LGBT children board title

[ArabellaScott]

Given that the Cass Review says social transitioning is not a neutral act, and refers to 'gender incongruent' or 'gender questioning' children, the use of 'trans children' looks startlingly out of date and incorrect on Mumsnet.

The board should be renamed 'LGB and gender questioning children' to better reflect best practice.

The new school guidelines likewise use 'gender incongruent' and 'gender questioning' and not ever 'trans' when referring to children.

So it's time for the language to be changed again in a way that's more helpful to children and their parents.
The two boards would be able to have headers signposting to each other as happens with other boards.

I agree too.

Also I expect that other posters may use the ‘thanks’ button to agree with some of the previous posters. Either for speed, or for various other reasons they may not feel able to type a specific reply.

Obviously we can’t see that but @KellyMumsnet can so may I please request that these are also taken into account if your are ‘counting up’ the number of posts regarding this request.

Just adding my voice to say that I think this would be a really good idea. It hadn't struck me before, because the "LGBT" grouping has become so familiar. But as Arabella points out, a lot of evidence-sensitive bodies are moving away from the term "trans children", and in a few years it may well be quite consensually acknowledged that this particular teaming has been extremely detrimental for children, and even exploitative.

As a forum with a lot of parents of gender-questioning children seeking advice, the terminology on Mumsnet is probably quite influential in reinforcing the eroding orthodoxy around 'trans children' and could also be quite influential in building on the new, more humane, framing of children's gender dysphoria,

I'm in favour of the 2 board idea. My LGB DC have nothing in common with GQ DC.

I agree with @ArabellaScott that 'The board should be renamed 'LGB and gender questioning children' to better reflect best practice.'

I don't personally have a problem with the same board remaining for all these children, because the main group of vulnerable children being targetted by trans activists for sterilisation/ life long medical problems are primarily LGB (ie to 'trans away the gay'). Respect the majority view however (especially as in the coming years some parents are going to have to face up to the harm they have enabled to their own gender questionning kids).

I disagree. Obviously MNHQ are deeply interested in SEO ranking, but they have also frequently demonstrated that they aspire to operate ethically. I really don't think they would persist in anything harmful to children just to get a better search ranking, (especially given that the LGBT board probably isn't the one most productive of juicy advertising opportunities!).

In addition to what I think of as a sincere aspiration to operate ethically, they will also be quite sensitive to the reputational damage that would be involved if anything about the board tended towards children's detriment.

I'm going to say it needs to be separate boards. We now know that sex and gender are two completely different things especially when it involves stuff around rights and the law. It would be similar to putting the Muslim and Jewish boards together because of assuming the two main countries contributing here are Christian based (UK and USA). It is just not the right thing to do anymore. Release the T from the LBG. They have different needs.

Agreed, thank you

I also agree.

Maybe ask some transgender people and parents of trans children their view rather than just the usual gender critical suspects?

If you can have lesbian, bisexual and gay children, you can certainly have trans children. And Cass isn’t saying trans children don’t exist, merely including all GNC children in their report.

i suggest LGBT and gender non-confirming children.

This.

It's in Site Stuff, @DadJoke , not on the feminism board. They are asking you, too, and you have answered.

I agree that it should be two boards - sexuality and being trans/gender questioning aren't the same thing

I think that's a very sensible idea.

It makes sense to me to seperate it out, one is all about same sex attraction and completely at odds with the gender discussions of trans issues.

I agree with this

Agree with this.

Gender non conforming doesn't go nearly far enough as a description!!!

If only it was enough to call them gender non confirming and be done with it!!!!

That's the bloody problem - that's not "allowed" anymore and outside influences introduce the idea they must in fact BE the other sex.

Two boards: LGB and gender questioning

I agree with changing the board title. However there's a big overlap between gender questioning and gay in children so I think it makes sense to keep the two together.

Dividing T from LGB is an overtly political statement, which is why there is only one LGB Alliance and multiple LGBT groups. I doubt you will get anyone supportive of their child’s identity if you change the name.

As a lesbian, grouping us in with trans people is not right and frankly, really, really annoys me.

@DadJoke

If you can have lesbian, bisexual and gay children, you can certainly have trans children.

Of course you can. You can have black people and white people. But their needs are often quite different, hence we have a board for Black Mumsnetters.

One of my DC is gay and I can quite assure you that my concerns (when we first found out that they were gay) had absolutely nothing to do with their gender, and everything to do with their sexuality.

Lumping children who are gender questioning in with those who are LGB is actually unfair on those children. They deserve their own board.

I feel it could be appropriate to keep the two in a single board, subject to the name change. As for Dadjoke's fantasy that MNHQ is only consulting with "the usual GC suspects" (despite this being a universally available thread in Site Stuff), that reminds me of what so often happens -- the melodramatic claim to have been excluded from discourse, even though so many organisations are sewn up by transactivism. It has been one of the ways in which activists such as that ridiculous BMA committee have tried to undermine the Cass Report.

EDIT: I've changed "would" to "could" in first sentence, sensitive to BIWI's and others views to the contrary of mine. I felt I had been dogmatic

This is not remotely true. No LGBT person thinks if your gender expression is not traditional, you must be trans.

Maybe a more acceptable compromise (if MNHQ deems there to be a valid reason for retaining the 'T' ) would be

LGB, gender questioning or trans children

That would group the different things better.