Transing five and six-year olds - the guidance.

[OnlyObjectivity]

Last night I took a look at the latest Schools Toolkit by Allsorts/Mermaids in conjunction with Brighton & Hove Council.

Its case studies are meant to illustrate best practice in:

• Transing a five-year old
• Transing a six-year old
• Transing a eleven-year old

Then they warn that during school inspections Ofsted will pay particular attention to outcomes for a range of groups of learners including ‘transgender children and learners’. and make a particular point of stating that the effectiveness of leadership, management and govenors will be judged.

I wrote a long post critiquing this document, but then I read:

Scenario 2

Parent to school: ‘My daughter doesn’t want a boy changing next to her, what if he looks at her body?’

Underpinning this scenario is the idea that a trans girl is not a ‘real girl’ and this would be something that a whole setting approach would challenge through training and awareness raising. A Human Rights response would be to state that the child is a girl and as such has the right under the Equality Act to change with the girls and to be treated fairly as such.

• at which point I lost the ability to write any kind of measured response...

uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5888a640d61795123f8192db/5b8cdf1e902f3d41b0a81018_Trans%20Inclusion%20Schools%20Toolkit_Sept_2018_V3.pdf

YY to path being laid to challenge UK surrogacy laws
For the benefit of penis people
And to further commodify women's bodies

Big links between pro trans orgs and pro pimp / pro prostitution / pro porn lobbies

All is a men's right movement

Jane Fay who Girl guides have not denied they are consulting with on their policies, is an expert not in children and safeguarding but one of the countrys leading experts in and advocates for the legalisation of extreme porn
Jess Thingy who wanks their cock at bus stops was consulted by the govt on trans policies
Challenor family involved as well >> plenty of threads about them
More?

I'm another one who has long believed the next 'civil rights' push in the UK will be to change the surrogacy laws to be more favourable towards those who would like female reproduction to be a commodity.

Nothing

Yes.

numberseven
The science to mature gamete in vitro is not there yet, they obviously Bank on scientific progress ( like with freezing a baby‘s cord blood, which has very limited use now but that might change in the future).

I believe it is pretty cruel to tell a kid ‚ah we can freeze it so you can have a kid someday‘ without the technology being in place* and considering the abysmal success rates of fertilizing the eggs that were harvested and frozen from adult, healthy, young women.

(*reminds me of the global warming target of 2•Celsius we are still sold by politicians that factors in nonexistent technology of large scale carbon capture).

Currently

Next targets:

Surrogacy laws
Age limits on blockers - that will be the next bit of the wedge. Once you’re on blockers the off ramp closes. Then cross sex hormones at a younger age.
Then targeting organ donation to create presumed consent which will have implications in other areas.

Women will become animals to be stripped for parts

Yep Bowl

Sounds dystopian but I agree.

The cross over between transing kids and introducing commercial surrogacy "job like any other! choicy choice!!" is clear.
And the cross link between the trans and pimp lobbies which were there long before all this got into the mainstream >> "SWERF AND TERF" were invariably used together

Not forgetting that abortion will deny a person the right to have a child, which is already endlessly being peddled out, but put under a different umbrella may make it more palatable.

Surrogacy is being normalised more and more in the media.

Kim K using one as she didn't want to risk her own health.
Mrs Robbie Williams because she was to busy at work.
Endless list of gay couples.
That guy from Him & Her says he will use one on his own if he doesn't meet Mr Right.
Trans people now want to use them even though they mostly had working reproductive organs that they chose to mutilate.

We're moving to a society where the poor are used as breeding mares for the rich and/or "special". Surrogacy should not be a ligitimate other option for having children, especially not if you have/had working reproductive organs.

Commercial surrogacy is a no-no for me as a feminist of the old school,

Ditto prostitution and porn.

Not fussed about "erotica" whether written or drawn (unless it's incitement / used to threaten someone etc sure there are other reasons) but in general where real people are involved,the FACT is that as soon as money changes hands then gross expolitation happens and women & girls are abused & all women and girls in society are impacted simply by living in a society which says their bodies can be put up for sale.

Fun fact: some years back, I saw flyers on the campus of an elite west coast university (us) that promised women under 25 - depending on academic achievement and physical characteristics - tens of thousands of dollars (I believe it started at 50 thousand and gave a vague hint it could go up decisively for certain characteristics) for an egg donation.

'Use' is such a telling word.

'He uses prostitutes'.

'We used a surrogate'.

'I use porn when my wife is tired.'

Agree tiger.

Good question. Puberty would have to take place and females would have to undergo egg harvesting which entails medication, extra female hormones, and a minor operative procedure, often done via the vagina.

Yes my understanding is that very few girls do this because it's such an invasive procedure which would increase their dysphoria symptoms if they have them.

I believe it is pretty cruel to tell a kid ‚ah we can freeze it so you can have a kid someday‘ without the technology being in place and considering the abysmal success rates of fertilizing the eggs that were harvested and frozen from adult, healthy, young women.

YY. It's up there with "puberty blockers are completely safe and reversible".

What this means is that trans women who stop taking HRT for a few months can reverse sterilization and become pregnant with viable sperm.

This 2015 article from Everyday "Feminism" is by an MTF. How do you think this person thinks they will "become pregnant"? (though it's never mentioned once, something I find chilling).

everydayfeminism.com/2015/11/trans-women-reproductive-justice/

Oh I wish the charities commission were as scary as OFSTED. They could go in an challenge some of this. The part I found the most worrying was the gender reassignment being a protected characteristic. Erm. So self id exists then because no doctor is signing a GRC for a kiddie.

I wonder what the uptake will be on trans boys playing rugby with biological boys. Hmm. What could possibly go wrong there.

I did agree with them in their wanting an end to gender stereotypes. But isn't their whole bs ideology based around gender stereotypes?

When they’re talking about surrogacy (for natal females who have transitioned to male) they could be referring to any natal female partner they’re with? While it is likely that they will want to carry their own biological child, it is also possible that they may agree as a couple for a second child to be conceived with the trans mans egg and donor sperm and carried by the partner?

How might that be different from a woman using a donor egg to get pregnant (and potentially even donor sperm)?

How might that be different from a woman using a donor egg to get pregnant (and potentially even donor sperm)?

Because sperm and egg donation is a totally different thing legally, medically and morally to using a woman’s body as an incubator

"I wonder what the uptake will be on trans boys playing rugby with biological boys. Hmm. What could possibly go wrong there."

The Guidance issued for Brighton and Hove schools (another thread) said that as girls and women come in a variety of shapes and sizes, there were no issues with girls playing rugby against boys.

These arguments are fucked and I can't being to imagine why so many orgs are going along with them.

How might that be different from a woman using a donor egg to get pregnant (and potentially even donor sperm)?

Donating sperm = wanking into a pot. Zero risk for the donor, possibly even an enjoyable experience.

Donating eggs = several weeks of injections, scans, blood tests, monitoring (to make sure you're not getting precursor signs of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can be fatal), egg retrieval which leaves you feeling like you've been kicked in the stomach by a carthorse (trust me, been there, done that, got the t-shirt).

Pregnancy - one of the riskiest things a modern woman in a western country can undertake. Mortality risks are fairly low (compared to historical periods) but morbidity - damage to pelvic floor, prolapse, scarring, pain, loss of sexual function - are non-negligible complications. Plus, barring the few women who "glow" throughout pregnancy, for most of us it's a pretty arduous and at times bloody unpleasant undertaking.

That pesky biology again, eh? Those situations you thought looked so beautifully analogous on paper turn out not to be at all analogous in the real world because of... ta dah... human reproductive biology. Not gender feels, but actual, biological sex differences.

Regarding egg donation, I believe more and more donor women report long term damage, some really serious. I believe one woman reported she could not have kids of her own now for some complication? ( of course I can‘t find it now and still have no computer access to post the link, should I find it.... ) if I manage to find it, i‘ll Post it somehow.

I think I've read somewhere that egg donation not followed by actual pregnancy increases the risk of reproductive cancers more than IVF followed by pregnancy. (However, there's also the counterbalancing fact that reproductive cancers seem to be less common in women who've had IVF because of their partner's infertility than among women who've had IVF for reasons of their own infertility - the old "correlation is not causation" thing: it could be that the issues causing female infertility may also be co-morbid with an increased risk of certain reproductive cancers).

I'd be interested to see the links if you have them to hand, deepwater.

Ok on the Homepage of www.eggsploiration.com (there is a Movie?) has some interview with a woman who experienced fertility loss. And a 2017 NYT article talks about potential increased risk of cancer (quite a sad story of a Stanford student who donated twice and died of colon cancer still young- and other cases).

Sounds very exploitative. Nobody has data, studies (aka nobody gives a shit) what the risks for donors really are...

An article on healthline.com from Leah Campbell titled ,donate an egg, become infertile‘ from 2017. I think that is what I originally read. ( sorry I can‘t just paste the link- but with phone i just can‘t do it)

We don’t really know the long term risks of egg donation. Short term there’s I think a 5% risk of hyperstimulation (which can be fatal and also can leave you infertile.) long term no one knows because no one is looking (gosh... sound familiar..?)

Anything that involves mucking around with hormone levels can alter cancer risk.

I disagree with surrogacy on many levels. To me it’s only permissible unpaid and with very strict controls. It shouldn’t ever be paid, it’s too open to exploitation.