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

Barracker

Barracker

It's a game to them. They've been delegated to distract us.

Barracker

Bit like leaving a pink sock in a whites wash isn't it?

And, no, where did you manage to get 'You mean a womb' from my aeroplane analogy, you daft sausage?

'Aeroplane' = massive expensive international collaboration involving petri dishes, harvesting and separation of stem cells and non-stem cells, culturing on growth medium, addition of a certain number of female gonadal cells anyway to get the thing off the ground, etc, etc.

Or you could just get two mice to shag. That works pretty well.

It seems that biologically women aren't that special.

Whoopsy @ mask slippage.

You may claim that a man can be a woman.
You may argue that the definition of woman is far more fluid than the strict confines of sex.
No matter if you keep, or lose them - you'll still be talking bollocks.

Barracker. You're a genius!

As regards the 'can be created in the lab' nonsense, I remember a report from New Scientist about growing tissue for implanted vaginas -- rather than using a chunk of intestine or skin, which isn't optimal:
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25399-engineered-vaginas-grown-in-women-for-the-first-time/]

But note this is for females, grown from their own tissue. They had a functioning uterus, but no vaginal canal. Chaps don't have the genes for it (well, the vulval tissue they harvested to start growing it, I assume).

I don't yet if any of these women have conceived, would be interesting to know.

I'm still not seeing how the ability to create a human in a lab (were it even possible), and to be able to influence or dictate the sex of that human relates to a human who is already a male or female wanting to change their sex.

World's gone mad.

Whoopsy @ mask slippage.

Oh yes. MRA rhetoric.

Oh yes. MRA rhetoric.

Well, quite. Meet the new gender identity, same as the old gender identity. You know: the male one that feminism was formed to liberate women from. Colour me shocked.

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

Fuck me. Well thank you for that clear view of women Gibb

You are aware that you are posting on a forum for mothers, yes?

What this thread has proved is that within 20 years all reproductive barriers will be broken. Since we are establishing law for the future, the science means that a legal definition of sex based on biology is now impossible

@Gibbertflibbert Yes AND we'll all be using jet packs so we might as well abolish road safety laws while we're at it

daimbars Mon 11-Jun-18 17:24:24

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.

Public displays of obedience and submission by females is essential to promoting transgender beliefs.

Ludicrous claim. This thread has proved no such thing. If the science ever does reach that point, a very detailed, wide-ranging consultation would be needed to see whether the general public thought this was something that should be allowed. My hunch is that it would only be allowed for natal women with fertility difficulties. I don't buy that the person on the street would see a pressing reason to allow something so risky for the foetus as a male pregnancy using transplanted organs and unprecedented amounts of artificial hormones.

What this thread has proved is that within 20 years all reproductive barriers will be broken. Since we are establishing law for the future, the science means that a legal definition of sex based on biology is now impossible

That makes no sense. It’s word salad. It is without meaning. It has rung down the curtain and joined the choir incomprehensible.

I’m still waiting for you to Science me by the way. The science. Tell me of the science.

Public displays of obedience and submission by females is essential to promoting transgender beliefs.

Absolutely. What a goady power tripping remark.

I’m still waiting for you to Science me by the way. The science. Tell me of the science.

Got to hand it to them for the deflection attempt. It almost worked.

This thread has proved nothing of the kind. It has proved that you're spectacularly bad at grasping basic science and doggedly failing to acknowledge it. It's embarrassing.

What this thread has proved is that within 20 years all reproductive barriers will be broken.

Really? Where exactly? Come on Gibberty - we need a bit more than your GCSE (grade D) Biology.

We want proper science. When do we want it? Now!

Steady on...

What this thread has proved is that within 20 years all reproductive barriers will be broken. Since we are establishing law for the future, the science means that a legal definition of sex based on biology is now impossible

Oh My.

It has certainly shone the light on your idiotic views.

What this thread has proved is that within 20 years all reproductive barriers will be broken. Since we are establishing law for the future, the science means that a legal definition of sex based on biology is now impossible

I am filing this under a) dream on, dear, and b) lordly pronouncements.

Wow