I am a science teacher teaching secondary sex education and genetics

[Clairetree1]

Ever single time. Every single time. Every single time.

I am being asked how men turn into women.

I say they can't. They turn into transwomen. These are men who change their bodies to be as much like women as possible, but are still men.

Every single time I teach pregnancy I am asked how men can do it.

Every single time we go through genetics I get a shocked response for saying "this is male, this is female"

Every single time I make any distinction between male and female I am asked "are you allowed to say that?

I equate being ordered to teach that men can become woman to previous generations of teachers being ordered to teach nazi race science.

I am quite sure I will be sacked one day

No one will say yes. Ever. Because they don’t believe it.

I’m not talking about the GRA. I’m talking about an XY adult changing into an XX female. Can it be done? Yes, or no?

Why are there exemptions to both the GRA and the EA, Daim?

Daim: I have said this so many times.

The law doesn't say you can change sex. It entitles you to be treated under the law as if you were the opposite sex. By doing so it actually acknowledges that you haven't changed sex.

Does daim think that the GRA identifies as being able to change people's sex? It doesn't.

Exactly Erish: you are entitled to be treated under the law as if you were the opposite sex, except in certain circumstances. The law accepts that you haven't changed sex.

Also I'd still like daim to explain at what point in the transition process they think a person has changed sex. Apparently they think Aydian Dowling has. So, when was that the case?

Don't be silly Lang there are a lot of complex questions school kids can ask that can't be answered by a simple yes or no question.

Right, so you can't unequivocally say that children should be given accurate information about human sexual reproduction in their lessons.

Noted.

The legal thing is a nonsense argument. Passing a law does not make something true, or right.

The TRAs are trying to change the meaning of language. Arguing about science will get nowhere with them because they are not talking about changing someone biologically. It is more to do with the issue that R0wantrees posted about earlier.
fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/

They want to change the meaning of the word 'woman' to include men.

So what implications does the Gender Recognition Act have for current conceptualisations of what constitutes a ‘sex change’? Does this effect changes in what constitutes ‘male’ or ‘female’; ‘man’ or ‘woman’? Has the category ‘sex’ changed?

We demonstrate, using the debates about the Gender Recognition Act in the House of Lords, how the assumed embeddedness of sex in scientific knowledge was used to discredit the idea that one can legally ‘change sex’. Yet, paradoxically, it was also the mobilisation of scientific discourse in discussions over the category ‘sex’ which demonstrated the failure of science to fully locate ‘sex’ at all - suggesting that ‘sex’ may not be an immutable somatic fact in ways that it has been previously understood.

Changing sex for the purposes of legal recognition then, is not about changing biology or changing bodies to ‘match’ genders, but about changing how sex is legally defined. In that sense ‘having a sex change’ has a different meaning with new political consequences and challenges.

www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

Don't be silly Lang there are a lot of complex questions school kids can ask that can't be answered by a simple yes or no question.

There are, daimbars, but these are not complex questions, they are basic straightforward questions about whether children should be told the truth about basic scientific facts.

Should questioning children in lessons about human reproduction be given accurate information?

If you say anything other than yes to that question, I wonder what your motivations are? Why would anyone want to give anything other than accurate information about basic scientific facts to children in schools?

Should questioning children in lessons about human reproduction be told that humans can change sex?

Are you really saying that that is a complex question? Remember this is a science lesson. Your interpretation of the law on this issue is irrelevant.

Lang if a child specifically asks a question about transgender people it would not do them any favours ignoring them and simply saying 'people cannot change sex' - if a person fully transitions they lose their sexual function as a male / female.

Telling a child you cannot change sex full stop could make them think you can still reproduce as your biological sex once you have had gender reassignment.

I don't see what is wrong with giving them the facts. I thought you would be in favour of pointing out trans people lose their ability to reproduce once they have transitioned as they do not have their sex organs.

daimbars - you didn't need three paragraphs to say "no". I note that you have said "no" but also that you are unwilling to say "no" with any clarity. It's very, very telling.

So to clarify - that’s a no to changing sex?

It’s not possible to change sex, do we agree on that? Yes. Or no?

trans people lose their ability to reproduce once they have transitioned as they do not have their sex organs

This is the minority of trans people surely? Only those with dysphoria chose to have their sex organs removed.

To be trans inclusive, within a science lesson, surely the best thing to do is to point out that sex and gender are different. Sex is binary and gender is a spectrum. Apparently it is not trans inclusive to say sex is a continuum because some trans people put themselves outside of the masculine/ feminine sliding scale.

Sorry - it is not trans inclusive to point out gender is a continuum.......

Clearly - sex is not a continuum!

The counter arguments to OP on this thread boil down to...

I don't think any science that conflicts with my ideology should be accurately taught in schools.

Are these people so stupid that they do not know they are proposing a (male supremacist) theocracy? Or do they know and hope that we won't notice if they wank all over every public space with word salad and fake science?

I'm sitting here thinking about how radical feminists are regularly accused by these fools of being akin to fundie Christians and the alt-right. How are Daim' and Gib on this thread any different to fundie Christians in the US forcing school boards to put creationism and intelligent design in the science curriculum rather than the religious one?

Once again, I'm reminded - accusations from these people are always admissions of their own beliefs and behaviours.

Sex is defined by reproductive role, not reproductive ability.

To be trans inclusive within a science lesson one would indeed need to point out that sex is a biological fact. That gender is a social construct. That gender dysphoria exists as a condition. That humans cannot change sex and that is about as far as you go in a science lesson - GCSE and A level biology is to teach biology, not sociology.

The social implications of being trans, the legal aspects, etc etc, are more of a sociology thing. Cover them elsewhere in the curriculum.

Science sticks to the facts.

It depends how you define 'sex' - even the GRA uses sex and gender interchangeably which doesn't help I admit.

Daimbars still seems to be ignoring the concept of the trans umbrella, eg that Stonewall et al don't differentiate between post-op dysphoric transsexuals, fetishistic crossdressers and people like Pips Bunce & Travis Alabanza who define themselves however they feel like at the time.

Daim, what's your view on this? And if you think we should be embracing dysphoric transsexuals who have had full surgery in women's spaces but keeping crossdressers out, how are women supposed to tell the difference?

It depends how you define 'sex'

The way science defines it. Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Can humans change sex?

Sex is defined by reproductive role.

Empress it's really simple. Let people use the bathroom they feel is most appropriate to them. As a separate issue if anyone behaves inappropriately their behaviour is not tolerated. This has been happening for years and years with no issue and I'm still confused why there's a big fuss all of all sudden.

if anyone behaves inappropriately their behaviour is not tolerated

Inappropriate behaviour for a man includes using female spaces

it's really simple. Let people use the bathroom they feel is most appropriate to them

Why do sex segregated spaces exist in the first place then?

And, as always: can humans change sex?