10yo son accused of being transphobic, help me write to school

[flowery]

I am trying not to be too angry, but my 10yo came home yesterday saying I'd be pleased to know what he said about transgender at school. It was a discussion amongst his friends, not with the teacher present and not as part of a lesson, and he'd said it was not possible to change sex.

Apparently one of his friends said he was transphobic for saying so. He doesn't seem worried and doesn't want me to make a fuss, and it doesn't sound like it was said to him in a nasty way. But I'm not happy.

I've got no reason to think the school is teaching any gender woo stuff, I don't think they're particularly 'woke', but I want to check. I'm also not sure what to do about the accusation. I don't want my son to feel he can't express a view or say biological sex is real without someone else accusing him of any kind of 'phobia'.

He's not shy and is popular and quite a strong character, but that's not the point.

I have the new government guidance so I am planning to write to his teacher, probably in a 'not making a fuss don't want to get anyone into trouble' kind of way, just asking how they teach this subject and reiterating that I would like to be sure that it is clear to children that someone disagreeing with them isn't a phobia, that it is is not literally possible to change sex, and that differing opinions are perfectly fine.

I seem to remember someone somewhere linking to some kind of table done by the NHS where it says it's not possible to change biological sex. I can't find it, does anyone know what it was and perhaps have a link?

Plus any thoughts on how best to handle it would also be appreciated.

You lost me right from the start. In fact, people don't talk about men not being able to have babies when talking about gay men adopting: people just know. Gay men can adopt and that is laudable and good.

What is it about saying "women aren't in general as physically strong as men when talking about women playing football" in any way bigoted? Whatever emphasis you place it does not matter or change the truth of the statement. It just is.

The fact that people cannot change sex has to be said because some people believe people CAN change sex, but they cannot. We have to "go on and on about it" as you say because that is what you must do in the face of lies. Not like the gay situation. Not like the women playing football situation.

So if it is not a good look, is truth not a good look either?

Evidently the truth is a trifling matter for some posters on this thread, Sawing. Perfectly put.

Assuming you're not trans (seeing as you don't believe that anyone can know for certain how they feel over something they have never experienced before) and are vocally GC on these threads, do you not see ANY irony at all in your comment?

I don't think she said she knew how being trans would feel, did she? The fact is that jj cannot know what living in a female body would feel like, because jj is male. Like any other male who claims to understand the female experience.

I think if looking at something from the perspective of women's interests as a sex class, there seems to be a pitiful attempt to label that as 'bigotry'. To look at something from a man's interests and to place men's interests left, right and centre Bigot is being seen as good and proper as opposed to bigoted. All those bigots who campaigned for women's voting rights etc. All present day presumptuous 'bigots' (aka women) regarding themselves, their interests and their rights as equal to men in any shape or form. How very dare they?

Disregard random Bigot after 'centre'. It is probably a Freudian slip that being a feminist equals being a bigot. Or so they would like to tar it.

No, being trans might mea not being born with a female body, but oldcrone saying you can't possibly know what having a female body is like (true, I suppose) is very hypocritical if you yourself have no idea what it's like to be trans.

You not meaning you personally erish before you take it the wrong way.

No, being trans might mea not being born with a female body, but oldcrone saying you can't possibly know what having a female body is like (true, I suppose) is very hypocritical if you yourself have no idea what it's like to be trans.

I'll repeat what I said, as you missed it - she didn't claim she did know what it was like to be trans. So no "hypocrisy" for you to worry about. You yourself say you agree that a male cannot know what having a female body would be like. So you agree with both her and me.

Isn't that the whole point though Quaagars?

We cannot imagine being a trans person (certainly can imagine gender dysphoria as I felt it as a teenager myself, along with a lasting body dismorphia), but nor can they know what having a female body is actually like. It is a theme that we have covered with jj across numerous threads even on some very philosophical posts.

I didn't miss it.
You can't know what it's like to have a female body if you have never had one (doesn't mean you're not trans though)
no I 'm not defining trans
Just like you can't possibly know what it's like to be trans if you're not as a GC poster and posturing on what is and isn't trans.
So yes, I kind of do see both sides
Anyway, thought you'd flounced and were done engaging, that lasted long lol

^Just like you can't possibly know what it's like to be trans if you're not as a GC poster and posturing on what is and isn't trans.
So yes, I kind of do see both sides^
Anyway, thought you'd flounced and were done engaging, that lasted long lol

No one claimed they knew what it was like to be trans. They correctly pointed out that a male cannot possibly know what being female would feel like. As you yourself agreed.

I didn't go anywhere, I don't think a "flounce" covers not speaking to one specific person

So you either missed it, or deliberately avoided the point. Anyway, thanks for the reminder that it's pointless engaging with some people.

There are only two sexes, though. It that fact deemed to be offensive? Would I be deleted for saying planet Earth is elliptical if someone reports me as a 'bigoted elliptical earther' and says I am being offensive because it is flat? If so, reproductive and anatomical biology teaching and healthcare should be banned as offensive. So, bearing that scientific fact in mind, I think it is fair to say that people only really know what it is to exist as either one or the other of those sexes. What you or I, or anyone else thinks of that is not a physical reality.

Now, women (those with the female bodies) are being diminished and are being told they are not really an organic reality with needs which should be recognised with rights attached, is an unhappy development. However, it seems to be one step forward and two steps back for the female of the species.

However, it seems to be one step forward and two steps back for the female of the species.

As ever.

@Quaagars

I didn't miss it. You can't know what it's like to have a female body if you have never had one (doesn't mean you're not trans though) no I 'm not defining trans Just like you can't possibly know what it's like to be trans if you're not as a GC poster and posturing on what is and isn't trans. So yes, I kind of do see both sides Anyway, thought you'd flounced and were done engaging, that lasted long lol

You can't know what it's like to have a female body if you have never had one (doesn't mean you're not trans though) Just like you can't possibly know what it's like to be trans if you're not

Yes, that is the whole bloody point!

The experience of having a female body matters, not because of some mystic biological essentialism but because it influences how people treat us, and how people treat us influences how we think of ourselves and the personalities we grow into.

So I don't give a monkeys what someone wears or the genderised roles they want to adopt, but I absolutely do not accept a male-bodied person thinking they have the experience of womanhood to speak for me, or the need and entitlement to the spaces, rights and protections created for the female-bodied.

The experience of having a female body matters, not because of some mystic biological essentialism but because it influences how people treat us, and how people treat us influences how we think of ourselves and the personalities we grow into.

Yes, it does matter, I agree, but what you are missing is that for some of us it's not just about our body parts.
That's not all it is for me, I'm not just a walking pair of tits and flange who bleeds once a month.
Even if that's all a woman is to some, for others it is MORE.
There's more there.
It's nothing to DO with personalities, or whether I'm wearing a skirt or a dress.
That's the point you all miss, repeatedly, or refuse to accept.
I'll be just as interested in an explanation as the rest of you if there ever is one, as I'd like to know "evidence" or whatever you want to call it too.

@Quaagars

The experience of having a female body matters, not because of some mystic biological essentialism but because it influences how people treat us, and how people treat us influences how we think of ourselves and the personalities we grow into.

Yes, it does matter, I agree, but what you are missing is that for some of us it's not just about our body parts.
That's not all it is for me, I'm not just a walking pair of tits and flange who bleeds once a month.
Even if that's all a woman is to some, for others it is MORE.
There's more there.
It's nothing to DO with personalities, or whether I'm wearing a skirt or a dress.
That's the point you all miss, repeatedly, or refuse to accept.
I'll be just as interested in an explanation as the rest of you if there ever is one, as I'd like to know "evidence" or whatever you want to call it too.

No I get that, but it's a totally different conception of womanhood that has nothing in common with what females practically need. So if you want to create that parallel class of Woman-in-the-head people then go ahead, fill your boots. But keep it separate to the rights, protections and dialogue that is needed by the female people. Don't come stomping into conversations about sexism and misogyny, which is stuff that happens to female people because they are female, and demand the conversation includes Women-in-the-head people who do not have any conception of the real concerns and challenges that female-in-the-body people experience.

There's more there.
It's nothing to DO with personalities, or whether I'm wearing a skirt or a dress.
That's the point you all miss, repeatedly, or refuse to accept.

To be fair, what you are asking us to accept is an indefinable thing that is definitely not any of the things we can observe like biology, socialisation, sterotypes or personalities, yet is so deeply, fundamentally important that it overrides any provision or protections based on about the importance of the former four in women's lives, even for women who don't have that elusive fifth element. Can you see why some women have concerns?

No I get that, but it's a totally different conception of womanhood that has nothing in common with what females practically need. So if you want to create that parallel class of Woman-in-the-head people then go ahead, fill your boots. But keep it separate to the rights, protections and dialogue that is needed by the female people. Don't come stomping into conversations about sexism and misogyny, which is stuff that happens to female people because they are female, and demand the conversation includes Women-in-the-head people who do not have any conception of the real concerns and challenges that female-in-the-body people experience.

Well said.

Perhaps we could have "women in the head" spaces in addition to female ones? Then the "women in the head" people can use them with their kinfolk regardless of their sex.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Perhaps we could have "women in the head" spaces in addition to female ones? Then the "women in the head" people can use them with their kinfolk regardless of their sex.

What about those who have both "women in the head" and the biological bits too

That's what I mean. You can use the "women in the head" spaces with the other "women in the head" people regardless of biological sex. Or you can use the female spaces. Choice.

Or why not just let all women use the bogs together.
roundabout

How did I know that perfectly reasonable and inclusive suggestion wouldn't be acceptable to "women in the head" people? glad that's been spelled out.

Inclusive but only inclusive of the right "type" of woman
Okay then makes sense - that being your definition of inclusive that is

No, as Blibbyblobby made clear there are two different views here on what a woman is. You as a female woman can either use the "women in the head" spaces, or the "human female" spaces. Male people can use the "women in the head" spaces or the "human male" ones. Can a male person only be a woman if they invade female spaces without most female people's consent?