School guidelines on gender identities/trans out this week

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22733965/schools-banned-letting-pupils-change-gender-parents-rishi-sunak/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12208907/PM-says-children-not-allowed-switch-identities-schools-without-telling-parents.html

These are the only two articles I could find so far.

'Schools will be forced to tell parents if students are questioning their gender under new Government guidance to be published this week, according to a report. '

Alriiiighy then

i know they’re highly variable and time-variant, but can you describe some of these attributes of the gender identity that you have that tells you you’re a woman?

attributes that together allow our brains to recognise ourselves. . Gender Identity is a component of Sex.

You just described "recognising what sex you are".

How is that related to "thinking you're a sex you're not". That's clearly NOT a component of sex, is it - it's not "recognising yourself"!

Not only in strict a physical sense, even in a behavioural sense - men who claim a female "gender identity" behave, statistically, like males. It's a double recognition failure.

f highly variable and sometimes time-variant attributes

What are these attributes? Give me a list.

All that mash up of language is not useful

Just a jumble of words

Humans can’t change sex, surely we can all agree on that

It’s what Professor Winston says, and he should know.

Can I just say: Goodness

Have we moved onto celebrating Ayn Rand yet? Is that what is coming next.

This is getting entertaining.

@ButterflyHatched You are missing the point, probably deliberately. Most people over about 5 dont go around thinking they have some sort of female or male essence. They know they have a male or female body and that society has certain expectations of them as a result. Some people are happy to conform to those expectations, which we call gender conforming. Some people are not happy and we call those gender non-forming (or sane or everyone I know). People like you hate your body and want to change it, that's nothing to do with being gender non-conforming it's because you have body dysphoria.

I have done an advanced google search on those paragraphs and there is nothing coming up.

Either hatched has copied them from somewhere printed or obscure.

Or

Hatched has made those paragraphs up.

They might understand the individual words. Together they are just word salad and incomprehensible gobbledygook.

8 year olds also understand that Santa can fly round the world in one night because he is magic. That doesn't make it real or possible though.

You are saying that identity is constructed by the brain as a continuous and recursive process of the experience of existing as a physical self in the world, the mediation of chemical signals within the body on self perception via emotional state, the reaction of other to oneself, self recognition and narration, revisitation and renarration of memory, self reflection, observation of and identification with others both real and culturally constructed, all feeding back and folding in on each other.

And you know what? I entirely agree with you.

Where we part company is your belief that the simple, even simplistic if you like, fact of observable sex that has been the definition of sex for millenia can somehow be considered equivalent to and interchangeable with what you lay out above.

They are, manifestly, undeniably, different things. They bring different experiences and different challenges, and lead to different outcomes, and in a historically sexist society where the sexism was constructed around this simple definition, and because of the unequal burden of reproduction and the difference, on average, in physical strength, these differences are very significant for women (traditional sex based meaning) and it is neither far, nor reasonable, nor inclusive to deny us the things we need to mitigate that based on a definition of womanhood that is nothing to do with the reason we needed them in the first place.

Forget 8 year olds it’s just nonsensical when I read it

No. I'm saying that there is as much a thing as a 'female body' as there is a 'lady brain' i.e. there isn't - and it's only through intellectually dishonest sleight of hand that GC ideology is able to present 'woman' as the teleological extrapolation of an essential genetic 'femaleness' which doesn't even exist.

The language used in discussion about trans kids - especially trans boys - is incredibly revealing. There is never a consideration of the agency of the person in question; it's not about them; not about what they actually experience or want or need. It's about finding ways to escape the intolerable idea of having to put up with them existing as an adult who has transitioned, painted with a veneer of superficial concern for their wellbeing.

All this hand-wringing - all this 'won't someone think of the children' - it's all done in search of the gotcha - the magic combination of words and actions - that will make them desist long enough to claim a victory. Because the idea of a world with trans people in it, fundamentally, is one that GC ideology finds inherently repulsive.

It's right there in the words of pretty much every key figure in the movement.

I used to agree with this philosophy - I used to believe that a world without trans people in it would be inherently better; that if we could only find a cure, either to address dysphoria or allow anyone who wished it to seamlessly and nigh-immediately transition right the way down to their genes and the physical structures in their bodies - then we'd have solved it all away and could then go back toward worshipping normality.

Normality is an illusion. A deeply disturbing, deeply messed up notion that the vast range of human expression is something that must be contained and filtered and curtailed.

Nah, bollocks to that rubbish.

Gender Identity is a component of Sex.

Er, no it isn't!

What you're doing with this GCSE-level biological sex essentialism is repeating the same mistakes that led to pink and blue toys and brains in the past. You're taking a complex dynamic system and assigning it an essential property while claiming that science says so.

Am I? I rather think I'm just saying that I think your gender constellation ideas are nonsense. No pink and blue brains needed to dismiss them as unfounded, no essentialism.

Please post the A level version of your groundbreaking insights. I can try to keep up.

This thread just gets better and better

So much word salad. I'm on a low carb diet though.

@ButterflyHatched Trans people are people who have harmed their healthy bodies because they have been sold a myth - that their healthy bodies are in some way wrong. There is nothing wrong with their body, the problem is simply that it doesnt look the way they want it to look. Your dream does not exist, it is an illusion. You could have chosen to life your life behaving as you wished, you want to force others to pretend reality matches your dream.

No. I'm saying that there is as much a thing as a 'female body' as there is a 'lady brain' i.e. there isn't

What? No such thing as a female body? Where the hell do babies - or kittens, or any mammalian offspring - come from?

You may have hatched, the rest of us were born...

you really really are.

and whatever: as i have said before - I'm a 2nd waver. Gender is bollocks and the quicker everyone accepts a) that and b) everyone doing/wearing what makes them happy (caveat: not harming others) then we will be all better off.

AGPs will be able to get their kicks, people will be able to wear hobnailed boots and ballgowns and have a unicorn attached to their skull. Nobody will care. And we'll all be paid the same for doing the same work, and women won't be doing all the childcare and family mental load stuff.

No female body?

The more I hear the more I hope this stuff doesn’t infiltrate children’s minds

forgot to say, @ButterflyHatched

8 year olds can, and regularly do, understand this concept.

take this man-style patronising shite and put it where the sun doesn't shine. The truth will out

"Sex is an inherent, binding property that always applies in binary totality to the entirety of a human organism from the moment of conception, and people do not 'become' male or female - they just magically hold this essential essence. Growing up as and existing within a female body is thus just irrelevant window-dressing - you already have a female essence and the concept of socialisation is irrelevant. Genetic mutations are deviations from the essential sex from which all humans are derived. What you are may as well be written into the stars."

Let's look at this:

"Sex is an inherent, binding property that always applies in binary totality to the entirety of a human organism from the moment of conception, and people do not 'become' male or female"

I believe this is true. That the destination sex of an embryo is contained already at conception. It is whether that pathway of development happens without deviation that may be an issue in very rare cases.

"they just magically hold this essential essence"

In the sense that their bodies are 'programmed' to develop a certain way if there are no medical issues, yes.

How strange to word it that way? You mock developmental biology?

"Growing up as and existing within a female body is thus just irrelevant window-dressing - you already have a female essence and the concept of socialisation is irrelevant."

There is no 'female essence'. At all. This sentence seems to come from some derivative of biological essentialist thinking. But it depends on how you parse this.

"Growing up as and existing within a female body is thus just irrelevant window-dressing - you already have a female essence"

There is no way to avoid 'Growing up as and existing within a female body', by it biological reality it WILL grow up as a female body without any special essence or any socialisation.

Socialisation is a reality and it will incorporate how an individual deals with the reality of their own sexed body. No matter what socialisation you have, it will revolve around your sexed bodily processes and how you as an individual react to them.

However, having a female body does not predestine a girl or a woman to act in a particular way. There will be huge overlaps though because of commonality of all people with a female body.

"Genetic mutations are deviations from the essential sex from which all humans are derived."

Genetic mutations that relate to sex are indeed deviations from the established standard for healthy body development for the body of that individual to operate at optimum health in ALL processes. Obviously reproduction is included here. It doesn't mean that those bodies are 'unhealthy' generally, but they may be. It does mean that some processes do not happen as they should if the development had been unchanged.

Those human beings are still human beings, and not one human being has working production of both gametes. Not even very few examples of chimerism.

"What you are may as well be written into the stars."

Cambridge dictionary meaning: If you believe that something is written in the stars, you believe that it will be made to happen by a force that controls the future:

So, yes in body development this is true. What is controversial about this?

Or... are we now delving into biological essentialism and trying to dishonestly tie this all together to mean that as a female person you are destined to act in certain ways.

Frankly, this paragraph is flawed and lacks coherency.

But apparently an 8 year old can understand it and explain it.

It’s so male-centric to dismiss women like this