Help with talking to a 12 yr old about trans issues

[GoingOnce]

My son has a friend whose sister is apparently now his brother. I sense my son wants to talk to me about this and I want to have the right language to engage sensibly in a conversation. He has swallowed whole the ideology that people can change their gender as this has been “explained” to them at school. The child does not attend my son’s school but still attends a girls school - whilst going by a new name, wearing an adapted and having a special toilet assigned just for them.

The child in question (and the entire family) is struggling. There is self-harm and have been suicide attempts. I do not want to criticise them or their child. But I do want my child to realise that they are being presented with one narrative here. (I am quite certain the parents are simply going along with the whole thing because they are terrified of their child’s mental state and what they might do next. I feel very sorry for them).

Any advice for how I can discuss this sensibly? I can’t believe at age 12 we are already having to talk about all this.

I think schools should move away from gender ideology as a teaching concept and towards gender distress/dysphoria in children/adolescents instead.

I completely agree.

Such a powerful post rogdmum

Those of us who've been looking at the materials used in schools have noted a range of concerning "techniques". The use of trans adults presenting "their story" to teachers and children, thus positioning any critical thinking / challenges as unkind / transphobic. Born in the wrong body was taught for years. It's only since the DfE announced that no child should be taught this, that there was a sudden reverse ferret, denying it was ever used (despite the reams of evidence showing it was).
Materials openly breached basic safeguarding with teachers encouraged to keep secrets from parents. Puberty blockers openly celebrated and called "fully reversible". (for the sceptical there are screenshots and copies of all of this).

From the DfE supported Cornwall guidelines to the grim Allsorts toolkits, parents have been positioned as potentially transphobic and to be removed from some or all areas of their children's lives. That's despite schools having no powers to remove parental responsibility and the overwhelming national data that shows that children removed from their parents do very poorly in all aspects of their life.

As rogdmum describes, rather than taking a cautious approach to children in distress about their identity, teachers have been deskilled and become unthinking flag wavers for a contested adult belief / ideology (that people can change sex).
Agreeing with young people that they were born in the wrong body and organising their life around that belief is not a low risk thing to do. It’s a serious psychological intervention based on denial and avoidance. Believing their happiness is conditional on denying reality puts young people in a fragile state, dependent on the pretence of others for their psychological wellbeing.
(Taken from the link below) :

www.transgendertrend.com/childhood-social-transition/

www.transgendertrend.com/teenager-says-theyre-transgender/

I am concerned about the idea that schools should unquestioningly take a child's words st face value and act solely on those words,without considering the views of the patents and the professionals around that child. Its tearing up and throwing out the whole concept of safeguarding.

In Rotherham, girls who said the Asian men driving them around and giving them Coke and vodka were their boyfriends, were accepted at face value by police and written off as little slags. Noone listened to the myriad other voices speaking for the girls, and they were not safeguarded. This is a disturbingly similar situation. Children DON'T always know what's best for them.

In recent years there has been a big push for the rights of the child via the UNCRC. While overall, respecting children’s rights is enormously important, I think a lot of the issue comes down to lobby groups and some schools are (wilfully?) misinterpreting what these rights mean and ignore the fact that in order to benefit from many of these rights, parents play a key role in facilitating.

For example, Article 24 is Healthcare:

“article 24 (health and health services) Every child has the right to the best possible health. Governments must provide good quality health care, clean water, nutritious food, and a clean environment and education on health
and well-being so that children can stay healthy. Richer countries must help poorer countries achieve this.”

www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/UNCRC_summary-1_1.pdf

Except where you have a school hellbent on supporting the social transition of a child despite clinical advice against doing so (or more generically ignoring the caution raised by the interim Cass report and GIDS generic advice to keep options open for the child), the school is actually going against article 24. The school is neatly undermining that child’s ability to engage with neutral exploratory therapy by sending them the message that a lack of support for their identity is a lack of support for the child. I have endless screenshots of chat with LGBTYS where they tell vulnerable adolescents that therapists must “validate” the child’s experience.

Respecting the rights of children doesn’t mean automatically giving them what they ask for. My daughter’s school repeatedly tell me that they centre the views of the child which is all well and good, but where there are well-being concerns, these must come first. Children still need protection and guidance, and somehow too many schools have lost sight of this fact.

Thank you rogdmum for sharing those screenshots. That's an activist talking, not someone with the interests or skills to centre the needs of of a vulnerable child.

MrsOverton The entire chat is extremely worrying (too many screenshots for me to post here but the child is clearly very confused, talks about being badly bullied and not sure whether that could be a factor. Exploration is completely shit down by LGBTYS).

No surprises, but in a different chat, they are enthusiastic about GenderGP:

”they will ensure you get the best support to meet your needs”

This child that they are talking to could be any age.

Utterly irresponsible organisation and I’m gobsmacked so many schools unquestioningly have them in to run teacher training courses.

In recent years there has been a big push for the rights of the child via the UNCRC. While overall, respecting children’s rights is enormously important, I think a lot of the issue comes down to lobby groups and some schools are (wilfully?) misinterpreting what these rights mean and ignore the fact that in order to benefit from many of these rights, parents play a key role in facilitating.

Have you seen this, where the CYPCS add 'gender identity' to Article 8?

www.cypcs.org.uk/rights/uncrc/articles/article-8/

A child or young person’s identity is made up of many different parts. Among other things, it includes:

their name and nationality

their race, culture, religion and language

their appearance, abilities, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Gender identity is not mentioned in Article 8.

I think the addition of gender identity originally came from a handbook written by someone later convicted of child sex abuse:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3848980-un-convention-on-rights-of-the-child?reply=94733909

The handbook is archived here:
web.archive.org/web/20131021041505/www.unicef.org/publications/files/Implementation_Handbook_for_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child.pdf

Bloody hell @rogdmum

Those screenshots are terrifying. I'm not going to use the G word but that's what it is.

What an appalling comparison.

Maybe, its because, its not a black and white issue. Imagine.

Im not trying to be seen to disagree. I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that my one narrow minded viewpoint is just so terribly RIGHT, like the majority of posters.

Your arguments make no sense either, fwiw.

My arguments make perfect sense. Anyone arguing that children should be supported and encouraged in something that they neither understand or adults can even define and that places them and every child around them in danger with the safeguards it removes and the reality of their own eyes and ears that it distorts , are the ones who need to start making sense.

Children's rights have become something of a political football, rogdmum:

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19628244.snp-accused-playing-games-childrens-rights-court-defeat/

GenderGP whose two medics/directors are currently suspended, pending the results of medical tribunals, of course.

Why is it appalling? In the Rotherham/Oxford / Canterbury cases (and probably other), the children were regarded as having agency to make poor decisions.

I'm not ignorant, arrogant, or rude, and I haven't shown appalling behaviour. And I don't answer to you. And I'm very grown up.

I laughed out loud at this, which reads like it should be followed by a door slam and “I HATE YOU MUM!”

When I saw it, I naively imagined the person who posted it would be so embarrassed on reading it back that they wouldn’t return to the thread, at least not without a name change.

Clearly I overestimated them!

I think the addition of gender identity originally came from a handbook written by someone later convicted of child sex abuse

It's such a odd coincidence, (but no surprise, to me) how many of the people driving and supporting this agenda have a dodgy history around children, what could one conclude about that I wonder - the breaking down of safeguarding and children's boundaries for a benefit not to the children perhaps, what say you stopwaiting?

Did you read it, Stopwaiting?

That's awful rogdmum. Worryingly it's repeated in numerous places with adults working with children stepping outside their field of expertise and dabbling with issues they don't understand.
Despite their lack of expertise in child psychology and usually dire understanding of safeguarding issues they openly encourage children to participate in this adult ideology. They're professionally dangerous - adults with authority behaving in a way that increases danger and risk to children.

Thought this was a good thread to add this on.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793507/Top-psychologist-says-half-patients-identify-transgender.html

When you say, stopwaitingforpermissiontobeyou, "I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that my one narrow minded viewpoint is just so terribly RIGHT", are you arrogant enough to believe that what you say is (so terribly) right?

Or does what you say refer also to itself? (Whether your viewpoint is narrow-minded and/or just terribly so, or not.)

Are you, that is, just not arrogant enough to believe that your viewpoint, that you are just not arrogant enough to believe that your viewpoint is right, is right?

Perhaps, you see, we might take it that you are arrogant enough to believe that your viewpoint is right when that viewpoint concerns whether you are arrogant enough to believe that another of your viewpoints is right or not.

So which is it? Either way is problematic, do you see?

[In general, it's best not to move, as you seem to have done here, from 'Let's be tolerant of each others' points of view,' to 'No one's point of view is right (not even mine).' We might usefully think of this as an example of the postmodern slide, often started on by unwary young people trying to think deep thoughts for the first time.

Thing is, you see, the view that no view is right cannot be right, just as it cannot be true that nothing is true. Can it? (Why?)]

They certainly have. Such as, trans children/teenager being used in the debate of pro and anti transgender as collateral - people who dont believe in it claiming they are concerned about the children involved, rather than just not believing in it as a concept.

I'm a lot of things, but I'm not arrogant.

See here's the thing though. I don't claim to be right. I certainly struggle with the issue when I see transgender children in my care (I admitted this in another thread and was mocked - lots of "oh how difficult for YOU" etc) but I have been open about my conflict on the issue.

We had training recently as I spoke about earlier on the thread and strangely enough it was rodgmum , despite people claiming on the thread how horrifically awful I am to everyone, that really got me thinking about WHY I'm so pro transgender. Simply put, it's because I see physical children sitting in front of me every day, I guess.

I understand I can be combative, awkward, yes, argumentative. I don't actually mean to be. It's a difficult issue. People can think what they want about me, ultimately I'm a human behind a keyboard, we all are.

In answer to your question, as I've digressed, I don't think I'm right, but I don't think I'm wrong. I don't actually think anyone else is wrong, per se. I don't agree with them though. Does that make sense?

Reading now.

I skipped over that after the post about me as some kind of maniac NQT.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes
I read this with horror, and emotion, as I read rodg mum's story. I struggle with abuse of anyone, especially a child

What I don't see is why this is a reason to stop children becoming transgender.

If I was to share an article (the ones usually mocked on here as people claim the link to suicide is made up by Mermaids) about a traumatised child who ultimately found happiness with transgender, would that tip the balance?

No. Of course it wouldn't

Even I as the awkward one on the thread can't disagree with the concerns about transgender. However, at the risk of sounding evil, while I appreciate her ID (and the law in Virgina, which isn't the law here) escalated the situation, it would have been just as appalling had she been trafficked regardless of the situation.

I suppose what I'm getting at, is reading articles such as that, does it make me look at my transgender young people and now decide that it shouldn't be allowed to happen?

No. It doesn't.

@stopwaitingforpermissiontobeyou

Such as, trans children/teenager being used in the debate of pro and anti transgender as collateral - people who dont believe in it claiming they are concerned about the children involved, rather than just not believing in it as a concept.

But many of us are concerned about children involved. You make it sound as if we aren't really and that we're just voicing concerns to be nasty... but we are genuinely concerned.

Concerned about girls and women being injured if they are playing contact sports with opponents who have gone through male puberty that leaves them with muscle mass, strength and power than means they are much more likely to cause injury. Im not saying that they would cause injury with malice or intent, I'm saying that the level of potential injury from a collision / tackle is more risky to the point it's putting girls in danger.

Concerned about girls who have worked incredibly hard towards sports scholarships only to then have their chance at a scholarship removed as they cannot physically beat the times of a fellow athlete who had had the physical experience of male puberty, something that no amount of a girl's hard work or effort can beat when it comes to power and speed.

These are real, genuine concerns and it's disappointing to hear you say that they are things we are 'claiming' due to an agenda. When it comes to the topic of sports and single sex policies, my agenda is the safety of girls and the fairness of competition - a level playing field in which girls can fairly compete and achieve.