Transgender Trend's new resource pack for schools

[Betti936]

www.transgendertrend.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Transgender-Trend-Resource-Pack-for-Schools.pdf

@Betti936 Thank you for linking to this.

Please everyone could you email a copy of this to your child's Headteacher, Chair of Governors and Governor/s with responsibility for Vulnerable children/SEN/Safeguarding?

I am parent Governor at my son's Primary and I am being sidelined by the Chair of Governors & Head on self ID issues.

If enough of us begin to present a reasoned, evidence-based counter to Mermaids and Stonewall etc - then Senior Leaders and Governors will be forced to discuss this.

Excellent!
Please share this as widely as possible. And anyone who tweets, maybe share this with the NAHT (National Association of Headteachers) whose dreadful trans guidelines for schools need stopping in their tracks.

This is such a good resource!

Thanks for this. I'll be contacting my DC's schools.

I've only skimmed that guide, but alot of it seems to be based on speculation and not backed up with facts. For example the 80% desistence rate has been debunked in Australia quite thoroughly but independent research. I will try and find the report if anyone is interested.

*by independent

I’ve just read that through (and am now late for work, oops). That’s such a considered, detailed and kind document.

Bet it gets slammed down for daring to call a boy a boy, though.

This guide will be binned by school leaders, just like guides submitted by BNP or other anti-minority groups would be binned. I read through this and it's actually a lot more damaging to those who're anti self-ID.

Very good production values though.

That's a brilliant resource - thank you so much for linking!

I like the fact that that it is all referenced too.

The "80% desistence rate" is based on not having any confirmation therapy, puberty blockers or cross sex hormones.

Near enough 100 % of children who are placed on the medical path, end up transitioning. :(

it's actually a lot more damaging to those who're anti self-ID

Can you expand on this please?

Puresummer - I get what you are saying - that it may be seen as an ant-progressive "reactionary" pamphlet, particularly in the current climate in schools. But it deserves to be read, and considered thoughtfully - and for those in education to apply their own critical thinking to the subject instead of simply swallowing the trans ideology hook line and sinker.
If it only creates debate in the staff room, then that would be huge step forward.

just like guides submitted by BNP or other anti-minority groups would be binned

Do elaborate. I've read it and I'd say it has the potential to stem the tide of disastrous and unnecessary miseducation of biology, medical interventions on healthy children, and dilution of ability of children to assert and defence their bodily privacy.

For balance, this is an interesting blog showing the other side of the coin:
growinguptransgender.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/the-end-of-the-desistance-myth/

I think if this pack had gone out to schools ten years ago, it would have been hailed as a thoughtful and balanced response to a growing concern, updated to take account of the original GRA and the idea of ‘legal sex’.

It could have prevented a lot of harm.

I’d like to know what TransHobbit, Curry etc think of it.

Carrier - that piece is says it all really. The whole transgender ideology is based on the idea of some innate, authentic, gendered soul which exists independent of the biological body. If you believe in that, you can't believe in detransition or desisting. It is a passionately argued piece which upholds that belief. That does not mean it is true.

Well, firstly it is not a resource pack. There are no resources in it for use within a school.

Secondly, it is propaganda, just as much as many pro transgender leaflets are. It is well written and thought out but statements such as the below are hypocritical, especially in the context of advocating open discussion within a school environment:

'• Gender: Masculine/Feminine Societal expectations of behaviour, aptitudes and appearance depending on sex, which change from culture to culture. Gender or sex-role stereotypes'

This is merely an axiom that the pressure group believe in, and in no sense uniformly accepted by the scientific community.

It is also extremely arrogant and didactic with 'advice to SLT' as if SLT members are idiots incapable of formulating a policy without the 'expert' advice of a pressure group.

I think it is good for a group like this to exist, good for them to come in and talk to schools and give their perspective. However, whilst excellently debunking their opponents, they are not prepared to admit their own bias and have made their material look as if it comes from the DofE and look like officially sanctioned advice.

It is a shame as I suspect it will get binned and there are many good points within it.

This is a interesting analysis of desistance, with links to the research on the subject:

www.sott.net/article/341770-Desistance-The-missing-piece-in-the-conversation-about-transgender-kids

Carrier Your blog links don't counter the 80% number in any meaningful way.

They object to authur of one study, the age of another study and claim all detransioners in all studies were never trans to start with. The old "No true Scotsman" strawman argument.

Interestingly the third objection is one shared by feminists. Concerns that the recent inflation of referrals to gender clinics is due to gender non confirming, gay or ASD children who are NOT trans, being referred in error.

But 'gender' is a word with several possible meanings. The glossary makes it clear which meaning is being used in that booklet.

The psychologist John Money seems to have come up with ‘gender’ (in the sense of ‘gender role’) in 1955, in order to discuss intersex and transsexual patients. The term ‘gender identity’ to mean ‘the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs' came later. These are recent, fluid terms.

Sex isn't. Biology still needs to be considered. Biology splits people into two groups for certain purposes, whatever 'scientific meaning of gender' we come up with next.

The question is:

Would treating children and school-age teenagers in the manner recommended in that booklet lead to better outcomes? Would 'genuinely' transgender children have an easier, better accepted adolescence without unreasonable sacrifice and risk on the part of their peers (and let's face it, we mostly mean the girls)?

I think so, but I would never have considered myself transgender (though, according to Stonewall's all-encompassing definitions, I am. Who knew?).

Would treating children and school-age teenagers in the manner recommended in that booklet lead to better outcomes?

This^ This is the important point - it shouldn't be about competing ideologies it should be about what is best for all of the children in the school.

I have read the Scottish schools guidance, and the guidance posted above and IMO the guidance above is both more inclusive, and more in line with safeguarding practice.

'• Gender: Masculine/Feminine Societal expectations of behaviour, aptitudes and appearance depending on sex, which change from culture to culture. Gender or sex-role stereotypes'

This is merely an axiom that the pressure group believe in, and in no sense uniformly accepted by the scientific community.

Or a definition - so that they've described the terms, as they are being used in the booklet.... I don't personally see an issue with a glossary, and think that many of the trans propaganda leaflets could do with one - if only to clarify their own thinking on the matter.

Pretty sure that gendered souls aren't uniformly accepted by the scientific community too personally.

The service continue to quote this statistic to parents of insistent, consistent and persistent transgender children, telling them that their specific children will almost certainly shift to a cisgender identity at puberty

From the link Carrier gave. I read that, and I think 'or, that these children will come to accept their sexed bodies - without any shift in 'gender identity' - ie. they'll be gender non-conforming, but not feel that they need to medicalise themselves. This insistence on a 'gender binary' that people either have to agree with (cis) or feel is wrong (trans) is the biggest problem for me, and what I can never agree with. I don't think there is a 'gender binary' I think we're all people with interests and sexed bodies (which is a binary), and I don't want to be shoved in a trans/cis box because of how you perceive my personality vs. my sex.

This is what happened to me (not that I thought I was a boy, but I definitely had issues for a long time around my body and puberty)

'Pretty sure that gendered souls aren't uniformly accepted by the scientific community too personally.'

It is not gendered souls vs gendered bodies, at least not to the scientific community. It is whether there is a link between genetics and brain chemistry to gendered behaviour. The research on this is ongoing. If there is, and it has neither been proved nor disproved, there is a scientific basis to being trans. If not, it does all fall apart.

In schools (and any academic institution) respectful and open discussion should be encouraged. Cries of 'transphobia' and 'gender is merely a social construct' are merely opposite sides of the coin They are both a dogmatic shutting down of reasoned debate.