Trans Teacher

Doodledog

On Amazon it is definitely advertised as being for children from 4-8 years.

I wonder if the age range, 4 - 8, isn't rather too wide?

I mean, I know some kids are quite 'advanced' at an early age but, generally speaking, what an 8 year old is capable of understanding fairly comprehensively will surely be beyond the average 4 year old?

Just thinking back to when my son was 4 - he was of average intelligence. I can imagine showing him such a book and he would give me that eye-blinking, 'tolerant' look reserved for those times when I was babbling on to him about something he didn't really understand or have much interest in.

A lot of books for children are published sometimes independently, They are not necessarily well written or well designed, most schools take care to ensure that the books they give to children are high quality, well designed, and age appropriate for language and fonts. I don't think that would pass most of those requirements. Particularly as far as the changing fonts goes.
On the other hand if a school had a transgender child (or children) as pupils it could be a valuable resource in helping to explain the problems and ensuring the child is accepted.

On Amazon it is definitely advertised as being for children from 4-8 years.

Glorianny said Don't know where you got this but the format and design doesnt' look at all suitable for 4-8 year olds to me.

I saw it in the Quaker Bookshop in Friends House, London .

You can find it on Amazon and no doubt other booksellers too.

bookshop.quaker.org.uk/True-You-A-Gender-Journey_9780063240469

Neurotypical minds are something aren't they

... and that's an example - what do you mean - who are you addressing?!

(a PS to VS)

VioletSky

I appreciate the explanation...

That's how we learn

But I am no less confused by why I get pulled up on it

When I mean to be rude I don't defend myself... why would I

Neurotypical minds are something aren't they

I think the accusations against you VS are mostly because you fire-off your own accusations, indiscriminately, into the cyber-ether; chastising people for what you assume they think or mean, rather than addressing directly the individual and debating what they have actually said?

... the "some-people" syndrome!

We most certainly don't need 'cancelling' or 'no-platforming'. The 'cancelors' and 'no-platformers' need to argue their point, their case, not shut down those who it would seem are not in fact unsympathetic towards the fact of their historical and current discrimination, but who do not accept completely all the tenets of their beliefs.

I couldn't agree more.

Doodledog

*What personally irks and alarms me is the extremes... whether it be the rabid right-wing dismissive hatemongers, or their equivalent among the trans activists, both of whom appear to advocate violence, both verbal and physical, as an 'answer' to a complex matter.*
Yes, extremists are always alarming. I have never come across rabid right-wing hatemongers (in 'real life' or online). I don't even know anyone who is not supportive of transpeople, so I don't buy the 'most marginalised' line at all. I'm not at all suggesting that such people don't exist - of course they must - but that they seem to be much thinner on the ground than the No Debate cancelling TRAs. I do come across those, both in real life and online, as well as hear about the damage they do to women who dare to speak their minds about gender issues.

I absolutely agree that we need calm debate, but it is very difficult to find, unfortunately.

I did read - a while back now - about some pretty nasty attacks on members of the TG community, mostly young people, in The Guardian. Quite a comprehensive article.

I think they are rare - rare in the extremity of the violence. But it does happen. However, I think the RW media, one paper in particular, stokes the fire a bit with its seemingly anodyne coverage of TG matters, but reading between the lines, its agenda is obvious. It does nothing towards formulating rational debate on the matter - any maters, come to that.

Dawkins' piece - though his bias is obvious (and I agree with him) - was a 'moment of calm'.

As Urmstongran said somewhere on this thread, "the genie is out of the bottle now". We're all involved. We need discussion. We most certainly don't need 'cancelling' or 'no-platforming'. The 'cancelors' and 'no-platformers' need to argue their point, their case, not shut down those who it would seem are not in fact unsympathetic towards the fact of their historical and current discrimination, but who do not accept completely all the tenets of their beliefs.

They argue that there is "no debate" - well, frankly, when what they are proposing affects huge changes to our way of life, language, culture, laws - and safety - there very much is a debate.

What personally irks and alarms me is the extremes... whether it be the rabid right-wing dismissive hatemongers, or their equivalent among the trans activists, both of whom appear to advocate violence, both verbal and physical, as an 'answer' to a complex matter.
Yes, extremists are always alarming. I have never come across rabid right-wing hatemongers (in 'real life' or online). I don't even know anyone who is not supportive of transpeople, so I don't buy the 'most marginalised' line at all. I'm not at all suggesting that such people don't exist - of course they must - but that they seem to be much thinner on the ground than the No Debate cancelling TRAs. I do come across those, both in real life and online, as well as hear about the damage they do to women who dare to speak their minds about gender issues.

I absolutely agree that we need calm debate, but it is very difficult to find, unfortunately.

I appreciate the explanation...

That's how we learn

But I am no less confused by why I get pulled up on it

When I mean to be rude I don't defend myself... why would I

Neurotypical minds are something aren't they

VioletSky

But I use "some people" as general too

... yes, you do. But not always.

I'm simply giving an explanation. As you did when you explained what "equality" means.

Thanks Doodledog for that summary.

A thoughtful and rational observation. Much needed. He seems to be somewhere in the calmer middle ground in this debate.

What personally irks and alarms me is the extremes... whether it be the rabid right-wing dismissive hatemongers, or their equivalent among the trans activists, both of whom appear to advocate violence, both verbal and physical, as an 'answer' to a complex matter.

We need debate in that calm environment, all of us, because we all, especially women, are affected to some degree or other by the transgender 'culture' and ideology.

I will listen (I do) to people's "lived" experiences in the TG community - they must also listen to ours.

But I use "some people" as general too

Hi VS

After a number of posts on a thread - anyone who then starts their own post with, "why do some people..." is obviously referring to either one, or a number, or maybe even all of them. The oblique reference to some people is a slightly insidious way of damning or accusing those posters without addressing them directly. It's personal.

If, on the other hand, a poster comments to the effect something like, "I believe most people think...", or, "people generally seem to think that..." - they are not addressing anyone or group in particular, they are talking about people in general, either within GN or outside of it. The observation is in the abstract.

I agree that children should be taught evidence-based argument, too. Far too few people can see through some of the nonsense that is pushed at us, and believe the anecdotal 'lived experience' stuff. I find personal experiences interesting in 'long read' type articles, as they give a human angle to data, but they are by nature one viewpoint only. I'm not sure at what stage of development children could understand the difference, but probably a lot younger than the age at which they are taught to spot ideology and avoid it.

Thanks for that Doodledog. He's not wrong about the crumbling school estate either.

Ok, I am leaving this here for others to read, and will make no further comment. People can reach their own conclusions.

Back to the thread - did anyone see the Dawkins article in the Telegraph? It's behind a paywall, and too long to C&P, so I'll just post the relevant bit:

Maybe we should recognise a distinction between sex and gender?” he asks, rhetorically. “Perhaps it’s really true that some people sincerely feel they have been born in the wrong body. Maybe they sincerely feel female even though they have a fully developed male body. Maybe they really are of female gender albeit of male sex,” he continues.

But when such a person enters a women’s athletic event, say a swimming competition, it is not their female psychological gender that gives them the stature and the upper body strength to carry off the medals. It’s their male sex. And it’s their penis, not their psychological gender that upsets women when they strip off in a women’s changing room. Of course, you might say, ‘What’s so intimidating about a penis?’ But if you follow that line of argument, you might as well abolish separate changing rooms altogether.

Except, as we have established, there is no framework for any sort of discussion, just shrill, shouty argy-bargy. He has a rather ingenious solution for that too: “I think children should be taught critical thinking from an early age: how to discuss and how to argue based on evidence, rather than everybody citing their own ‘lived experience’, which is of no relevance to the rest of the planet. Young people are inevitably swayed and carried along by ideology and I do have some sympathy for them, so let’s give them the tools to think for themselves.

Given Britain’s crumbling school estate and dismal showing in international numeracy rates, the introduction of Socratic questioning – the fine art of disciplined and rational dialogue between two or more people – to the curriculum sounds like it might be a stretch.

But something needs to happen if we are to break the current cycle of outrage and cancellation that is at best coarsening and at worst entirely stymying public discourse.

I get it, double standards

Doodledog

*You are doing it again.*
I didn't say this was gaslighting.
I said

That's when you aren't trying to gaslight me by inaccurately representing something you claim I have said.
And
There are many examples on this thread

Surprise surprise
You are doing it again.
You seem to be incapable of posting accurately anything I say.

Riiiight. I'm not at all sure that I follow that, but I can assure you that I am not gaslighting. If I have misinterpreted anything you say, it is because you haven't made it clear, and refuse to clarify even when asked.

As for the 'obsession' thing, I just don't agree that there is anything obsessive about wondering at the motive of a man wearing a skirt in the current climate where drag queens read stories to young children and library books carry illustrations of old men in bondage gear and people with mastectomy scars

You have so far not engaged with the emboldened part of my post, instead concentrating on some sort of attempt at discourse analysis of my posts. It's tedious.

But you have gaslighted me consistently throughout this thread Doodledog Several times I have actually posted corrections of the wrongful information you claimed I had said. The evidence is there.

Can I suggest that one way of preventing this is for you to stop telling everyone what I have said,, and simply present your own arguments. Stop using your definition of words as the sole possible interpretation and recognise an accepted definition.

You are entitled disagree. You are not entitled to blame me because you don't understand or misinterpret things.

It doesn't really matter why someone is obsessed. But the words you have highlighted do present evidence of the obsession.

You really haven't got it have you.

'Some People' when used passive aggressively refers to fellow posters who you or Glorianny is not willing to name, so refer to obliquely.

'Most people' means anyone reading the thread who is capable of following simple arguments. Not a dig at all.

Oh so you view them both as digs

Got it, thank you

VioletSky

Is "most people" a bit like saying "some people" meaning "an amount of people"? Or does it mean something else in this instance?

No. 'Some People' is an indirect dig at others on the relevant thread. My use of 'Most people' basically meant any intelligent reader who can see what is going on.

HTH.

You are doing it again.
I didn't say this was gaslighting.
I said

That's when you aren't trying to gaslight me by inaccurately representing something you claim I have said.
And
There are many examples on this thread

Surprise surprise
You are doing it again.
You seem to be incapable of posting accurately anything I say.

Riiiight. I'm not at all sure that I follow that, but I can assure you that I am not gaslighting. If I have misinterpreted anything you say, it is because you haven't made it clear, and refuse to clarify even when asked.

As for the 'obsession' thing, I just don't agree that there is anything obsessive about wondering at the motive of a man wearing a skirt in the current climate where drag queens read stories to young children and library books carry illustrations of old men in bondage gear and people with mastectomy scars

You have so far not engaged with the emboldened part of my post, instead concentrating on some sort of attempt at discourse analysis of my posts. It's tedious.

Is "most people" a bit like saying "some people" meaning "an amount of people"? Or does it mean something else in this instance?

As for obsession. It keeps coming up again and again.
So it fits the definition I posted.
The idea that this is anything at all to do with child protection is untenable.