Trans Teacher

Do the language impairments include not being a native English speaker though?

Glorianny

^There are numerous differences between Dyslexia and trans issues, not least is the fact that adult dyslexics don't try to force themselves onto others, or threaten people with cancellation, rape or murder.^
Actually over 50% of the prison population in the UK is estimated to be dyslexic, and over 80% have some form of speech and language impairment.. Some of those may be murderers and rapists.

I am not getting diverted into a fabricated argument over Dyslexia.

Doodledog

Glorianny

There are numerous differences between Dyslexia and trans issues, not least is the fact that adult dyslexics don't try to force themselves onto others, or threaten people with cancellation, rape or murder.
Actually over 50% of the prison population in the UK is estimated to be dyslexic, and over 80% have some form of speech and language impairment.. Some of those may be murderers and rapists.

I am not getting diverted into a fabricated argument over Dyslexia.

I think it's a false equivalence anyway.

It isn't an argument about dyslexia. You said adult dyslexics don't try to force themselves onto others, or threaten people with cancellation, rape or murder.
Well plainly some of them do.
Your allegations about transpeople and crime is just as nebulous

Dickens

Doodledog

Glorianny

There are numerous differences between Dyslexia and trans issues, not least is the fact that adult dyslexics don't try to force themselves onto others, or threaten people with cancellation, rape or murder.
Actually over 50% of the prison population in the UK is estimated to be dyslexic, and over 80% have some form of speech and language impairment.. Some of those may be murderers and rapists.

I am not getting diverted into a fabricated argument over Dyslexia.

I think it's a false equivalence anyway.

Of course it is. And I'm not being diverted - it happens every time.

Not a diversion, just a fact about how people have always reacted when children with differences have been brought up. There have always been nay-sayers and people who question progression and the real experiences of children.

It's not progression that's why the NHS have backtracked and why many European countries have done the same. Thank God people question things about children, that's really not a bad thing.

Agreed, Galaxy. I am not against progression, but I don't see medicating children based on dated stereotypes about 'gender' as progress.

Galaxy

It's not progression that's why the NHS have backtracked and why many European countries have done the same. Thank God people question things about children, that's really not a bad thing.

It's not unheard of, is it, for the methodology of various treatments for both mental and physical problems to be called into question by those involved? For both children and adults.

There is, or should be, data-gathering to decide what is 'best-practice' .

Considering the complexity of the various stages of development in children and the range of external problems they might experience both in the home and socially, it's a good thing that assumptions about sex / gender problems affecting children are being questioned together with the ways they are dealt with and treated - especially when that treatment involves drugs / medication.

Treatments need to be supported by research findings and scientific evidence.

Of course it is fine to question and enquire, but that isn't exactly what you are doing is it? You allege that organisations are in some way influencing children and teachers, to such an extent that they are causing children to change gender. When anyone points out that real children do this you question their account to such an extent that you practically accuse them of lying. You constantly bring up trans criminals. You constantly reference sexual proclivities and insist they are important. You refer to one or two people who have wanted to detransition and ignore all who are content. It isn't questioning, it's denying.

There are children who want to change gender. The services provided for them are abysmal, they will wait years for help and meantime their parents have to cope and try to help them live a happy life. People who simply dismiss that, accuse them in someway of abetting the child and masterminding their desire for gender change, or of being brainwashed by Stonewall really are not helping.

Years ago doctors ignored mothers who thought their child had some serious illnesses. They labelled them hysterics and accused them of over-mothering, now most doctors recognise that mothers can and do identify a child's illness in the early stages. It's just a pity that gender change is still regarded by some the way illness once was, and people don't trust parents.

Nobody is accusing you of lying, Glorianny. People have questioned the likelihood of a 2 year old having the capacity to understand and articulate the fact that she felt she was 'in the wrong gender', and you haven't engaged with that, but instead diverted the conversation. It may well that you simply don't know enough about the case to say more, which is understandable as you are not closely connected to the child and her family, but the questions people have raised are not unreasonable at all.

Nobody is saying that parents are to blame either, and nor are we accusing them of hysteria - it will be a warm January before you hear me use such sexist language, and I'm sure that applies to others on this thread, too. Of course parents know their children, and the vast majority want the very best for their children. It is not people arguing for biological reality who suggest that schools have to mitigate the prejudice of parents, or override the things (such as that there are two sexes) that children are told at home. People have spoken on these threads about children in their own families who have 'gender confusion' and they are always treated with respect and sympathy - I have never seen them dismissed ur mistrusted - have you?

When it comes to denying and selecting, we could equally say that you deny the cancellation of biological realists who speak out, the violence of TRAs, the medicalisation of children, the profiteering from the production of things like binders, the books that people have posted about with sexualised illustrations, the drag queens reading stories to young children, the Stonewall/Mermaids based training courses and badges and so on. People have pointed out that those things all contribute to the context in which we are uneasy about male teachers wearing skirts, but you have not engaged with that, preferring to cast us as backward-looking and prejudiced, and diverting the conversation to women wearing trousers and Dyslexia. You also appear not to recognise that all CAMHS is under pressure (as are adult MH services) and that help for trans-identifying children is not being selected for worse treatment than any others. That is not to excuse the cuts to the NHS - not at all. But it is not a matter of prejudice or discrimination.

I said very clearly in one of my last posts that it was an absolute nightmare for parents, I dont think that not being clear on the current guidance is helping them in any way.

This is down to the Head. It certainly doesn’t seem to be appropriate dress and could easily be changed.

So there are more children now identified as dyslexic, was this caused by the Dyslexia Association helping to create dyslexia friendly schools?
There are more children now identified as autistic is this caused by the National Autistic Society helping create Autism Friendly Schools?
If not why is it so wrong for schools to support transgender children by using organisations like Stonewall and Mermaids to create trans friendly schools?

And as I said a male teacher who identifies as a man and wears a skirt might help a child questioning their gender. Of course this is so obviously true that the only response will be "What does questioning your gender mean?" When you can't question the concept, question one of the phrases used.

Doodledog

Nobody is accusing you of lying, Glorianny. People have questioned the likelihood of a 2 year old having the capacity to understand and articulate the fact that she felt she was 'in the wrong gender', and you haven't engaged with that, but instead diverted the conversation. It may well that you simply don't know enough about the case to say more, which is understandable as you are not closely connected to the child and her family, but the questions people have raised are not unreasonable at all.

Nobody is saying that parents are to blame either, and nor are we accusing them of hysteria - it will be a warm January before you hear me use such sexist language, and I'm sure that applies to others on this thread, too. Of course parents know their children, and the vast majority want the very best for their children. It is not people arguing for biological reality who suggest that schools have to mitigate the prejudice of parents, or override the things (such as that there are two sexes) that children are told at home. People have spoken on these threads about children in their own families who have 'gender confusion' and they are always treated with respect and sympathy - I have never seen them dismissed ur mistrusted - have you?

When it comes to denying and selecting, we could equally say that you deny the cancellation of biological realists who speak out, the violence of TRAs, the medicalisation of children, the profiteering from the production of things like binders, the books that people have posted about with sexualised illustrations, the drag queens reading stories to young children, the Stonewall/Mermaids based training courses and badges and so on. People have pointed out that those things all contribute to the context in which we are uneasy about male teachers wearing skirts, but you have not engaged with that, preferring to cast us as backward-looking and prejudiced, and diverting the conversation to women wearing trousers and Dyslexia. You also appear not to recognise that all CAMHS is under pressure (as are adult MH services) and that help for trans-identifying children is not being selected for worse treatment than any others. That is not to excuse the cuts to the NHS - not at all. But it is not a matter of prejudice or discrimination.

Good points DD.

I would add that adolescence is a period when a child's focus is very much on themselves - not selfishly, but naturally because they are navigating the transition from childhood to adulthood. I don't think it's ever been a smooth passage but today's adolescents are facing enormous pressures; the internet with all its often confusing - and contradictory - information, social media which obviously to some extent replaces human interaction and, at the same time, encourages cyber-bullying, and the hyper-sexualised media environment which has the effect of focusing children's attention on their appearance... I mean, who'd want to be an adolescent in today's world! Young children and teens also pick up on world 'events' which add to their sense of insecurity - they are aware of the instability caused by wars, environmental disasters, and the fragility of the economy with its huge inequalities and resultant impoverishment. They may not fully understand these situations / events, but they feel the effects.

Obviously there are children who are confused or worried about their sexuality / sex / gender, but in the light of all the other issues both internal and external, why is there so much focus on this aspect? Just how prevalent is gender dysphoria in reality? I'm not denying that it exists, nor that refusing to acknowledge it where it does is harmful, I simply do not believe that it exists to the extent that Stonewall et al are insisting.

Ultimately, if accepting transgenderism means that I have to believe that a man, with all his anatomical parts in place, can be a woman because he says so; and that his dick is a female sex organ, because he says so, and that all this entitle him to be in my female spaces, because he says so... then so long will I question the motives of those like Stonewall. And if a male teacher identifying as a Mr rocks up to the classroom in a skirt, I will question whether or not he is making a simple fashion / equality statement, or whether he is pushing a similar agenda.

Nobody is accusing you of lying, Glorianny
Of course not that would be far too open and honest for one of these threads. The perceived zeitgeist being question the hell out of what has been said, not in any openly or honest way but in a way which questions the reality of her posts, question the phrases she uses when addressing the concept is difficult, and when things get really difficult gang up and demand answers . Oh and a bit of gas lighting by misrepresenting something she's said is fine

When things get really difficult regardless of the subject revert to posts about women with male sex organs and assaults.
It is really true
Don't bother with engaging with those opposing transgender issues their views are set in stone and they will utilise anything to deny trans issues matter.

Because nobody can take it seriously when you say things like that. You mean men and assaults.
But it doesnt get difficult at all I have no difficulties with anything you say. I dont agree with it but it really really isnt tricky.

We have to question the phrases because I am so sorry but when its questioned it all falls apart. You cant force people to lie it was never going to work.

Dickens

Doodledog
Nobody is accusing you of lying, Glorianny. People have questioned the likelihood of a 2 year old having the capacity to understand and articulate the fact that she felt she was 'in the wrong gender', and you haven't engaged with that, but instead diverted the conversation. It may well that you simply don't know enough about the case to say more, which is understandable as you are not closely connected to the child and her family, but the questions people have raised are not unreasonable at all.

Nobody is saying that parents are to blame either, and nor are we accusing them of hysteria - it will be a warm January before you hear me use such sexist language, and I'm sure that applies to others on this thread, too. Of course parents know their children, and the vast majority want the very best for their children. It is not people arguing for biological reality who suggest that schools have to mitigate the prejudice of parents, or override the things (such as that there are two sexes) that children are told at home. People have spoken on these threads about children in their own families who have 'gender confusion' and they are always treated with respect and sympathy - I have never seen them dismissed ur mistrusted - have you?

When it comes to denying and selecting, we could equally say that you deny the cancellation of biological realists who speak out, the violence of TRAs, the medicalisation of children, the profiteering from the production of things like binders, the books that people have posted about with sexualised illustrations, the drag queens reading stories to young children, the Stonewall/Mermaids based training courses and badges and so on. People have pointed out that those things all contribute to the context in which we are uneasy about male teachers wearing skirts, but you have not engaged with that, preferring to cast us as backward-looking and prejudiced, and diverting the conversation to women wearing trousers and Dyslexia. You also appear not to recognise that all CAMHS is under pressure (as are adult MH services) and that help for trans-identifying children is not being selected for worse treatment than any others. That is not to excuse the cuts to the NHS - not at all. But it is not a matter of prejudice or discrimination.
Good points DD.

I would add that adolescence is a period when a child's focus is very much on themselves - not selfishly, but naturally because they are navigating the transition from childhood to adulthood. I don't think it's ever been a smooth passage but today's adolescents are facing enormous pressures; the internet with all its often confusing - and contradictory - information, social media which obviously to some extent replaces human interaction and, at the same time, encourages cyber-bullying, and the hyper-sexualised media environment which has the effect of focusing children's attention on their appearance... I mean, who'd want to be an adolescent in today's world! Young children and teens also pick up on world 'events' which add to their sense of insecurity - they are aware of the instability caused by wars, environmental disasters, and the fragility of the economy with its huge inequalities and resultant impoverishment. They may not fully understand these situations / events, but they feel the effects.

Obviously there are children who are confused or worried about their sexuality / sex / gender, but in the light of all the other issues both internal and external, why is there so much focus on this aspect? Just how prevalent is gender dysphoria in reality? I'm not denying that it exists, nor that refusing to acknowledge it where it does is harmful, I simply do not believe that it exists to the extent that Stonewall et al are insisting.

Ultimately, if accepting transgenderism means that I have to believe that a man, with all his anatomical parts in place, can be a woman because he says so; and that his dick is a female sex organ, because he says so, and that all this entitle him to be in my female spaces, because he says so... then so long will I question the motives of those like Stonewall. And if a male teacher identifying as a Mr rocks up to the classroom in a skirt, I will question whether or not he is making a simple fashion / equality statement, or whether he is pushing a similar agenda.

Thanks to both of you for those well put posts.

I can't repost both of your posts Galaxy but I will say you have no idea of the sexual organs any woman you meet might possess. And quite how society is supposed to discover anyone's organs has never been revealed.

The only thing which falls apart when you start examining and cross examining about accepted phrases is your credibility.

As I said ignore the concepts because they are unquestionably true

I am confident in my ability to identify sex in the majority of people. It's a skill most possess.
And if someone has raped someone with his penis well I am confident in saying they are a man.
We no longer record those crimes as being committed by a woman. Or at least that was the plan, this government arent that reliable in keeping their promises.

It's not my credibility though is it. If I pretend Male rapists are women they wont actually be women.
It's the credibility of most sports bodies now, it's now the credibility of the organisation of the prison service, it's the credibility of the NHS, it's the credibility of the many many transpeople who are really clear that you cant change sex. My credibility us neither here nor there.

Galaxy

It's not my credibility though is it. If I pretend Male rapists are women they wont actually be women.
It's the credibility of most sports bodies now, it's now the credibility of the organisation of the prison service, it's the credibility of the NHS, it's the credibility of the many many transpeople who are really clear that you cant change sex. My credibility us neither here nor there.

There are so many expectations nowadays that we should believe lies about sex.
A really important point you make is about the credibility of the many many transpeople who are really clear that you can’t change sex
The lack of credibility is really demonstrated by those who insist that a lie is the truth, and then complain that they are being accused of lying.

Of course not that would be far too open and honest for one of these threads.
Basically that is a passive/aggressive way of saying that posters in general (or is it me in particular?) are dishonest. For someone who got so upset when people simply ask for clarification of her story about a toddler who seems at face value to have a remarkable grasp of both the sociology of gender and how it is being applied to her that's a bit rich? We've said that it's not that we don't believe you, but that you may have got some of the details wrong, but you are still outraged.

The perceived zeitgeist being question the hell out of what has been said, not in any openly or honest way but in a way which questions the reality of her posts, question the phrases she uses when addressing the concept is difficult, and when things get really difficult gang up and demand answers.
Are you the 'she/her' in this diatribe? I don't know about the perceived (by you?) zeitgeist, but I for one was questioning you perfectly openly and honestly. What is dishonest about pointing out the complexity of 'gender' difference in toddlers and questioning the likelihood that a 2 year old would be able to understand that and then go on to realise how she was being treated as a girl, reject that and insist that she was a boy? There are so many steps there that it seems (to me) unlikely that a toddler could do it, but as I said, it is not my area, so I asked if we have a child development expert who could explain.

Oh and a bit of gas lighting by misrepresenting something she's said is fine Coming from you that is actually comical . What (precisely, please) have you seen on this thread that you consider to be gaslighting? Do you actually understand the concept?

When things get really difficult regardless of the subject revert to posts about women with male sex organs and assaults.
Word salad, but as Galaxy says, it is not difficult. There is no need to sidestep any issues (which is, I assume, what you are accusing us of doing?) as they are generally fairly clear, and where there are nuances people are capable of (and willing to) point them out.

It is really true
??

Don't bother with engaging with those opposing transgender issues their views are set in stone and they will utilise anything to deny trans issues matter.
Sorry, but who are you addressing now, or are you rambling to yourself?

I will repeat my point from upthread, as it continues to be ignored:
When it comes to denying and selecting, we could equally say that you deny the cancellation of biological realists who speak out, the violence of TRAs, the medicalisation of children, the profiteering from the production of things like binders, the books that people have posted about with sexualised illustrations, the drag queens reading stories to young children, the Stonewall/Mermaids based training courses and badges and so on. People have pointed out that those things all contribute to the context in which we are uneasy about male teachers wearing skirts, but you have not engaged with that, preferring to cast us as backward-looking and prejudiced, and diverting the conversation to women wearing trousers and Dyslexia.

I don't remember you addressing any of that. The thread may not be about any of the things I mention in particular, but as has been said over and over, put together they form the context that makes people uneasy about a male teacher wearing a skirt in primary school, yet you ignore that point and divert the conversation - maybe into areas that are less difficult for you?

As for the idea that asking for clarification of something like 'in the wrong gender' being because I 'couldn't question the concept, so [I] question[ed] one of the phrases', how do you suggest that anyone can discuss a concept - any concept - without knowing how the relevant terms are being used? It is normal practice to define terms where they may be ambiguous. Failure to do so (particularly when asked) can easily result in mutual confusion, as both/all participants in the debate may be using them differently.

Your own argument always seems to come down to an idea that it is impossible to tell whether someone is male or female, so therefore deception is ok. It's not. It is not possible to tell if someone is a surgeon, but impersonating one and carrying out an operation is illegal for very good reason. There are numerous similar analogies, but I am aware of the likelihood that analogies encourage the conversation to be diverted into irrelevant areas, so I won't press the point. In any case, I think it is important that children are very aware of whether people are male or female for reasons of safeguarding, which is why I am uncomfortable with drag queens in schools and children's libraries, and with men in what is traditionally female clothing.

Instead of dragging in Dyslexia and trousers, would you please address those points if you are genuinely interested in a debate and not an argument?

Glorianny

I can't repost both of your posts Galaxy but I will say you have no idea of the sexual organs any woman you meet might possess. And quite how society is supposed to discover anyone's organs has never been revealed.

The only thing which falls apart when you start examining and cross examining about accepted phrases is your credibility.

As I said ignore the concepts because they are unquestionably true

I can't repost both of your posts Galaxy but I will say you have no idea of the sexual organs any woman you meet might possess. And quite how society is supposed to discover anyone's organs has never been revealed.

Well, generally, the internal sexual organs of a woman can't be detected, but the external vagina has long been held to be one of them. So we don't need to "discover" them. They simply exist.

If, by "woman", you mean a transgender woman, it's true that we might not know what's under their skirt. Though some TW are not at all shy to inform you that they have a girl-dick so in those cases, we don't need to guess... we've been told.

This is all so absurd. You are of course entitled to believe that a transwoman with a dick is a woman, and I, equally, will disagree with you. With or without a dick, a transwoman is a transwoman, not a woman. Because, as has been pointed out that, although sex is an inconsistent reason for treating people differently - there are contexts in which biological sex matters.

I believe that sex is biological, based on genetic make-up. Genetics overall cannot be changed. So the question of what sexual organs a woman might have is irrelevant.

And if transwomen stay out of single-sex spaces, what they have under their skirt becomes irrelevant too. If I were working side-by-side with them in an office or factory. I wouldn't care, one way or the other. But when they step into the female toilets, I will care. Transwomen need their own trans spaces which I won't encroach on unless invited.