Ministers finally agree guidance on trans pupils

[WarriorN]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12776337/Schools-discouraged-letting-pupils-change-pronouns-ministers-toughen-long-overdue-transgender-guidance.html

Yes the family has always been on the list, postmodernist thinking is it restricts individuals. We see it now in the BLM movements aims to abolish the nuclear family and defund the police. Neo Marxism that no longer bears much resemblance to Marxism plus no one right way and norms are bad, media is good, no differentiation between sm cults and traditional religion. Watch hyperrealism if you want to see the origins of this kind of second and post modern post truth ideology.
Things like delinking the gold standard from money are actually relevant. But I'm going on a wider sociological tangent now...

If they think pretending that sex doesn't exist lets everyone be who they want to be they must be a bit thick.

So they think it's progressive to force women to have no life outside the home and to call gay men and lesbians bigots and genital fetishists.

It's about as progressive as Iran or Afghanistan.

Do they think The Handmaid's Tale is an instruction manual?

Thanks. Never heard of hyper realism but I’ll look for it now.

Societies don’t really progress though do they? They just change. It’s not like technology that objectively gets better and better over time, societies just become different.

They regard their own beliefs being implemented as progress though, they believe history has a right and a wrong side and that their core beliefs are on the winning side. They believe that them winning is just inevitable.

What is the so called progressive left’s definition of good? Well the removal of all moral and social constraints from the individual is a key one. Ever wondered why movements like PIE always seem to show up on the left and rarely show up on the right? That is why I believe the left are immoral, I think they see morality as a chain. Every time they dissolve a social norm or remove a moral standard they see that as progress, a step in the right direction according to them.

They are perfectly capable of lying about reality when they don’t even believe in the concept of truth. To them truth is relative and therefore doesn’t really even exist in the absolute sense. In another sense all ideologies are lies because they attempt to describe reality which is too complicated to be modelled by any ideology. The Soviet Union was a nation built on lies.

I am of course not saying that your average centre left voter is an ideological immoral liar. I’m saying really drill into the ideology that the progressive left establishment follow and lies and the desire to free the individual from any social or moral constraints is what you are left with. And those at the top understand this full well, they understand exactly what they believe and why they believe it.

Who do you mean when you talk about the progressive left @Freddder ? The Labour Party?

@Chrysanthemum5 I’ve sent you a DM, but I’m not at all surprised to hear that. Melvyn is utterly captured. If I were at all worried about gender ideology, I wouldn’t touch that school with a bargepole (well I wouldn’t touch it anyway for a whole host of reasons, but definitely including their social transition policy)

Wondering why that pp was deleted, maybe I missed what was not in guidelines

Imo we’ll see break down of post war set up due to climate and migration pressures

I’ve been saying this for a while

The Netherlands election results show this shift, there will be more

Someone put up an excellent quote on institutions based on a lie (eg changing sex) who feel threatened use tactics to survive

Can’t recall who it was from unfortunately

I think we’re entering a period where voters will push politicians and institutions will understandably recognise their hegemony is at risk

What is the so called progressive left’s definition of good? Well the removal of all moral and social constraints from the individual is a key one. Ever wondered why movements like PIE always seem to show up on the left and rarely show up on the right? That is why I believe the left are immoral, I think they see morality as a chain. Every time they dissolve a social norm or remove a moral standard they see that as progress, a step in the right direction according to them.

I'd like to know who the "progressive left" are who are being blamed for what is going on currently. In the UK the Tories have been in power for over a decade. Are they the progressive left? What about in the US? Are the Democrats the "progressive left"?

Labour and the democrats are definitely progressive left.
The Tory party have tried to be progressive left socially and a bit conservative, as for years it seemed like the only acceptable game in town.
Even now they won't do the hard things that would separate themselves from this. See the schools gender guidance...

With all due respect I don’t think you have really understood what I’m trying to say if you are asking that. I’m really struggling to articulate it but I have said it the best I can on other threads. I will try and answer you the best I can but apologies if I’m not making sense.

If you want to understand the difference between left and right, liberal and conservative don’t look and the blur in the centre look at the fundamental beliefs at the extremes.

The fundamental philosophical difference between the left and the right is a belief in equality, the left believes in equality the right doesn’t.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is liberals belief the state should dissolve and all norms, morals, taboos and even laws that in anyway restrict the freedom of the individual except those necessary to stop the direct harm of one individual by another. Conservatives don’t believe this, they believe in society and having social norms based on the nation’s sense of right and wrong (our morals).

In this country like any other country the political process is controlled by elites and in our country and the western world at large those elites will allow the populace to choose any flavour of liberalism that they like. Liberals see the dissolution of social norms and morals as progress and often call themselves progressives.

Labour are a liberal centre left party. The Tories are a liberal party of the centre to sometimes the centre right.

But most people aren’t ideological, the higher in society you go the more ideological and liberal the people will be. The average Labour voter is the sort of person who thinks taxes should be higher to fund a better health system, or the sort of person who wants trade unions to protect people at work. But go to the top of the parties or go to the top any other important and powerful institution and it’s liberal progressivism
at the top. This is why most teachers might be GC but amongst head teachers it will
be less GC and near the top of a major educational institution almost nobody will be GC.

This is good by Joanna Williams:

”Not only have schools failed to communicate vital information but, worse, some teachers have actually <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/73lxP/www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-pupils-our-daughter-school-furries-transgender-treatment-c09lqffzb" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">colluded with gender-distressed children to keep their parents in the dark. This represents a breakdown in adult solidarity and, ultimately, an abdication of moral responsibility towards children.”

She also highlights the manipulative “happy daughter or dead son” which is horrendous emotional blackmail foisted upon parents:

“ Groups like Mermaids have had astonishing success in propagating the <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/73lxP/www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/12/transgender-children-have-to-respect-who-he-is" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">idea that it is better to have a happy daughter than a dead son. This manipulative line is fundamentally dishonest: given love and support, gender confused children are no more likely to take their own lives than other children. But few parents are brave enough to take the risk.”

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-wont-the-tories-ban-pupils-from-social-transitioning/

OK, that went horribly wrong!

Let me try those quotes again…

First quote:

“Not only have schools failed to communicate vital information but, worse, some teachers have actually colluded with gender-distressed children to keep their parents in the dark. This represents a breakdown in adult solidarity and, ultimately, an abdication of moral responsibility towards children.”

Second quote:

“Groups like Mermaids have had astonishing success in propagating the idea that it is better to have a happy daughter than a dead son. This manipulative line is fundamentally dishonest: given love and support, gender confused children are no more likely to take their own lives than other children. But few parents are brave enough to take the risk.”

Thank you @rogdmum . That Spectator article really nails the extreme levels of "abdication of moral responsibility towards children.”.

As these guidelines will be out for consultation there's an important opportunity for us to respond. And this time there are a number of intelligent child focused organisations who will be able to add their weight. And as said upthread, trans activist educators are going to have to explain very clearly about their levels of "expertise " in transitioning other people's children. Explain why they have abandoned safeguarding children from adults seeking to sell the 'born in the wrong body' lie to young children and why the privacy & safety of girls no longer matters in some schools.

Essentially they'll be forced to say all the quiet bits out loud.

This is why most teachers might be GC but amongst head teachers it will be less GC and near the top of a major educational institution almost nobody will be GC.

That's nonsense.

Ok…. Reason evidence?

I’m arguing three things:

1. That the majority of people are gender critical.
2. That the higher you go in society the less gender critical the people occupying these positions are.
3. That points 1 & 2 explain why despite the population being gender critical the institutions are captured, I.e institutional capture happens from the top down and doesn’t require a majority to do it.

Which of these do you dispute and why? Be really interested to hear the arguments, logic and reasoning and what you think is happening and why. 🙂

That the higher you go in society the less gender critical the people occupying these positions are.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

@Freddder
Sticking to the subject of the thread which is about the forthcoming schools guidance, the capture of all the unions, the DfE & Ofsted in recent years has resulted in so many senior staff keeping silent about what's happening to children.
Until there is clear evidence that governors, local authorities & Ofsted will support senior staff insisting on safe single sex facilities, sport and removing the countless "born in the wrong body' organisations, their challenge is their career or battling for the welfare of children.
Until these guidelines are finally published (and even then with the activist unions in full battle mode) everyone is risking their careers by speaking out. It's shameful but I hope that well written draft guidelines will enable people to openly speak about this.

In my experience it is younger, more junior teachers (plus those who've inexplicably been made slt by the age of 25) who are gung-ho for social transition and self-id, and the older senior staff have outsourced their thinking to these bright young things and are scared of offending them. Curmudgeonly middle leaders like myself are more likely to object. But we object to everything and can be safely ignored (as long as we get the gcse results year on year...)

Yes. Institutional capture.

Institutional capture is a real thing. It’s not a figment of my imagination. It happens when the people high up in society running that institution have a vastly different view to the section of that population they’re meant to serve via the institution itself.

For example does a trade union have a different view on women’s rights than its members and society do? If so that’s the people at the top running the union having a different point of view than the ordinary working people that the union is supposed to represent. That’s the elites having one point of view and general population having another. Is that difficult to understand or do you just disagree that this is a thing?

It is true that social change comes from the elites first and comes down the strata. But in this case it is through deliberate manipulation using tactics that have been seen to work before and keeping the unpalatable bits quiet.
What cannot really be explained is the continuance of this even after the facts are becoming clear. But there's so much noise, the guardian is full on twaw and has interpreted this guidance as pro socially transitioning with parents told. Not given permission, just informed. So it seems the harms are not clear.
I don't think banning will work, we need sunlight and over time it will fade away. In 20 or 30 years we might do an inquiry as to how on earth we sterilised a load of teens but not now.
See how vaginal mesh is still used in loads of other ops despite the known risks. See thalidomide. See the blood scandal. Etc.

So glad to hear this!

“But there's so much noise, the guardian is full on twaw and has interpreted this guidance as pro socially transitioning with parents told. Not given permission, just informed. So it seems the harms are not clear.”

The Guardian’s interpretation is how it actually is, how it will work in practice. This was the government’s intention, to give the Guardian types what they want whilst deceiving the others that they were getting what they want. Has the country become more or less liberally progressive since 2010 under a so called conservative government?

Which of these do you dispute and why? Be really interested to hear the arguments, logic and reasoning and what you think is happening and why.

Mainly as points 2 and 3 are not what I'm seeing on the chalk face in education.

You're giving sweeping assumptive statements. It's theoretical. Seemingly based on one idea of how society is structured. It also ignores a wide range of other factors such as upbringing, education level and subjects taken, personal experiences etc. whether someone is gay or straight or has family members who are lgb or t.

I'm a teacher of 22 years and also in send. So I work with a huge range of people with different lengths of experience and also different backgrounds, educational level. Whether someone is 'GC' or not is not dependant on hierarchical status within the setting.

Age and length of experience in education, especially at eyfs level, appears to mean that colleagues have GC views. But some young staff who've had certain backgrounds rooted in science or grew up in farming for example, understand it's all bollocks.

Others don't seem to read news papers and only watch 'happy' tv like drag race and have no view at all but as such naively regurgitate TRA nonsense, especially as it's embedded in twinkle and mermaids is seen as an excellent charity because it gets everywhere. So they think it's all fact.

The overwhelming drive behind the issues we see is due to online sources, social media coupled with the enormous amount of money in charities pushing this stuff. Plus career academics. On top of the decentralisation of education and privatisation of curriculum content.

Who is immune to it all and who is susceptible appears to be more based on personality than anything else.

My senior leadership team are all GC. And most (not all) are over 35. It's the under 35's who seem to be at most risk.

"Higher you go in society" - this is a simplistic view of society which I'm assuming is based on monetary earnings or position? Capitalist? There are many ways to look at society and it's changing enormously due to the internet.