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. '

There are a lot of comedy moments 😀

Agree, I guess the problem with mansplaining is they will never believe they are doing that.

I can only at this point think that the paragraph is made up.

It sounds like it comes from ChatGPT, mashed together from screeds of different florid trans activist nonsense.

I would be really pissed off with Hatched if the guidelines had been published and we had something to discuss. I do wonder how Hatched's path may have differed if appropriate treatment for PAIS had been offered when it was obvious that normal male puberty was not taking place.

It's quite bonkers to hop onto mumsnet and tell us there is no female body.

There's one holding me up in the chair right now.

Helen belcher tried all this mansplaining at a meeting with the EHRC and took the polite listening without response to be an inability to disagree with it.

The poor sods were likely thinking exactly what we have all said here but quite correctly surmised it would all fall on deaf ears or result in a terrible tantrum. They are constrained by the job to not just laugh out loud at it all.

It would be great if the lobbying trans people could stop embarrassing themselves with it all but hey ho, they won't will they.

"As our understanding of what sex actually is has grown, so has the 'width' of the concept it encapsulates. It has become clear that sex is, in fact, really quite fuzzy and uncertain and it covers quite a diverse range of different states. That isn't exactly an uncommon state, is it? The history of the last couple of hundred years has been pretty much characterised by our repeated discovery that things are vastly, vastly more complex than they first seemed."

No. The boundaries of sex are actually stable. And definable.

People with differences of sex development, as you know, are still male or female. If there are any ambiguity, the technology is there to make the assessment.

Trying to tie sex in to any new and major discovery that changes thinking is just not going to happen.

Sex is all about reproduction. No 'third' sex has been discovered, no 'third' type of gamete. Just because you desperately want a constellation of statistical events to allow you to define yourself as a woman, you are not female in any way.

This has not changed. You have not linked one shred of evidence to show any new science. If you believe people like Ann Fausto Stirling then, I am sorry, she was only joking and has admitted as such. And Clare Ainsworth, she has clarified, TWO sexes and plenty of body variation within those categories.

"I don't think we need to be bound by the historical precedent of what came before, though - in the same way that we don't need to pretend atoms are indivisible, fundamental units of matter anymore. We just need to be clear which definition we are using, and make sure it is the correct model."

The sexes are not knew technology, and they are not a new concept. You wish this to be so, but it is not. It has not changed for millennia and millennia. It is stable science.

Trying to do a false equivalence as you have done here is just a cognitive distortion. It does not support your statement.

"Is it really so utterly implausible an idea that there are components of this vast behemoth of a concept that is sex which are both expressed and formed as part of the ongoing process of constructing a mind and identity that all humans do, and that it's possible for that process to stabilise quite early into a pattern that generates gender dysphoria? (I hope we aren't about to start denying that gender dysphoria exists as a real thing experienced by some humans - I think I might just retreat into a bowl of vodka tomato rigatoni if that happens) "

Again, you have delved into biological essentialism here I believe.

Female people's minds as far as their 'sex expression' is concerned is not written in the fucking stars. There is no one way to be a female person except by having a female body.

No matter what you try to twist to make it fit your desire, you cannot twist biological reality in this way.

"This endless battle over authenticity - for control of the definition-space, forcing us right back to base principles perpetually so that we can never advance the discussion - is an unnecessary diversion reignited by Kilgannon's divide and conquer culture war to consume feminism from within."

Nope. Just because you want to defy the realism of the lives of female people and create the experience as anything resembling your own does not change the reality of the needs of female people.

That sentence is just more word salad.

It was constructed to try to portray some wonderful appeal to include you and those like you by again attempting to bring in biological essentialism. Your posts simply are flawed because of that.

And fuck that plea of forced teaming. No! We have told you why we don't agree that male people should be considered female for purposes where sex does matter, including a wide range of aspects of the female human life.

I realise you hate women saying 'no' to you. You have shown some very misogynistic traits that you don't seem to realise you have. The patronising tone of your posts is another glaring feature.

yep.

Impenetrable. Because that must really be intellectual.

Hilarious.

And yet, no links to support it....

It would be great if the lobbying trans people could stop embarrassing themselves with it all but hey ho, they won't will they.

Operation Let Them Speak.

Nah I'll just call the beliefs that involve biological essentialism what they are, thanks.

You are talking about an immutable, intrinsic essence of sex not only as an imposed social class but as a fundamental component of reality that is present in all humans from the moment of conception and which defines the totality of their existence from infancy to adulthood.

The rest of us moved on from this ideological position upon realisation that it fails to account for the existence of a very, very large number of humans. You're welcome to believe what you want.

I'm really not interested in arguing about why the entirety of modern feminist thought departed from the 2nd wave position decades ago.

I'm concerned about the very real harms that are about to be caused by the imposition of the legislative manifestation of an ongoing divide and conquer culture war in British politics which is cynically using the suffering of vulnerable school children as a wedge issue and preying on the fears of concerned parents to do so.

In all species that promulgate using sexual reproduction - a very diverse range that includes, but is not limited to, non-vascular plants, insects and other invertebrates such as snails and earthworms, fungi, fish, birds, and mammals - one sex produces large numbers of small mobile gametes and the other produces smaller numbers of relatively larger and immobile gametes.

Note that nothing I've said excludes both sexes being present in the body of a single organism. So species such as earthworms and snails are hermaphroditic, but simply embody the two - and only two - sexes. They do not represent a third sex nor produce a third type of gamete. The same goes for slimemoulds etc. that contain individuals with various combinations of the two sexes (i.e., multiple mating types).

Clownfish (sigh...) are interesting, but just another type of hermaphrodite (in this case, sequential hermaphrodites rather than simultaneous hermaphrodites like the examples I've already mentioned). But as we've already seen, hermaphrodites embody - but most definitely don't contradict - the sex binary.

A tiny proportion of humans are born with differences of sexual development (DSDs). These people are, nonetheless, either male or female - they again don't represent a third sex or produce a third gamete. This is why the term intersex is both inaccurate and misleading, and no longer used in the field of human sexual development.

Sex is real and a binary - and immutable in humans. Female bodies exist. It's why any of us is here, FFS!

It's incredible that these basic biological facts need spelling out in the 21st century.

@ButterflyHatched start your own thread... start your own thread... start your own thread ... for all these bigly words that us old-style wimmins couldn't possibly understand....

Btw you are writing wordy bollocks. Arguing against things that no one has said or argued for, for starters.

Women are not here to be validation tools for your identity.

Presumably they'll be much closer to when Parliament breaks up?

That’s because he had to make up the phrase *statistically linked elements *so he can use it instead of listing the things that make him a woman, because they’re just a list of sexist stereotypes and then <gasp> the jig will be up

it’s a lot of dancing around to do to avoid saying that imagining yourself as submissive and wearing skirts and lacy underwear makes you feel good

On the bright side, it was the solstice yesterday so they're getting shorter...

Believing that the female body exists is not "biological essentialism". What is essentialist, and stupid, is thinking liking football makes you a boy, or not being able to open a jar or do maths makes you a girl. All genderist examples I've heard as to why some males are women.

Bernard got to the truth of it IMO so indulging this poster's overly verbose, dull and unoriginal attempts to scold women aren't the best use of anyone's time.

It's not their first rodeo here, either, I remember.

Although ‘no such thing as a female body’ was fun for a while

one can’t help thinking he should talk it over with his mum

one can’t help thinking he should talk it over with his mum

True

Although it’s worrying. This stuff has got hold on many ways

Blimey this is a thing of beauty.

"Nah I'll just call the beliefs that involve biological essentialism what they are, thanks."

"You are talking about an immutable, intrinsic essence of sex not only as an imposed social class but as a fundamental component of reality that is present in all humans from the moment of conception and which defines the totality of their existence from infancy to adulthood."

"The rest of us moved on from this ideological position upon realisation that it fails to account for the existence of a very, very large number of humans. You're welcome to believe what you want."

"I'm really not interested in arguing about why the entirety of modern feminist thought departed from the 2nd wave position decades ago."

"I'm concerned about the very real harms that are about to be caused by the imposition of the legislative manifestation of an ongoing divide and conquer culture war in British politics which is cynically using the suffering of vulnerable school children as a wedge issue and preying on the fears of concerned parents to do so."

So, you attribute biological essentialist beliefs to all women who disagree that you are not a woman for the purposes where sex needs to be prioritised.

See that wims! Wonderful stuff.

Now we have social class included as well... delightful. I come from a country where social class is not really cut and dried at all. Where does that place me?

No, again, we do not believe that a female body defines the totality of our lives except that it WILL shape our lives because our body's processes do have an impact on our lives and our decisions.

This is not that hard a concept. Except when you believe in such polarised beliefs.

"The rest of us moved on from this ideological position upon realisation that it fails to account for the existence of a very, very large number of humans."

Please explain this sentence. I am all agog who has made what realisation. And it is actually hardly a feminist thought that a 'very, very large number of humans' are not actually oppressed every single day because they have a female body. And that for a 'very, very large number of humans', they are in fact oppressed by people believing in biological essentialism.

Wow. slow hand clap for you. Again, you are so totally focused on your individual self you simply do not conceive of the collective reality of female people.

However, is it feminists oppressing these women and girls? No fucking way!

But it is pretty fucked to make false claims that 'society has moved on'.

"I'm really not interested in arguing about why the entirety of modern feminist thought departed from the 2nd wave position decades ago."

It is quite amazing. I have seen only MRAs on MN recently who have used this same statement. The wording was almost exact.

Again, when you see it, it is hard to miss those cues.

"I'm concerned about the very real harms that are about to be caused by the imposition of the legislative manifestation of an ongoing divide and conquer culture war in British politics which is cynically using the suffering of vulnerable school children as a wedge issue and preying on the fears of concerned parents to do so."

And you seem to forget that this is Mumsnet and parents of those very same vulnerable children are actively posting on this very thread. And you continue to speak over the top of them.

YOU continue to advocate medicalised treatments that have been found to be experimental and NOT ONCE have you acknowledged the harm those drugs cause children. Especially FEMALES. A sex you have no real empathy with despite your continued assertions that you are an element in the constellation of womanhood.

You simply don't seem to see your blind spots. Instead YOU wish to remain in the safety of telling yourself that the women who disagree with you are biological essentialists. it is like telling people that only people who hate you disagree with you.

It is false.

It is a way of dehumanising us so that you can feel better about yourself.

Please do continue to post, because with every single post you show your true self. And all reading it can see it and they can make their own decisions about how much credibility to give your opinions on this topic.

He?

A fuckton of incoherent bleating about essentialism followed by a huff about a pronoun?

Yes. “fuckton of incoherent” posting, full of cognitive distortions and falsities.

I suspect it is to shore up an ego and lives decisions rather than to convince others.

And don’t forget the patronising. It is really clear.

It is almost as clear as a pat on the head for the little wims who supposedly believe in lady brains.

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

Well no.

there is no pink/blue brain.

you are the one who says you feelz the pink brain. because you feelz their is an absence of masculinity or males feels in you.

The lack of feeling male does not = female.

I didn't feel like a girl growing up, but I had to go through female puberty I had to deal with societies exceptions of girls/women, which I didn't like and fought against (still do). I have been harassed, raped, screamed at, punched, threatened, targeted. because I am/was a girl/woman. the sexual comments started preteen. The expectations of my behaviour start from birth.

These are not feelz, they are because I am a woman.

and I haven't even gone into the biological reality of woman throughout life. Which again is not feelz.

you don't feel male, fine. but that does not mean you are a women. because you can't feel woman.

I don't feelz like a woman either.
I don't know what the next woman feels like, I'm not her 🤷‍♀️

I am who I am, I have my own personality which sometimes I express loudly and sometimes hide. I can and do have 'very 'masculine traits' according to our society.

Again just to be clear for you. Just because you don't feel masculine or particularly male, this does not = you being a woman.

No man can know what it is to be a woman.

Not a huff. Merely an invitation to expand.

This is the only poster I've seen on this forum who has actively and directly misgendered a trans woman in a consistent fashion over multiple posts, rather than the near-ubiquitous pattern of passively doing so by either avoiding pronouns altogether or religiously using they. The effect is identical, of course, but I've just not seen the quiet part said out loud.

Maybe they changed the rules and we're now fair game. If so, I'm curious as to why this is the first time it's happened.

It's interesting that this was also accompanied by a bunch of tired transphobic stereotypes clearly intended to dismiss and humiliate. I can only assume that this poster has nothing of any worth to say that they think is worthy of attention, which is why they've resorted to misgendering and transphobic jeers from the back benches.