Rishi Sunak said…

I think, if you are using that sort of terminology about children in what was, up until now a rather serious discussion about a real problem in schools, and real children, then you've rather lost your way.

Couldn't even think of voting him in if he doesn't do something about the racists in his govt. Yes you Suella.

I think teachers have lost their way.

And to bring this back on topic, at least Starmer has said no to transing under 16s and no to transing without parental permission.

I think it’s pretty fucking offensive that teachers are transing children against the express wishes of their parents, due to the belief system the teachers have bought into!

I've never agreed with transing children without the permission of their parents.

Some on here are arguing that schools should detrans children against the express wishes of their parents, which is interesting on a parenting website.

Are you more ok with Lammy and rights hoarding dinosaurs aimed at women though?

Labour are quite happy to express how anti women they are, do they still get your vote?

An official gender dysphoria diagnosis with social transition decided as a treatment by a specialist MDT should be the ONLY basis for a school to agree to a social transition.

I didn't mention Labour. I think what I said was quite clear, I'm not voting for racists or a PM who is supporting racists.

Adults owning up to the massive mistake that has been made re gender ideology is not going to be an easy one.

Children have been misled.

It needs to be reversed but how you do it will probably take time.

I really can't get my head around how it is we've been managing as a society to support the small percentage of those with DSDs, who must regularly face the issues of which toilets and changing rooms to use etc. It seems like we largrly haven't been supporting them at all.

Having very recently learnt more about DSDs from another thread, I'm thinking Starmers "99% is more accurate than the 100% quoted by the interviewer in the OPs clip; but possibly not in the way he (and many others) think it is, given that a miniscule amount of women born with ovatesticular disorder of sexual development, may have a functioning penis. It may be more correct to say 99.99999% (or whatever the figure actually is) but to group anyone else without a DSD into the same category of need, on a whim, seems really offensive to those born with such conditions. I'm angry for them that their predicaments are being overshadowed in these debates and soundbites.

I did mention Labour, it’s a question

Are you more ok with women thought of as dinosaurs?

Would you vote for them knowing they think of women as such?

Removing the social transitioning that was in place previously, if you object to 'detransing'.

I appreciate your engaging with this thread noblegiraffe.

I'd like to go back to this point. (You made it several pages back but I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the thread.)
Labour, if the leaked policy handbook is to believed, have moved from 'reforming the Gender Recognition Act' to 'seeking consensus on reforming the Gender Recognition Act while maintaining provision for single sex spaces'. This is, basically, as close to kicking into the long grass as you can get, because we all know there is no consensus to be had. Does it matter if it isn't in the manifesto? Yes, because that means it won't be waved through the Lords. Lords wave through anything in the manifesto as a matter of courtesy to the voting public.

I'm trying to interpret what you mean by this comment. Are you saying you think that should be good enough for, let's say a Labour supporter like me? That it's ok that rather than deal with the issue, they're going to kick it down the road and that, even if they did try and bring in self ID, I needn't worry because the Lords wouldn't allow it?

The concept of transubstantiation is frequently used with regards to gender ideology. Perhaps you didn't know that?

Gender ideology posits that sex is an innate feeling, which is irrelevant to biology, and can change from male to female or vice versa.

The altering of the material state of a person, due to their belief. That's why transubstantiation is often used to describe it.

And no, no school should be 'de-transitioning' children. I think you mean desisting.

As you don't seem too clear about the terminology around this, can I ask whether you subscribe to gender ideology?

Or do you think there are a lot of confused children who are being taught that gender stereotyping is something they should be adhering to?

That would only be the case, if sex is something imposed from the outside of a person by every single person conforming to a particular narrative regarding that person. Therefore by making everyone conform to and perform one imposed outside narrative on a person makes them the opposite sex to their biological reality, and by those people NOT imposing a performed narrative of the opposite sex, the person is detransitioned to the actual sex.

This is a lot of nonsense.

The person is the person is the person. They remain that person regardless of anyone else's performance at them.

The performance requirements on everyone around the person is the issue.

We seem to be moving into the 'if you do not perform my chosen narrative at me then I cease to exist' script.

It’s the same as one dc thinking 2 and 2 is 7 and the whole school being made to comply.

Adults that thought it ok need to rethink

Personally the Hilary Cass recommendation that no child be socially transitioned without medical support sounds like a good one to me.

Therefore it doesn't matter if a parent wants it to happen, it doesn't happen without medical guidance. The child has no leverage. And the school doesn't, either. Peer group pressure would be ineffectual.

It puts it firmly back in place as a medical issue, rather than a social one.

A bit like Gordon Brown with Gillian Duffy, are you not incorrectly conflating 'racism' with a desire for some control over immigration levels.

“Therefore it doesn't matter if a parent wants it to happen, it doesn't happen without medical guidance. The child has no leverage. And the school doesn't, either. Peer group pressure would be ineffectual.”

We don’t allow parents to make other harmful choices for their children such as child marriage, breast ironing, FGM, or leaving education to work in the family business age 14 for example.

My point there was that some people assert that a Labour government would be unthinkable (where a Tory government would not) because Labour would introduce self-id.

This was a reasonable concern during the 2019 election when reforming the gender recognition act was in the Labour manifesto.

However, I don't think it presents as strong a concern now. Certainly Starmer has been making noises about it not being a priority. If this leaked document is true, then 'working towards a consensus' is, as I said, kicking it into the long grass. It's basically what the Tories did when they realised it wasn't going to be an easy progressive win.

I don't think, particularly given what has been happening in Scotland around the legal challenges with the incompatibility with the Equality Act, that self-id is something that they are going to want to get bogged down with as a new Labour government with a lot of other challenges on their plate.

So I think they're gearing up for it not being in the manifesto.

If it's not in the manifesto, if Labour went mad and decided to go for it anyway, I think it could well get bogged down elsewhere.

As a general response to 'you can't vote Labour, they'll introduce self-id' that came up earlier in the thread.

The concept of transubstantiation is frequently used with regards to gender ideology. Perhaps you didn't know that?

Your assertion, Datun that Endlesstea meant "magical transubstantiating children' in a totally neutral inoffensive way, despite the otherwise offensive context of their posts is rather undermined by the other deliberately offensive content, and the subsequent post suggesting that they don't care if it's offensive.