Call to strip gender talk from sexed classes

[pisacake]

www.damienriggs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Transgender-young-people%E2%80%99s-narratives-of-intimacy-and-sex.-Implications-for-sexuality-education.pdf

When will the lunacy end?

"In terms of gendered embodiment, our analysis highlights the importance of degendering body parts.

..
Doe (2016) emphasises the utility of thinking about genitals in terms of ‘erectile tissue’ (i.e., what are typically referred to as either a penis or clitoris) and a ‘pouch of skin’ (i.e., what are typically referred to as either a scrotum or labia)"

" Doe’s point is that rather than utilising normatively prescribed terminology, it is possible to refer to genitals by their physiological function. Several of the young people whose narratives we examined similarly utilise a range of terms to refer to their genitals, including neutral terms, or terms that are typically used by cisgender people of their gender (i.e., transgender boys referring to their dick). "

"transgender boys, for example, who, due to dysphoria or strategies used to manage it, such as re-gendering, may not see their genitals as a vagina, and may not consider pregnancy as a potential risk if they have penetrative intercourse with a cisgender male partner. Importantly, however, the language of ‘sperm’ and ‘eggs’ can produce dysphoria for some transgender young people"

'Sperm' and 'eggs' are offensive now?

" It is entirely possible, for example, to speak about the combining of two different types of gametes as resulting in a pregnancy, without referring to egg and sperm per se. "

Is this a fucking spoof?

Yes we know we have all the bollocks about many people being intersex and what not so you can't possibly say that people are 'female' or 'male', but a pregnancy is an egg plus a sperm and that's the end of it.

It's real. My head exploded when I realised that "Doe 2016" was a you-tube video, cited as if it was a scholarly article.

ARGH!

What the hell does cisgender mean?

If I was reading that as a sex ed lesson I think I would be so confused to what was going on it would be meaningless.

As if puberty wasn't bad enough. confusing enough and embarrassing enough they have to pile this drama on top.

transgender boys, for example, who, due to dysphoria or strategies used to manage it, such as re-gendering, may not see their genitals as a vagina, and may not consider pregnancy as a potential risk if they have penetrative intercourse with a cisgender male partner

But it is a vagina, and pregnancy is a risk! Ridiculous to pretend otherwise!

Doe (2016) emphasises the utility of thinking about genitals in terms of ‘erectile tissue’ (i.e., what are typically referred to as either a penis or clitoris) and a ‘pouch of skin’ (i.e., what are typically referred to as either a scrotum or labia)

So so many issues with this.

Firstly where the fuck is the vulva/vagina in this mess?

Secondly, describing the clitoris as "erectile tissue" is going to seriously freak out girls who would then be led to believe that their clit should become erect.

Same for "pouch of skin" for the labia. As far as I'm aware, even given the huge variety of ways the labia can look, it's unlikely to resemble a pouch.

Brilliant way of convincing young girls that their entirely natural bodies are in some way deformed. Between this and porn imagery they'd have no hope.

The obvious answer to why they are approaching it this way is because it centres the male body as the default. Women's bodies are not only an afterthought, but treated as an incomplete male body.

Here's the cited source

It's quite confusing

One minute it's 'erectile tissue' and 'pouch of skin', then a second later

'To a transwoman, "I love making you wet and lapping at your pussy"'

So an erect penis is actually a pussy? Or is it 'erectile tissue'?

In the comments:

"Thank you for saying cis instead of biosex! I appreciate you updating your terms.

What's wrong with biosex?

the issue with biosex is that in implies that cis gendered people are more "valid". Because the bio prefix makes it sound all sciencey'

"Secondly, describing the clitoris as "erectile tissue" is going to seriously freak out girls who would then be led to believe that their clit should become erect. "
Actually, the clitoris is composed of erectile tissue. Which changes size and shape significantly. The problem, I think, is that unlike boys who I presume become reasonably familiar with the changes in their erectile bits and bobs during arousal, the same isn't true for girls. For example, I think many females are unaware of the true size and extent of the clitoris. I have seen trans identified females referring to feeling as if they have an erect penis, whilst I am convinced they are just unaware of the actual female anatomy and what it does during arousal.

And of course, this whole 'let's pretend' scenario ignores the bits and bobs that the other sex doesn't have. Like the fact that trans 'gay men' aren't going to have the same anal sex experience as male gay men, because they don't have a prostate. That having a pouch of skin doesn't give you the same experience as females whose 'pouch of skin', as well as having all the complicated internal clitoral anatomy doing it's fun stuff, also have a cervix and uterus connected to their 'pouch' as well, with all the sensory and boring biological stuff that those bits and bobs might do if you happen to forget the essential biological nature of someone elses rather large 'clitoris'......

But yet again, it is treating males or surgically reconstructed males as the norm, and ignoring or just plain lying about boring female anatomy. And just as we are finally begining to see a tad more knowledge being shared as regards female anatomy, now even the vulva cupcakes get closed down as being transphobic.............

I'm actually in a state of despair thinking about this. Doublethink and newspeak.

The ridiculous pussyfooting around biological sex has caused this. If sexually active "transgender boys" don't realise that having PIV sex could get them pregnant they are either severely learning disabled or suffering from a delusional mental illness. Or are being totally failed by caregivers, doctors and schools which is what is happening. The solution is definitely not further fucking obfuscation!

'It is entirely possible, for example, to speak about the combining of two different types of gametes as resulting in a pregnancy, without referring to egg and sperm per se.'

'the combining of two different types of gametes as resulting in a pregnancy' has no issues then, as a concept? The combing of two sets of gametes inside whose body? The pregnancy of whom?

The phrasing there gives a sense that the pregnancy is equally belonging to both the gamete providers. Very disturbing way to refer to a woman's body.

Actually, the clitoris is composed of erectile tissue. Which changes size and shape significantly.

Oh I know, but as you've said, girls already have so little education about their bodies (especially the clitoris) and the phrase "erectile tissue" will evoke much more penis like imagery.

This is getting so ridiculous that surely someone somewhere with some power must say "hang on".

This all has no basis in, well, anything at all.

Where are the scientists in all of this?!

Wtaf

Regardless of how people identify the fact is pregnancy and stis are a risk and that needs to be made blatantly obvious to everyone which is far more important than trying to come up with non offensive terms for body parts.

It's basic biology it's not about who you are or how you feel.

What utter nonsense

and may not consider pregnancy as a potential risk if they have penetrative intercourse with a cisgender male partner.

Or a trans "woman". Or a male sparklegender snowflake. If we're going to be inclusive, let's practice what we preach, eh?

Yeah that's the point I pull my child out of sex ed classes.

Once this idiocy and messing with language and science starts interfering with children getting the information they need, and the information becomes highly debatable as to whether it's a) true, b) accurate c) sane d) relevant, what the hell is the point of them attending the class anyway?

It becomes less sex ed and more rightthink onmessage indoctrination.

I feel like that about the same as I would my child having to attend classes on creationism.

What a load of bollocks errr... dangly-type skin pouches.

That's 'very sensitive dangly type skin pouches'

The phrasing there gives a sense that the pregnancy is equally belonging to both the gamete providers. Very disturbing way to refer to a woman's body.

I'm really concerned that commercial surrogacy is going to be legalised - I've seen so much distancing from the reality of pregnancy, and articles on the 'shortage' of surrogate mothers (blamed on gay men wanting kids.. as if there aren't plenty of men and women willing to exploit women in heterosexual relationships, and women).

This erasing of women as the people who have to carry the child, and how dangerous that is, is disturbing.

And yes. Labia may be many things, but pouches? err... no..

Pouch. He's from Australia and he wants to talk to kids about having pouches