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.

I wonder what message you give him at home for him to come home and say you’d be pleased with him saying a person couldn’t change sex.It sounds very much like the narrative you’re feeding him at home is transphobic, rather that neutral. A ten year old doesn’t just develop these views without input from someone

It's not transphobic to tell a child it isn't possible to change sex. It's teaching them biological reality. Nor is biological fact a 'view' as you misleadingly describe it. There is no 'neutral' view on this either. We mustn't lie to our children. It isn't transphobic to state biological reality.

@Quaagars

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

FFS

You defined a class of people separate to female. Why should female people not organise themselves to agitate for solutions to female needs and problems whether it's toilets, make on female violence, healthcare, tracking pay gaps, addressing the subconscious barriers to
females at work, measures to reduce the impact of pregnancy, maternity leave and disproportionate expectations of childcare, social conditioning to be nice, etc etc etc.

If Woman is nothing to do with having a female body, what on earth is the justification for woman without female bodies to have to be included in stuff that is entirely for and about the female-bodied?

FFS yourself
As I have not said this If Woman is nothing to do with having a female body
I said that having tits and foof is part of being a woman, but IT IS MORE for some
We're going to go round in circles lol

I would be much happier with a female body.

There is something paradoxical, contradictory, about this that might repay analysis, I think.

I suggest the difficulty with 'I would be much happier with a female body' is not do with its truth or falsity, but rather with making sense of it.

The thing is, my (sexed) body (and think of this as changing over a lifetime) is not a contingent part of what makes me who I am; rather it is an essential part of what makes me, me. (Likewise, mutatis mutandis, for what makes you, you, I claim, in case that is not obvious.)

This is rather like when people say things like, 'Suppose I were to wake up tomorrow in a female body ...'. ... This is a strange thing to say because supposing I am a man whoever it is who wakes up tomorrow with a female body, it will not be me. Why? because my (male) body is essential to who I am.

[Notice the qualification, 'changing over a lifetime'. This is important. I could, for instance, have an operation that changes my body in a significant way. Or (which has happpened) my body could deteriorate over time. Talk of 'my body' in the sense I intend includes my body before and after such a change -- the body through change, if you like, rather than in a snapshot of its lifetime.]

So for me, a man, to have a female body, is impossible. Not physically or scientifically/technologically impossible, but conceptually impossible.

If it were a matter of inadequate technology, then of course things might change; what is now scientifically possible may change in future.

Could what is conceptually possible likewise change? Not in any useful way. Suppose the concepts change (note the plural here -- concepts intermingle, so changing one changes many); then, indeed, we might make sense of these new concepts. But, once we change concepts in this way, we will not be talking of the same thing at all. Changing concepts amounts to no more or less than changing the subject.

[This latter point is largely why people find matters so difficult when asked to say what they mean by 'woman' in wokespeak, I suspect.]

The mistake here is not obvious, I think. It is basically the same mistake the philosopher John Locke made in his famous example of the prince and the cobbler (see Locke, Essay, II, xxvii, 15). Locke wrote in Descartes' shadow, of course, and the connection between the Cartesian ego/soul and the idea of gender identity is an obvious one to make.

[An aside re souls. Christian theologians, faced with reconciling the essentially embodied nature of humans with the wish to make sense of eternality, came up with the idea of 'the resurrection of the body'. Why so? -- Because without my body, it would not be me there in heaven, since my body is essential to me being who I am. A disembodied soul? Not me, in any real sense. Neat, hein? (Not that christian theology particularly makes sense as a whole, but, well, there you are anyway; they try.)]

The error, like many common conceptual mistakes, is in a sense a deep one. I am not sure everyone reading this will understand. But, a plea: if you feel like saying seriously something like ' I would be much happier with a female body ', please consider the possibility that you may be making a mistake in how you think of these matters.

[One last thing. Thinking of Locke reminds me of the notion of 'identity'. His prince/pauper thought experiment was to do with personal identity -- with exactly this 'what makes me, me'. Why 'identity', though? Well, what makes me, me is what makes me the same as I was in earlier times.

What makes me the same person I was sixty years ago? See remarks about 'changing over a lifetime' above; what stays the same through change? That is me. 'The same' here is my 'identity': that (whatever it is) which makes me the same man/person (Locke distinguishes, but never mind) as changes happen over time. I suspect present-day debates about 'identity' might usefully be clarified if the notion of personal identity were considered together with the relation of identity ('same as') as in Locke. Just a thought.]

(Turned out a bit long, that. I hope it is relevant to some of the thread, though.)

Why should female people not organise themselves to agitate for solutions to female needs and problems whether it's toilets, make on female violence, healthcare, tracking pay gaps, addressing the subconscious barriers to females at work, measures to reduce the impact of pregnancy, maternity leave and disproportionate expectations of childcare, social conditioning to be nice, etc etc etc

I can actually get on board with this, I do agree
Although no I don't know the solution (seems no-one does)

@Quaagars

FFS yourself As I have not said this If Woman is nothing to do with having a female body I said that having tits and foof is part of being a woman, but IT IS MORE for some We're going to go round in circles lol

As soon as you say transwomen are women, you define woman as something separate from female. It simply can't be any other way.

You believe you have something "more" as well as being female, and it is this more-ness that you share with transwomen. Fine, I accept that.

But that does mean that woman and female are different. You can't have it both ways. Either transwomen are women, female is not a part of the definition of woman and female people have a right to organise and define themselves without males, or female is part of the definition of woman, transwomen are not women, and women have a right to organise and define themselves without transwomen.

I can actually get on board with this, I do agree

Can I ask what you feel we do here on this board? Just about every thread is about female people organising to agitate for solutions to female needs. That is why we keep bringing conversations back to centring females and our rights.

What do you think we are doing here?

But that does mean that woman and female are different. You can't have it both ways. Either transwomen are women, female is not a part of the definition of woman and female people have a right to organise and define themselves without males, or female is part of the definition of woman, transwomen are not women, and women have a right to organise and define themselves without transwomen.

Exactly this. Which is it?

@Quaagars

Why should female people not organise themselves to agitate for solutions to female needs and problems whether it's toilets, make on female violence, healthcare, tracking pay gaps, addressing the subconscious barriers to females at work, measures to reduce the impact of pregnancy, maternity leave and disproportionate expectations of childcare, social conditioning to be nice, etc etc etc

I can actually get on board with this, I do agree
Although no I don't know the solution (seems no-one does)

Thank you. FWIW, and I know I differ with many GC feminists here, I would be prepared to give up the word Woman and let it be redefined as a social role/gender identity, keeping female as the term for biological females. I personally think having two separate, well understood words to express the two concepts will help the feminist project as much as the trans because I see the word Woman as carrying a load of social baggage that limits females. As a feminist I would of course prefer to push the baggage out of the concept of Woman, but if the concept of Woman were to go and take the baggage with it leaving the purely Female behind, and if that means trans and feminists find they are suddenly pulling in the same direction, to me that's not so bad.

But it would have to go hand in hand with a real social, political and legal acceptance that many Woman-only things would need to become female-only rather than handed over to the Woman gender, not out of transphobia but just because their original purpose was sex-specific. Plus for a generation at least, the rights and protections needed by Females would include the impact of female socialisation and stereotypes imposed on the female-bodied. But I hope the clear and visible existence of non-female Women would help to diminish the pressure on females to fit those cultural moulds.

Now that I can totally agree with. There does need to be some boundary around female rights to differentiate them from trans rights.

Woman can be an umbrella term, fine, but differentiation is necessary for many many valid reasons.

Sadly, I don’t believe that would be enough. We have seen some people try to also change the meaning of female right now. The push will never stop just at ‘woman.’

@Winesalot

Sadly, I don’t believe that would be enough. We have seen some people try to also change the meaning of female right now. The push will never stop just at ‘woman.’

I know

That is a group that cannot be accommodated. But I think also a minority.

So I wonder if having those two separate and explicit groups would go along way to taking the wind out of their sales. Right now their voices are part of the large TWAW group and they get the default support. If it were possible to say TWAW, but not female, would the voices trying to shout TWAF stand out as extreme and unreasonable?

So I wonder if having those two separate and explicit groups would go along way to taking the wind out of their sales. Right now their voices are part of the large TWAW group and they get the default support. If it were possible to say TWAW, but not female, would the voices trying to shout TWAF stand out as extreme and unreasonable?

This is actually the mess the Equality Act 2010 is in.

The guidance has been reinterpreted to mean that trans is synonymous with female.

The cohort demanding that guidance represents a fundamental truth will not go away.

It's wishful thinking. Legal challenge to the unlawful guidance is the only way

Ann Sinnott has a crowd justice fundraiser going on.

The cohort demanding that this incorrect guidance represents a fundamental truth will not go away.

To clarify.

Yes, a fully transitioned trans women on hormones for a long time will have breast tissue, changed nipple structure, female type fat distribution such as a subcutaneous layer of fat, female body hair patterns, and a whole range of other more subtle physical differences as well as genitalia which looks like a vagina. If you sent her back in time to before trans healthcare and her body was externally examined she would be declared a woman and that would have been considered a fact. So I don't think it's a wholly unreasonable opinion for someone to think she is now closer to female than male and as such has changed sex.

Interesting how you’ve conveniently missed out the specific bit which makes human mammals female - having a body - which if everything works - that is designed to produce eggs and bear young...Is that because this defines what a woman is?

Lots of men have bigger breasts, longer hair, greater fat distribution on their backsides (looking at you Sam Smith) than me - this doesn’t make them female.

subtle physical differences - all ‘subtle differences’ tell women which humans are men and which humans are women. Men are not so good at this.

as well as genitalia which looks like a vagina

The vagina made with a penis is by definition is not a vagina

@Quaagars

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

I'm very confused. My school biology book only has one 'type' of woman in it. It has a very good section on human reproduction. There are only two sexes outlined. Males and females are called 'man' and 'woman' in English, to distinguish them from the males and females of other beasties in the animal kingdom. The human body of the one who isn't a female (aka woman) is a male (aka man) in my biology book. Does the book need to be withdrawn for presenting scientific fallacies?

Maybe the world's biology syllabi should be modified to represent all the other 'types' of woman? What genius discovered all these other 'types' of women? They should get the Nobel prize for Science. I'm sure their work would rival that of Watson and Crick.

@Mischance

Put away your pen.

He made a point, someone else disagreed with him. That is life.

Do not blow this out of proportion. They are children experimenting with having their own ideas and views. He needs to hear views that are not prevalent at home. It is how he will learn what he himself thinks. He has no problem with that and does not want you to make a fuss. Does that carry any weight with you, or are you prepared to ride roughshod over his views?

Jump down off your soapbox and leave it be.

100% this.

The fear is if (and this seems wrong) women are prepared to give up the word women (why?) then the next word will be female and then women will be non men or some other definition made up by people who were not born women.

Why should women concede? Why must women be expected to give up their spaces for people who were not born women? Why are women told to be kind when there little evidence of kindness from the people demanding women's spaces, words and the denial of biology?

The answer is no. Not another concession.

the next word will be female and then women will be non men or some other definition

As is happening right now anyway.

The very fact that women cannot or choose not to see what is happening in the name of inclusivity is disturbing. Where are the dehumanizing alternatives pushed onto males.

To any who think allowing woman to be redefined, are you ok with being called non men, non transwomen, Or the clinical vulva owners, incubators, gestators and such. Everytime an alternative is used, people become immune to the detachment of the group previously known as women from being centred in that particular discussion.

a group decided that to feel included, everyone must use language that detaches the human element to discussions. To remove pain at being reminded those people were once women (or men), it becomes easier to talk about surrogates as incubators or gestators. It is easier to talk about rape of women if you remove the term woman and replace it with vagina owner. Already mothers experiencing the suffering of their child dying before or at birth are called birthing parents. All instead of accepting the use of ‘women and ....’. You cannot allow one application such as menstruator and not the others. You are naive to think you can. It is the same with female unfortunately.

Or are you so detached from the plight of women that you don’t believe this use of English, this dehumanization, is going to pervade into other languages and cultures. This dehumanizing language, this sentiment, will be adopted by other countries where women and girls are Already dehumanized and still dying in menstruation huts. Calling them the clinical term menstruators means those huts they are forced into for menstruation could well be considered appropriate for use. Calling them girls and women being forced into menstruation huts tells a more human story.

This whole thread shows the danger of pretending (or accepting other people’s pretence) that facts are a matter of opinion.

Female has gone. See the woman who wrote a letter explaining why her trauma (why do we always have to lay bare our trauma in order to beg to be heard?) necessitated she needed a female practitioner at her breast screening.

Her letter was used by the NHS Trust in training as an example of transphobic bigotry. And NHS records gender ID not sex anyway so asking for "female" does not ensure you get a female.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

This whole thread shows the danger of pretending (or accepting other people’s pretence) that facts are a matter of opinion.

this! we thought we were being kind, that people didnt 'really' think male born people were or could become women, that we were being supportive to people who were having difficult lives. of course no one would actually insist that TW were women like us and could have access to any and all female spaces, programmes designed to tackle sexism and the lack of women in e.g. politics or STEM, that no one really thought it was fine for male bodied people to be incarcerated with women because that would be mad wouldnt it?

by the time we realised that yes that was EXACTLY what was not just demanded but actually held up us the only acceptable way 'TWAW!! NO DEBATE!! HATEFUL TERFS!! DIE IN A GREASEFIRE BIGOTS' women had lost so much of what we fought for

so now no concessions, no giving up the word woman, or female because whatever it is we try to keep solely for women, TRA will demand access to for men.

so no! no more pandering to people's opinions as facts, sex cannot be changed, when you die your skeleton will show whether you were male or female

present as you like, perform whatever 'gender stereotypes' you want but no one can become the opposite sex, they can only present as the opposite sex

Completely agree. I suggested the idea of "women in the head" spaces as distinct from female spaces, based on Blibbyblobby's post, purely to make the point that no concession would ever be enough, as you can see by the answer I received.