevitable that these factors would have led to both more trans kids feeling confident coming out and more people being aware of the services at GIDS and making use of them.

The numbers of referrals to GIDS has now levelled off and been pretty flat for the last three years as the attached grph shows. A study released last year shows there are no real differences between young people treated for gender dysphoria today concluding:

Our study also provides a new insight into factors that have possibly contributed to the recent increase in the number of adolescent referrals in gender identity services. Since most characteristics remained similar, we suggest that GD might be more common than previously thought and the exponential increase in referrals is just a reflection thereof. The increased publicity and visibility may have helped more young people and their parents to recognize and come out for their transgender feelings, and they seem more likely to dare to seek assessment and treatment.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00787-019-01394-6

This seems a far more plausible explanation than some vast conspiracy to destroy women, gays and lesbians being undertaken behind the scenes by a small LGBT charity for reasons which are never entirely explained.

Seventy six children in one school, all suffering from gender dysphoria???

Ten girls in the same year group, all afflicted simultaneously?

Why jj ? What's the reason?

Why jj ? What's the reason?

Because transgenderism is more accepted apparently. Absolutely nothing to do with the huge rise of misogyny in our society. Adding in internalised homophobia and the completely coincidental rise in girls being recognised as having autism whilst services in mental heath care are at an all time low, there is absolutely no correlation in this data at all. It's certainly that medicine doesn't see diagnosis of a gendered lifestyle over the treatment of autism or any other cognitive differences as a get-out clause.

including Dr David Bell who is in deed an expert in children with gender dysphoria

Bell has no experience working with children let alone children with gender dysphoria, or adults for that matter. He worked in adult psychiatric services where he was recognised for his work around asylum and immigration.

As I've acknowledged there are a small number of Freudians and Jungians who have long dominated the Tavistock and who have their own pet theories about trans children. It's hardly surprising they should be taking a particular interest in young trans men when one of the key principles of their ideology (and it is ideology) if that all young girls suffer from penis envy. None of them have published any evidence for their theories, none of them have experience of working with either trans kids or trans adults and imo they should be kept as far away from trans children as possible because psychiatrist's attempts to cure transgender people over the decades have at times been little more than torture.

Such dangerous twaddle being promoted by an adult with a vested interest in the existence of "trans children" to validate adult decisions.

Those judges! What are they like???

I note you didn't have such faith in the infallibility of the judiciary when they ruled that gender critical ideology is 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society'.

Those judges eh ...

Why can’t this stay out of schools???

Leave the children alone. Especially the younger ones. Let them make their own decisions when they are young adults.

More research is needed in terms of transgender studies. That is what the Keira Bell case said. The case also state that children were too young to make decisions. So leave the children out if it.

Adults are free to do what they like and should not be discriminated against.

This seems a far more plausible explanation than some vast conspiracy to destroy women, gays and lesbians being undertaken behind the scenes by a small LGBT charity for reasons which are never entirely explained.

Yet women no longer have sole access to the word woman - it has been re-defined as "cis". Lesbian spaces have all but disappeared in public. Young women who would in times past have been happy as butch lesbians are now identifying as male. This has happened. There is no conspiracy theory. This is the reality. So why is that ok when the majority disagree? If you think they don't disagree then there is hardly a moral panic sweeping the nation.

jj can you please stop calling Stonewall 'a small LGBT charity'? They are a multi-million £ political lobbying group, making a good chunk of money from the taxpayer while inserting their policies into the police, NHS, CPS, private companies, ofcom, the BBC and many others. And they are hardly LGBT, and haven't been for some time, it's all about the T these days - what have Stonewall done for lesbians lately, apart from campaign to remove their sex-based rights and redefine their sexuality to include male bodied people? Stonewall are not small, and they're not LGBT, and you know that, it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

I wouldn’t pay much attention to JJ’s last link when looking at the recent increase in adolescent girls with gender distress. Annelou DeVries has mentioned it her article here: pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/4/e2020010611

“ A study at the Amsterdam transgender clinic, one of the oldest in the world, whose researchers aimed to gain insight in the possible changes of certain key characteristics of earlier compared with recent applicants, revealed no changes in intensity of gender dysphoria, psychological functioning, and age over time between 2000 and 2016.11 The only yet-unexplained observed change was a shift in sex ratio in favor of assigned female individuals. However, researchers of this time-trend study did not focus on differences between younger and older referred youth nor on the age of onset of gender nonconformity. In future, more-detailed studies like the one by Sorbara et al1 and the time-trend study by Arnoldussen et al,11 researchers should investigate whether older transgender adolescents might include individuals who experience later onset of GI, possibly postpuberty, and with more mental health challenges.”

We discussed the DeVries article here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4034010-The-Dutch-Protocol-and-impact-on-ROGD-adolescents

and @jj1968 I can't claim to understand transgenderism as it is not my experience. I do want people to be comfortable in their skin, happy, accepted, and equal. I know it is particularly difficult to be non-conforming in any way and our society should work on that. But I don't understand the assertion that a person must have hormone treatment and surgery to feel normal. Hormone treatment and surgery is administered from the outside. How does a person cope if there is no hormone treatment or surgery available? It is a process of individual and society coming to terms with each other in a respectful and accommodating way. I don't get the argument for medicalisation really. I accept that for some people it feels the only way, but it should surely be a last resort. It is not an easy path is it?

@jj1968

Those judges! What are they like???

I note you didn't have such faith in the infallibility of the judiciary when they ruled that gender critical ideology is 'not worthy of respect in a democratic society'.

Those judges eh ...

🤣 You must positively choke on all that smoke, whilst looking in all those mirrors.

You are claiming that this is being driven by armchair psychologists.

It's not.

It was by three high court judges. Looking at a wealth of testimony, including that of world-renowned experts in their field.

Normal' is a word used by many.

Usually in a highly offensive way.

They said they didn't agree with children being subjected to gay behaviour.

What the fuck is 'gay behaviour' and how is one subjected to it in everyday life?

I took it to mean they disapproved of children being coerced or encouraged.

Again, how does one encourage someone to be gay?

Which nobody would agree with?

Agree with what? People being gay?

I am not of the opinion that every person is nice, whether straight or other.

What? This is a bizarre statement.

I know some deeply unpleasant gay people.

And your just going for the full ban now, arent you. This faux 'oh let's mix in homophobia with trans discussion' to make it seem we're all just phobic as he'll on MN is getting real old, real quick and only real thickos will fall for it.

We also have found that the desire to transition often is related to a wish to control sexual development, and perhaps to defer it entirely—including in a literal sense, through the use of puberty blockers. It’s interesting to note that many detransitoners report that there is little talk about sex on pro-transition websites, or in the medical care they received.

Why are so many young women wishing to identify as the opposite sex, or as being non-binary. Here's one answer from the article I linked to before. In some way it's very much like anorexia, opting out from growing up. And lord knows there is enough toxic masculinity around to make being a girl seem like a very bad idea.

I've noted on threads here that more than once, a discussion of non-binary girls ends up in a discussion about bra shops. A common factor is having a big bust, because then it's very hard to opt out of being sexualised (as someone who was so badly teased at 13 for my bust, I have every sympathy, it was actual sexual harassment).

I feel that, as a feminist, I have failed these girls. They think that they can't change society, so they have to change themselves.

Oh and one more thing, social contagion and opting out of men at this age is not new. At girls schools twenty years ago, half the class would be lesbian at 15, and then it went down to the usual 10% by the sixth form.