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

Interesting Twitter thread here, also about the 'sex is a spectrum' claim. I am not a scientist but the woman who is tweeting appears to be a doctor and has done a painstaking analysis of this claim, which appears to debunk it.

At a rare but lovely gathering of the clan yesterday DB1 said that as saying transwomen are male now qualifies as transphobic, it's a completely meaningless term and he doesn't give a ahit if he gets accused of it anymore.

I was surprised he was aware of the issue, because he's not normally even vaguely interested in sexual politics. It was the sport. He's heavily involved in organising sport and is appalled by the intrusion of men into women's sports, stealing medals and scholarships.

For someone who's not interested in this sort of thing at all he'd obvously thought about it quite a lot. So I told him about self ID. DB2 having been hauled into the conversation, got the whole problem in a minute or two and then, without prompting, starting working out all the other ways women were disadvantaged.

I said changes to the law were being done very quietly and that, sadly, only maybe 1 in 100 people knew it was planned. They said more like 1 in a 1,000, but then cheered me up by saying that when people did become aware there'd be outrage.

"Deliberately misgendering someone at work is a sackable offence. It is seen as acceptable on this board as everyone does it

Funnily I’ve never seen anyone on here say that they do, or that they would. I wouldn’t - it would be creating an atmosphere of hostility for the person and that’s tribunal territory. Literally no one on MN has ever said ‘well I’ll show HIM what’s what at the briefing on Monday!’ No one. I’ve never heard anyone on here say that they do this at work.

What people HAVE objected to is being forced to:

• Use incorrect pronouns in a stressful court situation, where the increased cognitive load would put a witness under strain.
• have incorrect pronouns used in court where constantly referring to a large male bodied assailant as ‘she’ would potentially bias how the court saw the incident.
• use incorrect pronouns for public figures when discussing them
• use general pronouns in a way that conflicts with reality , ie being forced to say TWIW.

The two are very different things. Again you lead with a statement that isn’t true.

Daim consistently misrepresents facts, distorts the truth and generally has a dishonest approach to debate.

However, think of the lurkers.

bowl your analogy is good and it is heartening to hear GC feminists would publicly use the preferred pronouns even if privately they felt it was a lie.

Prawn

I have had that same response from male relatives. They don't tie themselves in knots worrying about saying the wrong thing. They say: No Shit Sherlock. These are not right-wing men; not bigots.

sorry - I realise I was conflating being right wing with being bigoted. Which as I am rapidly becoming more and more aware is unfair (and conversely to assume lefty men are not bigoted)

bowl your analogy is good and it is heartening to hear GC feminists would publicly use the preferred pronouns even if privately they felt it was a lie.

It’s context dependent. At work there are rules - social conventions etc. You’re interacting in a professional context with a colleague. In that situation yes I would use preferred pronouns. Just as I’d avoid discussion of anything to do with religion at work past the usual ‘have a lovely easter’ stuff or discussions with direct reports on stuff like accommodations for Ramadan (I am often approached by staff asking to cover other timezones so they’re more aligned with the times they can eat and I’m happy to do that as it’s win win.)

The situation is different when you’re discussing someone in the public eye, or talking in general terms. So while I’m an atheist I don’t bring that into a discussion with my direct report who is discussing working arrangements during Ramadan. That would be inappropriate.

At the same time - I will resist to my death anyone who tells me I can’t criticise the ideology of a given religion in a general sense. Because NO ideology gets a free pass from criticism.And I’ll resist being forced to say TWAW because I dont believe it and I think it’s extremely damaging as a concept.

Transplants, exactly. They got pretty explicit about the sexual/safety angle. As men, they felt no hesitation in saying that any bloke wanting to access single sex spaces for whatever excuse was, by definition, likely to be dodgy and women were right to be wary.

Men are often very realistic about male sexual motives. When my DSD was a teen my DH used to say that testosterone should be a banned substance.

I bet there are quite a few left wing women on here who are surprised to find themselves quoting the Daily Mail.

Right Wing / Left Wing is another area where lines have recently blurred.

I have had that same response from male relatives. They don't tie themselves in knots worrying about saying the wrong thing.

Interesting isn’t it? They haven’t had a lifetime of being told to be nice, or being afraid.

daimbars

That's true

Women are nice, Daim. It's how TRA like you walked over us.

"Frankly, using that Nature paper to demonstrate that 'mammals born without ovaries can produce an ovum' is like saying 'Look! Pigs CAN fly!' without mentioning that you needed to use an aeroplane for it."

You mean a transplanted womb?

It seems that biologically women aren't that special and a womb, ovum etc. can be created within the confines of existing medical knowledge. I am not aware, however, of any comparable success in creating sperm.

Bowl

Yes. That's what it is. It really is. There's something about being middle-aged, for me, that has really made me aware how much being nice is so ingrained in me, now that I am less afraid of what others think of me.. Not being assertive; being nice - as if the two were antithetical to each other. Which of course they aren't

"It’s context dependent. At work there are rules - social conventions etc. You’re interacting in a professional context with a colleague. In that situation yes I would use preferred pronouns."

Then you can't claim that it would be offensive to you to use correct sex and gender for people here.

It seems that biologically women aren't that special and a womb, ovum etc. can be created within the confines of existing medical knowledge

No they can’t. You can remove a womb from a donor. You can’t put it in a man and sustain a pregnancy. You can’t create a working ovum from scratch. Or a sperm.

The work on creating fully mature gametes for both sexes is ongoing. No one has managed to make a functioning gamete yet. Although the work for sperm is a little further ahead so you’re wrong there too ;)

www.newscientist.com/article/2078882-artificial-tail-less-sperm-is-the-best-test-tube-sex-cell-yet/

Gibberty plumbing the depths right there. Womb envy or gynaephobia? Maybe both.

Personally, I think it's a very good thing that some people are waking up to the fact that the left/right tribalism in British politics is very harmful. There are good and bad people on all sides. It's rare to find someone one would agree with 100% on all points. It's always a compromise for me - who's got the least worst set of policies? Which individual seems to have some personal integrity?

As for the Daily Mail, well, to quote Withnail and I, Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. They're not always wrong and the more left-wing papers (notably The Guardian) have taken a very uncritical, unquestioning approach to this issue.

Then you can't claim that it would be offensive to you to use correct sex and gender for people here.

Why? I wouldn’t talk at work in front of religious colleagues about the fact I find religion ridiculous but if you told me I’d be locked up for blasphemy for criticising it on mumsnet you’d be breaking the law, not me.

One is creating a work atmosphere that abides by good practice. The other is free speech (or whatvpasses for it in the Uk.)

Blair did try to get a blasphemy law through. Thankfully he failed.

Then you can't claim that it would be offensive to you to use correct sex and gender for people here.

It's you who finds the correct use of sex pronouns offensive.

I was washed in utero

I was washed in utero
It really isn't fair
My mother cruelly laundered me
And now I've too much hair
She didn't read my label
For proper foetus care
And rinsed me in testosterone
Then spun me for a dare
It's why I am the way I am
A willy like my brother
But I have got a ladybrain
I blame it on my mother

I wouldn't use pronouns. I'd use names oe they.

applause barracker

It must be so much easier to argue without recourse to facts.