My son can tell...

[allthevitamins]

Watching 'Inside the Factory' on BBC1 with DS, 10.

Cherry Healy was talking about lightbulbs with Dr Clara Barker, Materials Scientist.

Please note this is not personal in relation to Dr Baker.

Dr Barker is Transwoman.

DS says, 'is that a lady?'.

I say no, it's a man.

We left it at that.

I mean Dr Barker is quite feminine.

But unprompted, my DS knew that Dr Barker is not a woman.

Why should I have to lie to him about this?

It wouldn’t be an uncomfortable conversation one would prefer to avoid if the language wasn’t really loaded.

A couple of decades ago people would probably have said, ‘Oh, he’s a transvestite (or the shortened term). Some men like dressing up as women.’

They may well have followed up with some quite unpleasant language that’s probably best left in the past (though that’s also debatable).

Now every answer has implications parents need to navigate carefully.

@allthevitamins I'm concerned that someone, somewhere, someday is going to require me to explicitly or impliedly tell him that men are/can be women. And I think this is dangerous, because it's not true, and I'd have to disagree.

Given Maya Forstater’s EAT judgement you are legally protected if you state people cannot change their sex and TW are men. Respecting someone’s pronouns, I use they/them for NB and trans people, is not the same as saying TWAW.

I think having difficult conversations with your children is important. Finances is one subject I don’t think people talk to children enough. Debt, savings, investments etc. Sex, sexual orientation and gender identity is another subject.
Answer your DCs questions honestly.

I mean that's just what I said just didn't use the word pretend or lady 🤷 the op doesn't want to see transwomen on television this is the issue isn't it?

wouldn't approve you for treatment on principle if you turned up to an appointment wearing a t-shirt and trousers rather than a dress.

But this was pre-2004 and the GRA. So it was all about stereotypes beforehand?

I personally don't think 'living as a woman' has anything to do with wearing trousers.

So what is then?

The GRA's intent is very clear.

Is it? How is “live as a woman” codifying if someone would be happy with transition? How do you transition to see if you would be happy to transition? What does this look like? If “live as a woman” really means this, then why isn’t that defined in the act?

in a prescriptive, axiomatic fashion that missed the mark

So it’s not a good Act then? What would have hit the mark?

I tried to sell my DDs prom dress on FB and had a message asking if I had a problem with CDs buying it. I replied saying I didn't know what that meant. He replied 'cross dressers'.

Why did he even have to mention it? Either buy it or don't, I couldn't care less who buys it and wears it if they pay me.

you are angry at the wrong person !

I watched the programme too. This was Dr Clara Barker who was appointed head of Inclusion and Diversity at the Institute of Physics last year. Because, the IOP are seriously trying to diversify the workforce away from middle-aged, white men…
👏

Ah, but he’s not like the other middle aged white men.

Just googled him. He's got a cringeworthy interview in a student newspaper complaining about how he gets wrongly accused of having grown up with male privilege even though he was bullied for being effeminate... FFS. Oh and among others he's advocating for women in science. Would be rather useful to get some facts about obstacles for women straight first..

That tickled me because I heard it too. There was also a moment where Clarkson said "you've reached the £8000 <long pause> mark" (I paraphrase). I had to replay it several times before I realised Clarkson didn't call him Mark. Or maybe he did...

When they introduced the potential candidates they got to Claire and I immediately stated to my partner "that's a bloke".

I'm all for people living their happy lives so long as it doesn't impact on women's rights and gay rights, but to suggest we cannot tell is insanity.

OP: Keep teaching your son reality. If it was an actual woman he wouldn't have questioned it.

I don't mind seeing transwomen on TV. And I don't know what the overall answer is.

But here was a man in a dress with a very-conventionally female name (talking about lightbulbs incidentally), and everyone just carrying on like that was normal... except my son, who at least felt it was ok to ask me for clarity. My DS wasn't asking me about the properties of various lightbulbs, he was asking about the man in the dress.

It was like the elephant in the room... DS was probably thinking, 'why has mum not said anything about that man who is clearly pretending to be a woman' which is why he asked me.

And as PPs have said, I don't want him to get into trouble at school or anywhere else for asking innocent, honest questions, or being able to state facts. He's 10 FGS.

I think it would have been better if Dr Clara had been introduced as Dr Dave, or even Dr Chris, because the name and the appearance definitely seemed at odds with one another (to my DS at least, and to me too if I'm honest). I mean, if it's Dr Chris / Dave Barker (who happens to like wearing dresses) then well, where we live, that's a bit unusual, but good for him.

It's the pretence that he's female, Cherry Healey nodding along like there's nothing to see here (I hope she was ok with that) and some BBC exec somewhere giving themselves a massive pat on the back for being trans-inclusive... whilst as the viewing public, my son is confused, and I'm suddenly faced with dealing with what I see as a really serious ethical dilemma when I'd only tuned in to see how they actually get sofa cushions into their covers in the factory.

I think it's the drawing in of the audience, including DC - this was at about 8.15pm - to be innocent participants in what I see as a charade. A charade involving grown adults and their life choices. To give the 'main' players validation. And I don't like it.

On reflection, that's why.

Sorry, but no, it is not quite what you said.
The word “pretend is the salient word here.
The way you phrased it implied acceptance of the man's beliefs:
”I still don't think it difficult to be factual though. yes dear that's a man who thinks and lives as a woman.”
He doesn’t do either of those things because he can't. It is pretence.

I thought the OP didn't want to lie to her child (or, perhaps, herself) about the sex of the person, whether on TV or not, but perhaps I missed the TV element later on in the thread.

So yes, lots of trans women do wear jeans and a hoodie.

Possibly a stupid question but - in that case how can people be expected to know they're not just a man?

The TWs I know wear definitely feminine clothing.

I’m totally on board with gender critical thinking, and I don’t believe that you are whatever sex you want to be just because you want it… but you’re drifting into conspiracy theory here.

It wasn’t designed at all. It’s a craze that started up and will die down in time, probably driven by boys feeling continuously like the the “baddie” just for being boys, and girls feeling that they don’t naturally identify with instagram’s view of feminity.

Any time you start thinking “it’s all designed to control the sheeple, but I can see through it!”, you need to have a little chat with yourself.

So you'd have been fine if the interviewee had a male sounding name?

What about a gender-neutral or ambiguous name like Sam or Charlie? Would that be OK or should that only be for after the watershed?

Do you feel the same way about trans women walking down the street in public?

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s absolutely everywhere and being pushed by every government, agency and private entity.

Wait until he's older and telling you off, and sighing at you and asking why can't you be less of a bigot. That's what we're up against now with schools teaching them lies as fact from a young age. I've never been a bigot in my life. Always anti racist etc. Not accepting people being shitty about others and vocal with it. And now my own children think I'm a phobic bigot

The problems with the GRA are many ;)

Gender is a construct not a reality - it is society's interpretation of what it means to be a man / woman today - which is inherently fluid and as we know from those we observe, there is no defining way to be man or woman which relates to external appearances...

Most importantly though is that the very varied nature of how a man or woman can live / present means that the the only way to define living as a man or woman is to define it as having been born male or female - there is no other logical or factually accurate way to describe it.... how you live (clothes / names / pronouns / pitch of voice / etc. do not define your sex - your sex defines you...)

The obvious examples - in regency times, men wore high heels - now women wear them... so wearing high heels does not of itself define your sex... pink used to be a boys' colour, now it is seen as a girls' colour - and vice versa for blue - so colour does not define your sex... skirts are worn by women in the UK generally - but men also wear kilts and sarongs, so a skirt does not define your sex. David Beckham wears nail polish, so cosmetics do not define your sex...

Therefore there is technically no legal way to 'live as a woman' other than to be born female... arguably there is no way to legally accurate way to comply with the GRA with its concept that a man can live as a woman - they can't - blunt truth.

gradually we are seeing the veil of deliberate confusion being drawn back and the reality of stark cold truth being revealed... hopefully the emperor's clothes will be neatly folded and placed back into fable rather than confusing the masses in the media 😁

You do realise that people are born intersex? It's a medical condition. It's not the same as being transgender or non-binary. Why shouldn't you have to explain it to your children?

You do realise that there is no such thing as "intersex"? There are disorders/ variations of sexual development. These are indeed recognised medical conditions, and the people who experience them
a) do not like t be referred to as "intersex"
and
b) are not related to the trans movement, and have asked - numerous times - not to be. associated with transpeople.

DSDs are also sex-specific. Some types affect males, and some affect females. The individuals concerned are either male or female - not "a bit of both".

Edited to add: You are right that it is neither transgender nor non-binary. And I would explain the situation to a child if and when we encountered it in real life, or if there was a pressing reason to address it. I wouldn't consider it any more necessary to randomly explain this than to randomly explain any other medical condition.

If it was an actual woman he wouldn't have questioned it.

Tell that to all the butch lesbians who get mistaken for men on a daily basis!

Intersex was used for a long time before DSD, and is still widely used in many countries, e.g. in Australia (where the intersex pride flag originated). I would dispute that everybody with a DSD doesn't like to be referred to as intersex, as that isn't something you can state with any certainty.

Not sure why you're telling me that people with DSDs are not anything to do with trans people, as I literally said that in my original comment!

But it's not randomly explaining it if your child sees the intersex pride flag and asks what it is.

To the PP who asked what I'd do if I saw a transperson on the street...

... well I'd do what I'd always do... think it was all a bit bizarre... and hope that I don't ever encounter any safeguarding concerns in relation to my children/transpeople, and let them go about their business, and leave it at that.

The difference with it being on primetime TV is that in this instance I felt it really stretched the 'social contract'. Without warning I'm having to explain to my son that what he sees... a 'man dressed as a ladyl' Is correct... when there is dissonance... hang on, this person is being presented as a woman, but something in DS 10's eyes isn't quite right, and he can't quite put his finger on it.

There are other people/institutions who would make it their business to tell my son (tomorrow? Next week? Next year? You bet I wouldn't be there to help/guide in any case) that's what he sees is not what he sees.... and that's a MASSIVE red flag for safeguarding generally.

And for the PP who mentioned intersex... my view is that it's a condition that's been co-opted by the trans movement to confer legitimacy. So how do I explain that to my older DS (13) without sounding like a bigot... since the PSHE curriculum in school is full of 'acceptance and kindness'? This flag is on a very local public building to us, where families are welcomed for various activities and open days throughout the year. It's bound to provoke questions from (thankfully) thinking, head-screwed-on teens.

So you're unwilling to tell your son about intersex people because, through no fault of their own, they have been "co-opted by the trans movement"? Does that seem like a fair and rational response?