to worry about transgender ideology being pushed on kids

[HopefulRose]

Noella McHaher is a ten year old model whose parents said she “self identified” as a girl at the age of two. Her parents are also trans.

If my two year old identified as a smoker, I wouldn’t allow them cigarettes. Why is this movement so hellbent on putting children into boxes instead of letting them just grow up without defined labels?

Speaking generally, there is a link between children who “hate” their biological sex and child abuse. Children who have been SA sometimes self harm as a way of trying to prevent further abuse. I’m worried that these signs are being missed.

am I alone on this?

I know. Typical male entitlement at its best. Somehow the male ego and its associated willy waving stupidity trumps a discussion about the welfare of children, which is at risk due to male entitlement and ego.

"I found it hugely telling that the one potential downside for men in all this, patriarchal inheritance, was quietly exempted from gender identification legally. They sorted themselves out and now couldn't give a rats ass what it means for women."

Me too. This shows that government knew it was bollocks from the start. Just a way to give men more options, and women less, and to colonise women's spaces.

Somehow the male ego and its associated willy waving stupidity trumps a discussion about the welfare of children, which is at risk due to male entitlement and ego.
Yes, I understand how some men get enjoyment from winding up women on the feminist board, but taking over a discussion in which mothers are voicing concerns for their children - I think that's of a different order and I'm pretty disgusted.

Anyway let's get back on topic.

My niece did not like wearing ‘girly’ clothes at 2. Refused all things pink and frilly and has never worn a skirt since. She has her hair cut into a Bob and has never grown it. She liked to wear stereotypically boy clothes and shoes. Not wanting to wear pink at age 2 didn’t make my sister decide she wasn’t a girl; she just let her wear the clothes she wanted as opposed from shouting from the rooftops that her child is infact a boy. We’ve always said we wouldn’t be surprised if she ever said she felt like a boy as she has said said she wished she was one before now. My sister has reassured her she can do anything she likes- she does boxing, football and other stereotypically male sports. Interestingly at the age of 10, she is exploring make up and a new interest in clothes and seems keen to wear more typically girly clothes. It would have really messed up her up I think if we all had declared her a boy at age 2. Instead we just let her be interested in her interests and comfortable in her choice of clothing

No Trying20, that was not me. I am sorry my posts made so little impression on you but them's the breaks.

Now I will respectfully wish you a good evening but I would like you to kindly stop wasting any more of my time.

Somehow the male ego and its associated willy waving stupidity trumps a discussion about the welfare of children, which is at risk due to male entitlement and ego.

It seems fitting really when you put it like that. Just more of the same. Nothing to see here.

But it is a very valid point.

A major part of this issue with children is that it involves experimental treatments. Currently, clinicians are also raising the alarm in growing numbers around the world that the treatment being pushed by WPATH, in fact, attempting to be forced in the UK through ambiguous 'conversion therapy' laws - that is Affirming Only, is not working.

Affirming Only is also only an iteration of the Dutch Protocol that it is based on. And at least one of the authors of the Dutch Protocol has stated very clearly that even the 'Dutch Protocol' seems to be not to be producing the results for the majority of the current cohort of young transitioners as they are represented today.

That is because that current cohort seeking treatment is dominated by young females.

And females have a higher risk for any of the medicalised treatments. For life shortening negative effects, for life limiting negative effects and for this treatment to not work.

But, Affirming Only has been pushed through by males.

Because it benefits male transitioners (and still, not ALL and it seems a declining % considering the growing number of detransitioner males who have many less negative health outcomes, but still have significant ones.)

And it has been males who have led the policy changes too in many instances. The OIC committee was dominated by males making policy for female athletes. They accepted a very poor quality study from a transitioned male as being the height of scientific evidence and made the changes that we have seen ripple out.

This has been happening across many different sectors.

However, I find that it is so much more concerning when it comes to the health of our children. Clinicians and policy makers have now admitted that they have effectively experimented on our children. This is not hyperbole. This is not hysteria. This is what has happened and what has been admitted.

Oh dear... and more wine spat!

I decided I was going to be a boy when I was about 9 or 10. I had heard some stuff about 'the facts of life' and it sounded pretty freaky, plus boys just seemed to have more fun. So I adopted a boys' version of my name and went through a phase of only answering my parents if they used it.
I was absolutely serious but, luckily for me, this was over 50 years ago so people just rolled their eyes and it never even occurred to me to try it in school. When I think of how that might end now, it gives me the chills.

True colours always come out, bad enough when the targets are women beyond awful when they are children.

A few words about "woman" and science.

Sure there is science about men and women; part of biology. And, sure enough, it is a scientific fact that humans, like other mammals, are sexually dimorphic, and that there have never been any simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodite humans.

It's also true that a dictionary definition of "woman" is "adult human female".

But none of this is really relevant to (failed) attempts to get trans ideology off the ground.

No-one thinks it worth scientifically investigating whether there are any married bachelors. Why? Because "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is not a falsifiable proposition. Nothing exists that would count as a married bachelor. Anyone who speaks English knows this: they know what "bachelor" means (whether or not they can quote a dictionary definition).

Likewise, there can be no joy in attempting a scientific investigation into whether there are any women who were not born female. Why? Because "a woman was born female" is not falsifiable. Nothing exists that would count as a born-male woman. Anyone who speaks English knows this: they know what "woman" means (whether or not they can quote a dictionary definition).

It's worth saying this because it points up how trans ideology fails on a level before we start looking at any of the science of sexual reproduction, of chromosomes or DSDs and so on. Trans ideology fails to make sense ... it fails on the level of sense, of meaning, which is prior to any consideration of scientific investigation.

"2 + 2 = 5" isn't a scientific false statement. It just doesn't make sense - it means nothing. Likewise "I was born in the wrong body" means nothing. And "a transwoman is a woman" means nothing.

Of course you can give such propositions meaning by (re)defining what you mean (by "5"? "body"? "woman"?). But then you're Humpty Dumpty: '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."' And words don't work like that; that's Carroll's (or perhaps Dodgson's) point.

So, by all means read "Alice" to your children. But don't let them think there's any sense to men being or becoming women, or to someone being born in the wrong body. There just isn't. And it's bad for children to pretend there is.

In previous debates on different sm I've been attacked and told its utterly ridiculous to suggest that anyone thinks trans people can actually change sex.

They know they can't

Its just transphobic and abusive to point it out.

So, essentially, everyone just has to pretend.

Because its not fair other wise.

You are not alone.

I have a 4 year old daughter and this stuff makes me sick to my stomach.

The parents are trans... well there we are. Dangerous ideology being pushed onto your children. I absolutely dread to think of that poor child in years to come woth the damage that has and will be done.

I don't believe anyone is born in the wrong body. I believe in dysphoria but its part of a wider issue. It's a mental health issue.

Children are being indoctrinated in schools as young as 4 now.

There is a huge growing number of detransitioners speaking out. They're devastated that they were allowed to do this to their bodies. Young people who are now old enough to realise they will never have children. Their bodies have been mutilated. They will never return to how they used to be. My heart breaks for them.

@najene

Great post!

I think what surprises many posters who support the prioritising of trans rights over those of females (and they will deny they are doing it sometimes too), is that more and more people who have never said anything about it before to them, have some very perceptive views and opinions.

I know that it certainly has stopped (along with polls that make it clear) the ‘you who say that the rights of women and children are negatively impacted by trans demands are the minority’ … sometimes followed by an added ‘and you are all dinosaurs and will die out soon!’

But we still get the posters who post like they have digested that American scientific blog post that they call an ‘academic paper’. That discuss similar arguments to the post we saw up thread.

And we still get posters who have not read widely, listened or discussed with any robustness who applaud those posts like they are well evidenced:

and yes, najene you are right and we need reminding of that regularly.

I hope everyday that something will stop the forward march of gender-ism. That not one more child is confused, lied to, harmed or surgically altered and is allowed to have counselling. That children can grow up to be adults with normal sexual function. That parents and families can look forward to their grandchildren being born and breastfed.
I was a tomboy - I would have not had the chance to have my intimate relationships, children, breastfeeding achievements, sports achievements, safe spaces, if I was a young girl growing up today and that is criminal. #sexmatters #transgendertrend

Ooh, 'I'm a gay man but I have no idea what either a man, a woman, a gay man or a lesbian' - I just fumble round in the dark and if I say I'm gay then anyone I fancy is automatically a man. Utter bullshit.

Everyone knows what fucking sex they are. Even kids until teachers start telling them they could be the other sex, or no sex, if they want.

This needs to be out of schools. People need sacking. Some need jailing. But for now, you should be quoting Cass, quoting Suella Braverman and stopping your schools from spouting this nonsense to your kids.

And that's the crux of it isn't it.

It's all this "my truth" bollocks.

"I've said it's true - therefore it is".

Whereas I was raised and have raised my ds with the expression "anyone can say what they like. Doesn't make it true".

Goes right back to when kids are daft and testing winding each other up and know which kids will be annoyed that they continuously state the sky is pink. They'll use all sorts of whataboutery and words and twist facts.

The sky is still blue.

Which is why I've always taught ds - as I was - that sometimes the best way to win and argument is to not argue

Well quoting her in this matter.

I wouldn't quite her over most things she's says.

She's currently in her FB page throwing her toys out the pram as she's been accused of voting to stop dumping sewage in our coasts.

She's been very rightly called out on her blatant lies. Someone even listed her name of the list of MPs who voted against the lords wanting to bring in legal amendments to article 48.

She's is 100% right on this matter on her point in law as AG. I suppose even she had to get it right at some point.

The rest of her voting record is dire.

Voting against dumping 🤦🏼‍♀️

If I chopped off the bottom half of my body (and somehow survived) so I suddenly lose half my mind?

I might say that you have lost your mind if you did go ahead and chop half of your body off, but that's just in the metaphorical sense.

@najene that’s an excellent post!

You'd look a right twat if you quoted sewage dumping when talking to a school about gender ideology wouldn't you?

Totally missing the point!

I agree with her speech around the laws of this. I thought it was very well out across.

But as a person and MP I wouldn't personally be aiming to quote her or put her on a pedestal in a general sense.

If you know her and have met her or ever had to deal with her - you'd understand why.

She is the Attourney General. The topic is gender ideology. Why would anything else matter?

You don't have to know her personally before you quote her words.