Trans Teacher

Doodledog

I wan't gaslighting at all - I'm sure most people don't need this explaining, but when you say something like 'a bit obsessed' and 'in the wrong gender' I (and others) can't respond without knowing what you mean. As I don't want to inaccurately represent what you are saying I asked for clarification. In the case of 'obsessed' I was right to think that we understand the word differently, and in the case of 'in the wrong gender' I still don't know, as you haven't told me.

It's pointless telling people to FOFO, as we all have access to the same sources of information, so it's not a question of not being able to look something up, it is a question of interpretation.

It feels as though you just don't want to explain the 'in the wrong gender' thing though, as you have been asked repeatedly and just wriggle and divert the conversation.

WRT to 'obsession' you claim that posters have with fetishes, I responded to that at 14:00 - ^I still maintain that the word [obsession] is far too strong to describe the suggestion that there is a possibility that some men wearing skirts may be doing so for fetishistic reasons, and asking how that can be prevented from happening around children, though.^

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.

I wan't gaslighting at all - I'm sure most people don't need this explaining, but when you say something like 'a bit obsessed' and 'in the wrong gender' I (and others) can't respond without knowing what you mean. As I don't want to inaccurately represent what you are saying I asked for clarification. In the case of 'obsessed' I was right to think that we understand the word differently, and in the case of 'in the wrong gender' I still don't know, as you haven't told me.

It's pointless telling people to FOFO, as we all have access to the same sources of information, so it's not a question of not being able to look something up, it is a question of interpretation.

It feels as though you just don't want to explain the 'in the wrong gender' thing though, as you have been asked repeatedly and just wriggle and divert the conversation.

WRT to 'obsession' you claim that posters have with fetishes, I responded to that at 14:00 - I still maintain that the word [obsession] is far too strong to describe the suggestion that there is a possibility that some men wearing skirts may be doing so for fetishistic reasons, and asking how that can be prevented from happening around children, though.

Doodledog

*No it's a complex issue with many online explanations some of which are according to you "dross". I wouldn't know which you approved of.*
Of course a word has more than one meaning. Just why you felt the need to criticise me because you only accept a single meaning I don't understand.

Eh? I don't 'approve of' anything, or 'disapprove of anything either, and nor do I accept a single meaning. I am asking how it is possible to 'be in the wrong gender', and have explained why I don't understand many times on this thread and others.

As I see it, gender is a social construct, and includes (amongst other things) as skirts being worn by women and not men, which is its relevance to this thread. As gender is fixed in neither time nor place, there can be no 'right or wrong' gender for someone to be in. They may wish to be a member of the opposite sex, and I understand that, but don't now what being 'in the wrong gender' can mean, and would be grateful for an explanation. Whether I accept it or not is irrelevant - I am just asking how you were using it, is all. Why are you so reluctant to explain what you meant by a phrase that you used yourself?

Doodledog Perhaps if you look at your posts a little more carefully the reason why I am reluctant to say anything to you will become apparent.

Please stop telling me to look things up when I question your use of terminology. I only do it when I wonder whether you are using the more usually recognised definition, to avoid awkwardness.
For info - one can't be 'a bit obsessed' - obsession is an all-encompassing preoccupation that interferes with daily life and causes the sufferer distress. Is that really what you think is happening when someone raises the possibility of a skirt-wearing teacher having a fetish?

Then when I explain my dictionary definition.

Well there we are - we are using different definitions, so it would have been pointless for me to comment using the one I could get off the internet as you are using a different (presumably also googled?) one.

Your whole intent it would seem is to question me, demand an explanation of something then tell me why my explanation is wrong.
That's when you aren't trying to gaslight me by inaccurately representing something you claim I have said.
There are many examples on this thread.

No it's a complex issue with many online explanations some of which are according to you "dross". I wouldn't know which you approved of.
Of course a word has more than one meaning. Just why you felt the need to criticise me because you only accept a single meaning I don't understand.

Eh? I don't 'approve of' anything, or 'disapprove of anything either, and nor do I accept a single meaning. I am asking how it is possible to 'be in the wrong gender', and have explained why I don't understand many times on this thread and others.

As I see it, gender is a social construct, and includes (amongst other things) as skirts being worn by women and not men, which is its relevance to this thread. As gender is fixed in neither time nor place, there can be no 'right or wrong' gender for someone to be in. They may wish to be a member of the opposite sex, and I understand that, but don't now what being 'in the wrong gender' can mean, and would be grateful for an explanation. Whether I accept it or not is irrelevant - I am just asking how you were using it, is all. Why are you so reluctant to explain what you meant by a phrase that you used yourself?

Glorianny you love to speculate and prejudge when it supports your theories as I’ve already read today.*

I do love to speculate because it does mean opening your mind to other possibilities, but I seldom prejudge-
Well that depends on your version of prejudging. Obviously for you that is seldom, however it appears to others.

What's the expression for accusing another person of something because it's something you are guilty of?
I don’t know because I don’t do it. You obviously know there is one, because you do it.

Oops! That was meant for the kitchen thread

I'll see if I can get it deleted.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Doodledog

Well there we are - we are using different definitions, so it would have been pointless for me to comment using the one I could get off the internet as you are using a different (presumably also googled?) one. I still maintain that the word is far too strong to describe the suggestion that there is a possibility that some men wearing skirts may be doing so for fetishistic reasons, and asking how that can be prevented from happening around children, though.

(Of course there could be a plural though - you can have more than one unique 'thing' for instance . One person may struggle to have more than one obsession, but as it is a noun it can be used as a plural.) But we digress.

As you are feeling 'kind' could you run to a definition of 'being in the wrong gender' please?

No it's a complex issue with many online explanations some of which are according to you "dross". I wouldn't know which you approved of.
Of course a word has more than one meaning. Just why you felt the need to criticise me because you only accept a single meaning I don't understand.

Well there we are - we are using different definitions, so it would have been pointless for me to comment using the one I could get off the internet as you are using a different (presumably also googled?) one. I still maintain that the word is far too strong to describe the suggestion that there is a possibility that some men wearing skirts may be doing so for fetishistic reasons, and asking how that can be prevented from happening around children, though.

(Of course there could be a plural though - you can have more than one unique 'thing' for instance . One person may struggle to have more than one obsession, but as it is a noun it can be used as a plural.) But we digress.

As you are feeling 'kind' could you run to a definition of 'being in the wrong gender' please?

Mollygo

*Glorianny you love to speculate and prejudge when it supports your theories as I’ve already read today.*

I do love to speculate because it does mean opening your mind to other possibilities, but I seldom prejudge

What's the expression for accusing another person of something because it's something you are guilty of?

Doodledog
OK because I'm kind I'll do it for you
Obsession
an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind.
plural noun: obsessions

It doesn't have to be all encompassing or any of the other things you claimed, Simply something someone comes back to time and time again.
Theoretically speaking if it was what you suggest it would be impossible to have a plural of the noun.

Glorianny you love to speculate and prejudge when it supports your theories as I’ve already read today.

I only do it when I wonder whether you are using the more usually recognised definition, to avoid awkwardness.

Sorry - that is badly phrased. i should have said that I only do it (ask for clarification) to avoid awkwardness when I am unsure whether you are using the more usually recognised definition.

Please stop telling me to look things up when I question your use of terminology. I only do it when I wonder whether you are using the more usually recognised definition, to avoid awkwardness.

For info - one can't be 'a bit obsessed' - obsession is an all-encompassing preoccupation that interferes with daily life and causes the sufferer distress. Is that really what you think is happening when someone raises the possibility of a skirt-wearing teacher having a fetish?

Similarly, when I asked what you meant by 'being in the wrong gender' upthread it was because all I have found online to explain the concept is vague references to 'feeling like a girl (or boy)' with no explanation of what 'feeling like a girl' means, but in any case would be about sex, not gender. That is why I asked for clarification as to what you mean when you use the term.

It is very clear that when someone uses FOFO that they don't really know what they are talking about, or are not confident that they can defend their usage.

What is whataboutery in my post? I can't follow your logic there, I'm afraid.

This supposed 'drawing attention to himself' will soon get old, at least in the eyes of the children who generally take things in their stride, after a bit of p!££ taking, of course!
I, personally, would not care what my children's/grandchildren's teachers wore as long as it was suitable for the job, not flashing boobs etc, and they were comfortable in what they wore and put their pupils needs first!!
Boys wanted to wear, and did wear, skirts one summer to keep themselves cooler in the heat.
Maybe we should make all clothes unisex now!

Doodledog

*So three assumptions*
1, the only possible reason for a man to wear a skirt is to draw attention to himself.
2 He draws attention to himself and doesn't care about the needs of the children
3. He doesn't care about their education either

These 'assumptions' are potted and selective preces of what people have questioned, based on assumptions of your own and prejudice about the posters who raised the points.

All prejudice is based on assumptions about an issue and involves an opinion formed without reason.
True, but hilariously ironic in the context of your post.

As for the issue drawing attention to him. It really isn't his fault if some GNers are a bit obsessed about men wearing skirts.
Can you define 'obsession' as you are using the term here, please?

(Isn't it victim blaming?)
Who do you see as the victim? Without more details about the story, it is impossible to know whether that would be the teacher, the children, or someone else. If the teacher, of what is he the victim? Did someone force him to wear the skirt? Possible, I suppose, but probably unlikely.

and some also want to introduce fetishes into the issue.
'Some people' have suggested that we are in a climate where drag queens are reading stories to children, and children's library books are showing older men in bondage gear. Is it 'introducing fetishes' to be uneasy about a male primary school teacher wearing a skirt in these circumstances?

1, No they aren't they are based on the quote I posted from Mollygo
Unlike other people I don't issue statements about what has been said without showing the evidence
Look up obsession if you are bothered.
2 Once again a gaslighting attempt
3.. In this instance (as referenced by the post)the teacher.
4, What aboutery!
Come on Doodledog you can do better.

So three assumptions
1, the only possible reason for a man to wear a skirt is to draw attention to himself.
2 He draws attention to himself and doesn't care about the needs of the children
3. He doesn't care about their education either

These 'assumptions' are potted and selective preces of what people have questioned, based on assumptions of your own and prejudice about the posters who raised the points.

All prejudice is based on assumptions about an issue and involves an opinion formed without reason.
True, but hilariously ironic in the context of your post.

As for the issue drawing attention to him. It really isn't his fault if some GNers are a bit obsessed about men wearing skirts.
Can you define 'obsession' as you are using the term here, please?

(Isn't it victim blaming?)
Who do you see as the victim? Without more details about the story, it is impossible to know whether that would be the teacher, the children, or someone else. If the teacher, of what is he the victim? Did someone force him to wear the skirt? Possible, I suppose, but probably unlikely.

and some also want to introduce fetishes into the issue.
'Some people' have suggested that we are in a climate where drag queens are reading stories to children, and children's library books are showing older men in bondage gear. Is it 'introducing fetishes' to be uneasy about a male primary school teacher wearing a skirt in these circumstances?

Glorianny, have you read the thread?

I am not 'squirming'. Not at all. I am responding to the fact that the OP has not returned to the thread, and that nobody has managed to find a link to the actual story - something that was discussed several posts back - and to the fact that, as was also discussed, it is perfectly possible to have a decent discussion in principle without 'Gotcha's from people coming up with speculation about all sorts of unknowns in an actual story. But don't let that get in the way of having an unpleasant personal dig, will you?

Mollygo

But Glorianny, you love to speculate and to be prejudicial when it supports something you want to say.
I’m not prejudging anything.
The OP said a man went to school in a skirt. Might well have been a lie, but who knows?)
It obviously called attention to him or it wouldn’t be on here. In this instance, the attention was on him.

If you think that’s a teacher’s job, so be it.

he’s just a man choosing to draw attention to himself instead of focusing on the needs and education of the children in his care.
So three assumptions
1, the only possible reason for a man to wear a skirt is to draw attention to himself.
2 He draws attention to himself and doesn't care about the needs of the children
3. He doesn't care about their education either
All prejudice is based on assumptions about an issue and involves an opinion formed without reason.

As for the issue drawing attention to him. It really isn't his fault if some GNers are a bit obsessed about men wearing skirts. (Isn't it victim blaming?) and some also want to introduce fetishes into the issue.

But Glorianny, you love to speculate and to be prejudicial when it supports something you want to say.
I’m not prejudging anything.
The OP said a man went to school in a skirt. Might well have been a lie, but who knows?)
It obviously called attention to him or it wouldn’t be on here. In this instance, the attention was on him.

If you think that’s a teacher’s job, so be it.

But the squirming is fascinating!

Doodledog

It's really not. If, as many of us suspect, this is a hypothetical discussion, then all any of us (including you) are doing is speculating. This can in fact be more productive when it comes to discussing the issues, rather than the finer points of the events. When we do that - eg in the case I mentioned upthread about the teacher sacked for misgendering a child, the discussion veers into irrelevances such as whether she had a permanent contract and whether the ethos of the school had been made clear to her on appointment.

Can we pre-judge a hypothetical situation? I think that's probably debatable, but if we can, we are all as guilty of that as one another.

Ah so now it's hypothetical and that justifies prejudice.
So do we assume that in all cases?
A hypothetical case involving a black person where the black person is designated as being less intelligent for some reason, doesn't display prejudice?
A hypothetiical case where a woman is refused something because she is a woman doesn't display prejudice?
How many examples do you need.
Hypothetical or real drawing a conclusion because of a preconceived idea about someone is prejudice.

Once again complete speculation. You have no idea about how much the teacher concerned applies himself to the needs or education of the children in his care.

It's a true example of prejudice.

Based on the concept of Pre-judging.
I’m not prejudging anything.
The OP said a man went to school in a skirt. Might well have been a lie, but who knows?)
It obviously called attention to him or it wouldn’t be on here. In this instance, the attention was on him.
If you think that’s a teacher’s job, so be it.

It's really not. If, as many of us suspect, this is a hypothetical discussion, then all any of us (including you) are doing is speculating. This can in fact be more productive when it comes to discussing the issues, rather than the finer points of the events. When we do that - eg in the case I mentioned upthread about the teacher sacked for misgendering a child, the discussion veers into irrelevances such as whether she had a permanent contract and whether the ethos of the school had been made clear to her on appointment.

Can we pre-judge a hypothetical situation? I think that's probably debatable, but if we can, we are all as guilty of that as one another.

Mollygo

Agreed The format (and content) isn’t suitable for 4-8 year olds, unless you’re keen to push a trans agenda.

A man choosing to wear a skirt (if this event was even true) isn’t a threat, he’s just a man choosing to draw attention to himself instead of focusing on the needs and education of the children in his care.
If you approve of that, that’s your choice.

Once again complete speculation. You have no idea about how much the teacher concerned applies himself to the needs or education of the children in his care.

It's a true example of prejudice.

Based on the concept of Pre-judging.