Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

My Mum was most bemused and kept laughing at me suep1953!

Callistemon21

^When I was at school I was very thin with long hair - if I didn't wear a cap, I looked like a sodden floor mop with legs climbing out of the pool^

😂😂😂

Remember a series called Blake's Seven? I had my hair cut like the Supreme Commander at one time!
And wore trousers. It was after a disastrous perm I had when I was pregnant, my hair started breaking.

That's not me, btw, it's the lovely Jacqueline Pearce

I loved Servalan swanning around the galaxy in a long frock and high heels giving out her orders.
I had my hair cut like hers as well

... and yes, the son has worn a couple of the daughter's 'sarong' type skirts - over his shorts...

Callistemon21

^When I was at school I was very thin with long hair - if I didn't wear a cap, I looked like a sodden floor mop with legs climbing out of the pool^

😂😂😂

Remember a series called Blake's Seven? I had my hair cut like the Supreme Commander at one time!
And wore trousers. It was after a disastrous perm I had when I was pregnant, my hair started breaking.

That's not me, btw, it's the lovely Jacqueline Pearce

Oh, I thought that might have been a younger you (I didn't watch Blake's Seven)! - I was about to say, what a stunner!

Jacqueline Pearce is lovely, it's a super cut, I think it's what we used to call the androgynous look - which really, is nothing new.

Young men and women have been dressing similarly for simply ages now. I have a friend whose son and daughter swap each other's clothing between them - resulting in her never knowing in whose bedroom to stow the clean laundry...

I find it disconcerting when some people in life are unable to make the distinction in conversation, between the talk about one section of a group, and another.

They accuse others of putting everyone of that section in one group, when it is actually themselves quite often.

If there is a problem with one section of one group, in reality, it ought to be easy to talk about that one section. But it isnt.

She was stunning.
I had a crush on her and Avon in Blake's Seven.

Ooh Blake's Seven. I remember Servalen!

When I was at school I was very thin with long hair - if I didn't wear a cap, I looked like a sodden floor mop with legs climbing out of the pool

😂😂😂

Remember a series called Blake's Seven? I had my hair cut like the Supreme Commander at one time!
And wore trousers. It was after a disastrous perm I had when I was pregnant, my hair started breaking.

That's not me, btw, it's the lovely Jacqueline Pearce

...^and their classmates ― especially the girls ― don’t know what to do with a long-haired person who wears boys’ clothes and doesn’t seem to have a recognizable gender^.

Long-haired 'persons' wearing boys' clothes have been a staple of Western society for decades. Young men frequently have long hair, and young girls with long hair wear jeans / shorts and t shirts, for goodness' sake.

Sometimes it helped to recognise them if they had a beard as well, as one of my boyfriends did. His hair was longer than mine 😁

Long-haired Lover from Liverpool comes to mind.
Although Jimmy Osmond was offering to identify as a leprechaun if needed.

That cannot be serious.

Doodledog

Oh, is that why shower caps were 'necessary'? Every day's a schoolday on here

I think we all seem to be agreed that the 'article' is a piece of nonsense, on a number of grounds.

Oh, is that why shower caps were 'necessary'? Every day's a schoolday on here

... it is isn't it!

I thought it was because women's long hair flopped over their face and made it difficult to see.

When I was at school I was very thin with long hair - if I didn't wear a cap, I looked like a sodden floor mop with legs climbing out of the pool.

Google 'The cheif apologises Scot squad youtube' It's hilarious 🤣

My DH had gorgeous tumbling locks down past his shoulders when I met him. Not in the least feminine. Luckily he's still got a good head of hair but it's a lot shorter these days.

To elaborate - may be interesting and clearly is to those in a similar position, but has questionable relevance to the new law in Scotland which is what this about.

Syracute

www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-child-nonbinary-pronouns_n_63ff8de4e4b0bdb99f498a2e/amp.

Worth reading !

Not really

Oh, is that why shower caps were 'necessary'? Every day's a schoolday on here

I think we all seem to be agreed that the 'article' is a piece of nonsense, on a number of grounds.

The generation you write about, Dickens, is also the generation in which many young men started wearing their hair long. Nobody, even the old fogeys of the time, thought they actually wanted to become women. In fact it was of some benefit to women, as suddenly it became unnecessary for female swimmers to wear swimming caps - apparently men’s hair doesn’t block drains and so it was impossible to say that women’s hair does. Thank you, Beatles.

A friend’s DGS had his hair waist-length for some time recently, and had certainly no wish to be anything but a long-haired boy!

Doodledog

It doesn't answer the question of why this happened, and why this sort of thing didn't happen (or happened very rarely) before about 10 years ago. The story begins when Rachel has already decided that 'they are' non-binary, not when Rachel first heard that this was an option, and we are not given any background to the family, the school, or anything that might help to make contextual sense.

The vocabulary makes it read like a propaganda piece (eg I have learned that there are some people whose minds will never be changed when it comes to their bias against transgender people, especially if this bias is ingrained in their culture, and some people who just need a little education.^) and it's clearly Canada based (Canada is ^very captured by the trans lobby).

It tells the story of what happened in one family, without any attempt to contextualise that experience. It may (or may not) be a true story, but it tells us no more about the issues than would any story about the experiences of any one child or any single family.

I don't think it adds to the discussion about whether JKR was wrong to stand by women who may be prosecuted for speaking biological truth.

It tells the story of what happened in one family, without any attempt to contextualise that experience. It may (or may not) be a true story, but it tells us no more about the issues than would any story about the experiences of any one child or any single family.

I almost gave up on the story when I read this...

...and their classmates ― especially the girls ― don’t know what to do with a long-haired person who wears boys’ clothes and doesn’t seem to have a recognizable gender.

Long-haired 'persons' wearing boys' clothes have been a staple of Western society for decades. Young men frequently have long hair, and young girls with long hair wear jeans / shorts and t shirts, for goodness' sake.

I continued to read - and then this...

The older generation is a bit confused.

Are they? Really? This is the generation that started the 70s wave of Feminism - took part in the radical thinking that culminated in huge changes in society. We campaigned and watched the de-criminalisation of homosexuality, we brought about change in the education systems that allowed children to express themselves instead of being confined by a set formula, we became 'politicised'... demonstrated and marched against injustices, and not only in our own countries...

... this is simply ageism writ large.

As for this - which apparently finally won round the husband...

...your child transgender or nonbinary (or cisgender, for that matter). If your child wants to be called a pronoun different from the one that aligns with their gender assigned at birth, you should honor that. It’s not a phase. There is no “fault.”

... "gender assigned at birth"?

The confusion between sex and gender - again. And sex is not assigned at birth, it is noted. Gender identity develops later.

The whole piece is an exercise in propaganda. If a similar piece was written in the same style as this which supported my thinking, I would shy away from recommending it.

Syracute It was not worth reading. It is an anecdotal piece of agitprop.

And, frankly, it is a well-observed characteristic of childhood that "phases" are part of it. As the child navigates its way through the adult-world - one which it does not have the intellectual capacity to fathom - it snatches those parts of it that make sense to it and adopts them to suit their needs and their wants at that time. Further, as the child develops, those feelings, needs and wants, change... that is why children go through phases.

I do not decry the real and genuine body dysmorphia suffered by a minority of young people. But it really does need to be separated from the feelings of children who simply hate the restrictions that sex stereotypes have imposed on them and which therefore dictate what they are allowed or not allowed to do, and against which they, quite naturally, rebel.

Chocolatelovinggran

As I have posted before, I had an excellent GP ( doctor, not grandparent!) for many years, who was a transwoman.
She accepted me as a nine- month pregnant woman wanting a home delivery when few others would.
She did not make any attempt to shout her cause, simply living her life, making no reference to how difficult her journey had been, undertaking, I understand, risky surgery abroad.
All of this was forty years ago.
Her lifestyle did not feature any placard waving or hatred and, consequently, encouraged acceptance and understanding.
The high profile unpleasant trans group, I would suggest, simply provokes a negative reaction. Is this what they want?

How did you know your GP was a transwoman?

My objection to transwomen attending females is when females have asked for female attention and a transwoman appears, pretending to be female.
Otherwise a transwoman is like any other male doctor-though whichever sex, a female is usually required to be in attendance as safeguarding for patient and doctor.

It just full of stereotypes, like something out of the 1950s.

Doodledog

It doesn't answer the question of why this happened, and why this sort of thing didn't happen (or happened very rarely) before about 10 years ago. The story begins when Rachel has already decided that 'they are' non-binary, not when Rachel first heard that this was an option, and we are not given any background to the family, the school, or anything that might help to make contextual sense.

The vocabulary makes it read like a propaganda piece (eg I have learned that there are some people whose minds will never be changed when it comes to their bias against transgender people, especially if this bias is ingrained in their culture, and some people who just need a little education.^) and it's clearly Canada based (Canada is ^very captured by the trans lobby).

It tells the story of what happened in one family, without any attempt to contextualise that experience. It may (or may not) be a true story, but it tells us no more about the issues than would any story about the experiences of any one child or any single family.

I don't think it adds to the discussion about whether JKR was wrong to stand by women who may be prosecuted for speaking biological truth.

It doesn’t add to the discussion about JKR, but I don’t think Syracute is interested in that.
I like Huffington Post. Haven’t read it for a while, but it has published some very interesting material on the wrongs of inflicting irrevocable changes on children and teens too young to understand what those changes mean for their future.

Not kean on her books but thoroughly support JKR. Shes very brave speaking up for women, it’s what we want. Reason has gone out if the window, it needs someone high profile to speak out for the safety of women. Years ago I went to see a friend, sadly dead now, recovering on a man’s ward after having her breast removed. She was so upset, she needed other women around her.

Dickens - spot on in describing my own figs. I’ve never been quick to anger, always curious about other points of view. None of this has changed much but my basic beliefs remain exactly that. Nothing I’ve experienced or seen changes my desire for society to be a fairer more decent place. If that’s intransigence so be it

It doesn't answer the question of why this happened, and why this sort of thing didn't happen (or happened very rarely) before about 10 years ago. The story begins when Rachel has already decided that 'they are' non-binary, not when Rachel first heard that this was an option, and we are not given any background to the family, the school, or anything that might help to make contextual sense.

The vocabulary makes it read like a propaganda piece (eg I have learned that there are some people whose minds will never be changed when it comes to their bias against transgender people, especially if this bias is ingrained in their culture, and some people who just need a little education.^) and it's clearly Canada based (Canada is ^very captured by the trans lobby).

It tells the story of what happened in one family, without any attempt to contextualise that experience. It may (or may not) be a true story, but it tells us no more about the issues than would any story about the experiences of any one child or any single family.

I don't think it adds to the discussion about whether JKR was wrong to stand by women who may be prosecuted for speaking biological truth.

www.huffpost.com/entry/transgender-child-nonbinary-pronouns_n_63ff8de4e4b0bdb99f498a2e/amp.

Worth reading !

Doodledog

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Dickens. Another way to look at it is that you are only born with so many figs, and by the time you get to a certain age you have used most of them up, and only have so many figs left to give.

I think I've spelt figs correctly there, but I may be wrong.

... beautifully expressed Doodledog !