Boy, 4y, allowed to join CoE school as a girl.

Doodledog

I think Glorianny is confusing sex and gender again.

Yes.

And refusing to acknowledge that it's the deception with its possible ramifications, that we are concerned with. Not the sex. Or gender.

Doodledog

But the whole point of the gender debate is that the concept of a 'wrong gender', an 'opposite gender', a 'wrong body' and so on has to assume that there is a fixed 'right' gender or 'right body' for each sex. It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Those of us who don't believe that gender norms define people can't understand how anyone, never mind a four year old child, can say they are a man or a woman, a girl or a boy based on a feeling that they are currently in the 'wrong' gender, body or sex. When we ask for clarification we are assumed to be being vexatiously argumentative or phobic, or insults such as 'pathetic' or 'silly comments' are resorted to. That is not the case - I just want to know how this works in the heads of trans supporters.

There has been a lot of 'you are mixing up sex and gender, ha ha' from you on this thread, Glorianny, and you're never shy of a 'gotcha', however tenuous, so it doesn't look good when you strop off it because you can't explain your own post. If you posted in error, fine - we all do that from time to time, but as the notion of a 'wrong' or 'opposite' gender totally underpins the trans ideology, it doesn't matter which term you intended to use - it would be good to have a clear explanation of what it means.

I said it should be "different" Doodledog
All explained but never to the satisfaction of those who constantly assert they are not transphobic but never seem able to accept any sort of departure from set gender roles, even in a child of 7.
As my intersectional feminist friends say. Ignore. Some are too set in their prejudices ever to see how things really are.

Leaving a thread when there is no escape from answering a question that is utterly fundamental to the ideology that has underpinned one's previous posts shows a refusal or an inability to justify one's beliefs.

Not all beliefs can be justified, and that's often ok if they are recognised as simply matters of faith, but when someone insults and belittles others simply for disagreeing with those beliefs (or for calling them into question) it would be good if they could back them up, at least to some extent.

We cross posted, Glorianny, but my post still applies, as yours has actually justified the points I made in mine. Resort to insults, and try to pretend they aren't personal by using 'some', or 'those'. Do you have courage of any of your convictions?

Glorian y you sound really angry and I know you’re Off this thread but you wrote
I don't believe you can tell natal women from cis women, like some do.

I thought they were one and the same thing, except one is an acceptable description and the other some people find offensive. So have I got that wrong, or what difference should I be looking for?

Doodledog

We cross posted, Glorianny, but my post still applies, as yours has actually justified the points I made in mine. Resort to insults, and try to pretend they aren't personal by using 'some', or 'those'. Do you have courage of any of your convictions?

DoodledogI know you expect a personal reply to every post you make. I know you find the concept of "some" difficult to deal with usually regarding it as a personal slight. But could I just ask what exactly you expect me to do when there is more than one person or post, but not every person or post involved?

On the other hand you could just accept "some" as meaning a few people and posts and stop trying to pretend it is some way of dodging the issue. Rather than the fact I just CBA to reread all the stuff and list the people.

Mollygo

Glorian y you sound really angry and I know you’re Off this thread but you wrote
I don't believe you can tell natal women from cis women, like some do.

I thought they were one and the same thing, except one is an acceptable description and the other some people find offensive. So have I got that wrong, or what difference should I be looking for?

It's wrong. You know it is but I struggle to remember which terms are acceptable. Maybe I'm getting dementia who knows.
I'm not angry though just bored with the same-old same-old prejudice, personal attacks and "gotchas" like this one.

I’m off this thread too. . . Until next time I post🤣🤣🤣

Mollygo

Glorian y you sound really angry and I know you’re Off this thread but you wrote
I don't believe you can tell natal women from cis women, like some do.

I thought they were one and the same thing, except one is an acceptable description and the other some people find offensive. So have I got that wrong, or what difference should I be looking for?

I thought so too.

As far as I'm concerned, cis means 'this side of' and should have been left as a geographical term. It's another word which has undergone a semantic shift.
Eg Cisalpine Gaul as described by the Romans.

cis is just another term men want us to be othered by

Well, Cis means 'on this side' and Trans means 'on the far side'.

So are they appropriate terms anyway?

Not just men, JaneJudge. There are women who want to 'other' anyone who accepts that they are the sex they were born into, too.

Natal means "born" or "as born".

Cis means "this side of".

The Romans called the part of Gaul that was on their side of the Alps "Cisalpine Gaul" - the part of Gaul that they reached without crossing the mountains. Transalpine Gaul was on the other side of the Alps, a serious journey.

Therefore Cis women are on this side of transitioning, they haven't crossed the mountain of transition.

Logically, being "as born" is the same as "not transitioned" Cis women are "unchanged" from their birth or natal condition. So the two terms ought to be interchangeable. They are not, they have different connotations.

When used by those who have transitioned, "cis" feels as though it contains a silent "yet",, as though non-trans women are lurking at home in safety without braving the dangers of that journey over the Alps. Maybe that is why it seems to imply an insult.

Therefore Cis women are on this side of transitioning, they haven't crossed the mountain of transition.
They have not yet crossed the Rubicon.

So in the logic of those who have crossed the Rubicon, those who are happy to be a standard natal untransitioned adult female, possible pleased to be called mother by various naturally conceived, gestated and produced offspring (with all the physical risks, career complications and financial ruination involved in motherhood) are just wimps.

Elegran - I do believe you have it.

Yup!
No courage, not winners!

We should be kept in our place.

Basically it’s all bo***cks, if you are in possession of them you are male. Wearing a dress and going by a female name, is just playing pretend.

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Callistemon21

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Agree

GrannyGravy13

Basically it’s all bo***cks, if you are in possession of them you are male. Wearing a dress and going by a female name, is just playing pretend.

I agree. This child is four, he is too young to make these desitions.
The parents need to parent and tell the child they will discuss when older. The School needs to say they will take the pupil on the sex assigned at birth, and the name given at birth.

I know the child is 7 now, but 4 when entering the School.

Callistemon21

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Agreed. I see him as a victim in all this. Even if he thought he was a girl he can’t possibly have understood the politics of it all.

Callistemon21

This little boy needs some sensitive care; he is obviously becoming very confused about who he is.

Agreed, and depending on how much detail the early years teachers have gone into in their teaching, he would be even more confused.

Elegran

So in the logic of those who have crossed the Rubicon, those who are happy to be a standard natal untransitioned adult female, possible pleased to be called mother by various naturally conceived, gestated and produced offspring (with all the physical risks, career complications and financial ruination involved in motherhood) are just wimps.

I should have added the words "some of them" to my post. The transwomen I have met at first hand were/are quietly brave. It is only an over-zealous few who have such a hatred of natal women that they attack them verbally like that. Most just want to "pass" and get on with their lives.

They would probably be as obnoxious as men as they are as women - there are plenty of examples of natal (cis?) men whose basic attitude is that women are their natural enemies.