Children as young as 4 allowed to choose gender identity

[Plastic01]

Surprise surprise, Scotland again.

mol.im/a/9888899

Wingless I was with you for a bit but then diverged. I am not sure it is down to the medical profession who have over the years moved away from "the appendix in bed six" mentality. They also tended to see things as disordered functioning of various systems - hence autism spectrum disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, body dysmophic disorder, personality disorder. The push back seems to be by individuals against being referred to as disordered - that there is something wrong. Initially 'disorder' was changed to 'condition' but now it is 'identity'. And you must embrace you identity. So for autism it was 'I have autism' to 'I am autistic'. Not everyone with autism wants their identity to be autistic or but there is a large community which pushes this and dismisses those who disagree. To be an individual first and foremost is not allowed: you must follow the community decision (which can be contradictory as representatives of the community each think they speak for the community). As you then state, this reinforces division. But also as an identity not a disorder nothing is 'wrong' and nothing needs to change or they need to change nothing about themselves - the world must change instead. Sometimes this is fine, there were aspects where they were treated badly, which is why people go along with it. But sometimes it is not - just because you identify as something you are not (eg opposite sex) does not mean I have to go along with it, indeed for OCD or BDD it would be harmful to you if I did.

Paragraphs are helpful

@Abhannmor

The Prussian general Marshal Blucher had a phobia about falling off his horse because he believed he was made entirely out of glass. He also thought he had been made pregnant by an elephant. No doubt everyone 'affirmed ' him. But reluctantly back on topic - will there be a wave of applications to religious schools to escape this dangerous nonsense? I'm in favour of secular education but in this case ....lesser of two evils.

I'm not convinced a truly secular education is possible. The closest thing is an education which aims at the lowest common denominator of shared beliefs in a society. At one time that was a kind of vague materialist humanism with an ethical teaching of tolerance and kindness.

In part, it may be because people have convinced themselves that "secular" education really is neutral that allows them to justify inserting this type of ideological material into what they teach. It's not religious, it's just what we all know is true! And those people who don't recognise it need to be brought round.

The tendency to do things like cut parents out isn't really new - it was easily accepted by liberals when it was about students going to clubs for LGB kids, or teaching about sexual activity etc. Parents who felt schools were overstepping parental authority and transparency were not only ignored, they were demonized and there is a reason many young teachers feel completely justified in trying to explicitly make sure children of parents like these are "re-educated." To a large extent what is going on is the same thing, it's just that before, most progressives agreed with it, and now some don't.

will there be a wave of applications to religious schools to escape this dangerous nonsense? I'm in favour of secular education but in this case ....lesser of two evils.

Most schools in the UK aren't secular - they are non-denominational christian (though that is pretty notional these days)

Name changed for this.

I’m a safeguarding lead in an English primary school and a member of SLT. Number one rule - never promise confidentiality or to keep secrets with a child. Absolutely never, under no circumstances. I tell teachers this every single year in their safeguarding refresher training.

I’m genuinely shocked.

Putting parents aside for the minute, the implication seems to be that teachers shouldn’t even share with the safeguarding lead? How can this be?

There's a poll on Talk Radio's twitter. Does anyone know how many votes their polls usually get? https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1426490468406333444?s=20

Children as young as four will be able to change their gender at school without their parents’ consent under guidance introduced in Scotland.

Is this a good idea?

Yes
1.5%
No
98.5%
18,307 votes
·
6 days left
11:26 AM · Aug 14, 2021·Twitter Web App

That's looking pretty consistent- earlier today 6577 votes had 1.3% yes.

Of course as ScotGov are 100% yes we're fecked.

Two articles in the ST today, alas my sharetokens don't work:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ditch-the-gender-books-for-four-year-olds-say-womens-group-5gxv9bs6v

and a muddled comment by Gillian Bowditch:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gillian-bowditch-quality-in-education-shouldnt-be-a-casualty-of-equality-in-schools-03wkptk92

[quote Igneococcus]Two articles in the ST today, alas my sharetokens don't work:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ditch-the-gender-books-for-four-year-olds-say-womens-group-5gxv9bs6v

and a muddled comment by Gillian Bowditch:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gillian-bowditch-quality-in-education-shouldnt-be-a-casualty-of-equality-in-schools-03wkptk92[/quote]
Bowditch – Gillian Bowditch: Quality in education shouldn’t be a casualty of equality in schools
Academic standards in schools are neglected while focus is on trans children

archive.is/lZdlN

Ditch the gender books for four-year-olds, say women’s group

archive.ph/qEBcK

“Read as a whole, however, there is little in the guidance that should worry sensible parents. Some women’s rights groups have raised concerns about young children being pushed onto a medicalised pathway and a removal of parental rights, but the guidance leaves it up to schools and teachers to navigate the most sensitive issues.”

That is an utterly utterly appalling column by Gillian Bowditch. I’m quite speechless at her naivety.

Little in it still means there's something we should be concerned about.

Of its all so.legit why so many secrets ?

You cant view something as so important you can go behind parents backs then treat it as something trivial

@rogdmum

“Read as a whole, however, there is little in the guidance that should worry sensible parents. Some women’s rights groups have raised concerns about young children being pushed onto a medicalised pathway and a removal of parental rights, but the guidance leaves it up to schools and teachers to navigate the most sensitive issues.”

That is an utterly utterly appalling column by Gillian Bowditch. I’m quite speechless at her naivety.

I don’t think Gillian Bowditch knows what she is talking about or understands the ideological implication of terms like ‘sex assigned at birth’.

It's bizarre. If my four year old asked to be called John instead of Lewis, I'd expect most teachers to want to speak to me about that. Yet if he wanted to be called Jemima instead, there's a question as to whether or not I should even be made aware of it?

And

“ Any major shift in societal thinking is always preceded by a period of moral panic when perceived threats become exaggerated”

Exaggerated? Seriously? Gillian Bowditch doesn’t have a clue as to what is happening in schools.

the guidance leaves it up to schools and teachers to navigate the most sensitive issues

What's the point of 'guidance' which doesn't give any guidance? Surely the most sensitive issues are the ones which it's most important to handle in the right way, so teachers will be more in need of guidance for.

The Bowditch article even mentions that any support received at school vanishes when a child leaves school (and I would add sometimes when a child changes class or a teacher leaves or resources are reallocated).

Schools simply do not have the agency or resources to help children without parents.

I can’t think of any other similar issue that a teacher would be expected to tackle alone by simply ‘being kind’.

Schools simply do not have the agency or resources to help children without parents

This is what pisses me off the most. Schools cannot garuntee our kids safety. It takes several phone calls or emails to even get an acknowledgement there's a problem. The solutions are nearly all extremely temporary. Once the initial day/week of isolation is iver its back to the victim of the bullying to try and keep themselves safe by avoiding people and hoping to god the teachers in the class are prepared to listen when they are told something as opposed to just telling the kid to sit down and get on with their work.

And yet there's time space and energy ti have some log of all the kids egi have changed their names, who can have letters sent home in the new name and who can't, etc

No wonder so many kids just come out as something it's the only way anyone gives a shit about you.

@rogdmum

“Read as a whole, however, there is little in the guidance that should worry sensible parents. Some women’s rights groups have raised concerns about young children being pushed onto a medicalised pathway and a removal of parental rights, but the guidance leaves it up to schools and teachers to navigate the most sensitive issues.”

That is an utterly utterly appalling column by Gillian Bowditch. I’m quite speechless at her naivety.

She doesn't see an issue with leaving it up to schools to navigate the removal of parents' rights and push children onto a medical pathway?

Not a safeguarding issue but the kids might commit suicide and you mustn't tell the people who look after the child 87% of the time that they are this supposed very high risk of suicide (which we know is false but is their basis for action)?

@Tibtom

Not a safeguarding issue but the kids might commit suicide and you mustn't tell the people who look after the child 87% of the time that they are this supposed very high risk of suicide (which we know is false but is their basis for action)?

I know! The Bowditch article alluded to tragedies at university once children had left the safety of school, but also assumes that all teachers need to do us ‘be kind’.

However I think it is a good example of general levels of engagement with this topic.

I could probably write a similarly informed article on Scottish Independence.

good example of general levels of engagement with this topic.

Do you feel that when people write articles they've tended to read around from one perspective because the others are bruited as bigots, *phobes etc. - despite the reality, and despite which perspective is the more evidence-informed one?

What are the series of tragedies at UK universities and colleges ? I work in that sector and would like to know?

Article in the Times today about the suicide data used in the SG document, my sharetokens still don't work:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/transgender-guidance-for-schools-based-on-flawed-data-rp8scscll

In The Times: Transgender guidance for schools ‘based on flawed data’

archive.ph/Dakuk

Lucy Hunter-Blackburn is blistering in her quotes:

“ You have got this incredibly unsound base for presenting something as being a fact that applies to the whole population. It is technically incompetent and completely irresponsible to use that kind of data to draw conclusions about what would be true for an entire population.”
“All of that put together means this is not a sound basis for promulgating such an alarming statistic. They should withdraw the document and take out this graphic . . . This is too important to get wrong. These children matter and they, and their parents, desperately need good advice.”

The graphics in the guidance come from this report:

transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf

Which comes from a subset of this study:

www.cjcmh.com/doi/pdf/10.7870/cjcmh-2011-0021

You can see the full survey (all 87 pages of it!) here: transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Trans-PULSE-survey-information-only-copy-2012.pdf

And for an additional piece, this presentation seems to show different numbers for the % of young people with unsupportive parents who attempted suicide in the past year:

transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Trans-Health-Advocacy-Summit-2012-Results-vFINAL.pdf

It’s not fit for purpose. ScotGov have lifted it from the old LGBTYS guidance and don’t appear to have done any doublechecking.

And the ScotGov quote in the article!

“ A Scottish government spokesman said: “The infographic contained within the guidance is intended to be illustrative of the concerns which transgender young people may face. The infographic clearly contains the reference to the study as the source, and therefore is appropriate.”

Giving the reference to the source makes it appropriate?!??!?!? You mean you can stick any old survey into guidance and just by referencing the source you are fine?

You couldn’t make it up.

Sorry, my “unsupportive” parents in above should read “supportive”