76 trans children at one school

[Caracus2k]

why would anyone not be feminist?

Because feminism, in the way often practised these days, is a female supremacy movement underlaid by Marxist ideals of 'equality' .

Having largely achieved its initial, rather more laudable, ideals of securing equity for women in areas like employment and legal rights in the west it has been corrupted by Marxist ideology into believing that disparities in outcomes between different groups in society are the result solely or primarily of socially constructed instruments of oppression rather than the often more correct reason being that different groups of people, on average, are not the same and don't make the same life choices when left to make their own decisions.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

This is off-topic, but the reason is because that last one is no longer true. I finally gave up describing myself as a feminist about three years ago when I had to concede we original feminists had lost control of the term and movement. If someone asks me if I'm a feminist today, I'll reply: "yes, if you mean in the old school Equal Opportunity sense, I'm as feminist as they get. But otherwise, no." Modern feminism isn't about women, it's about power. And I'm quoting Stella Creasey, MP and noted British feminist in that. Hell, the Women's Marches in the USA were organized in cooperation with the Nation of Islam - which teaches women should all be home cooking, cleaning and being pregnant. Again, don't be misled by what an organization calls itself. You still get old school feminists like myself. But other than some of the Rad Fems, we've largely stopped describing ourselves as that. Most Conservative and Right Wing people today believe in Equal Opportunity. If that's the criteria then they're all feminists, by your definition!

That bit is a new year joke right??

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Because feminism, in the way often practised these days, is a female supremacy movement underlaid by Marxist ideals of 'equality' .

Having largely achieved its initial, rather more laudable, ideals of securing equity for women in areas like employment and legal rights in the west it has been corrupted by Marxist ideology into believing that disparities in outcomes between different groups in society are the result solely or primarily of socially constructed instruments of oppression rather than the often more correct reason being that different groups of people, on average, are not the same and don't make the same life choices when left to make their own decisions.

You think they've achieved equality? Just a change in the law does not bring equality. If that was the case racism would have been eradicated decades ago but it's still there today, not even hiding just under the surface anymore.

 

[h4rm0ny]

That bit is a new year joke right??

No. Why would it be?

EDIT: I'm happy to debate this but can we move it to a new thread if so? This one has remained on topic (and it's an important topic) for 22 pages. Would be a shame to derail it on a popularly contentious issue.

EDIT EDIT: I've replied here in this new thread instead. I hope you don't mind - but this topic will completely derail otherwise.

 

[Caracus2k]

You think they've achieved equality? Just a change in the law does not bring equality. If that was the case racism would have been eradicated decades ago but it's still there today, not even hiding just under the surface anymore.

But sections of modern day feminism are still seeking changes to the law.... . So your post is irrelevant without further examination required.

For example see labour MP Dawn Butler .. .

And to ensure women are not held back, we will take action where this government has failed to do so and tackle the gender pay gap here in the UK. Under Labour’s new plans, we will require all large private and public companies, with over 250 employees, to prove their gender equality practices or face further auditing and fines.

Employers that meet the criteria will obtain government certification and will be considered for government procurement contracts.

This has little to do with ensuring women are not uneccesarily prevented from working at certain levels and in certain fields because the gender pay gap cannot solely or to any significant degree be attributed to sexism but down to rather more mundane factors like men, on average, working longer hours, doing more overtime, being willing to move and travel more for work, being less risk adverse then women (this is far from an exhaustive list). So Dawn Butler threatening to fine and refuse contracts to companies that don't 'tackle' there supposed 'gender pay gaps' is to institute a system where women, regadless of their individual circumstances, would receive an actual systemic benefit from companies artificially seeking to achieve gender parity in average pay.

Women, when viewed as a whole via the use of averages, will never achieve 'equality' with men (especially that of equality of outcome) because women and men are, on average, not the same....

There are differences not only in the averages and distributions of physical strength but also with regards to mental abilities and psychological factors.

You can't expect to achiece some form of cosmic justice via the selective use of either crippling or hindering some people or by providing advantages to others to seek some form of universal level playground where no one has an advantage over another because they are better suited physically, mentally or psychologically to the task at hand without inflicting terrible suffering on society.

The reasons are first that it's is more likely that you have to cripple the best rather than being able to elevate the worst in a field to seek to achieve equality of outcome. This is a terrible tradegy for all as the brightest, hardest working and highest achieving individuals in society provide benefits that all enjoy.

And secondly its not practical to make a matrix complicated enough to account for all the factors that might hinder or assist a person, whilst being out of their control, to seek to establish some sort of global levelling of opportunity.

Finay this segues back into the discussion about trans rights. As men and women are on average differnt and have different needs it is appropriate, in some circumstances, to offer differnt and or segregated services based on their sex.

If you allow trans identifying individuals to override this via self identification you undermine the equitable provision of opportunity and services.

 

[jpod]

I think that children who are before the age of reason wanting to change gender is a significant challenge for the medical profession. I hope they get the very best evidence based advice and management medicine has to offer.

There are 11,700,000 children below the age of 18 years in the UK. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/british-population/demographics/age-groups/latest. England and Wales.

NHS says there were 2,356 referrals in relation to gender issues for the under 18s in 2017-2018.

Females are more likely affected 2:1; autism does feature.

2,356/11,700,000 x 100 = 0.02%

Whilst the numbers are increasing it is true to state that this is not a significant problem affecting most children in England and Wales.

In contrast there were 650,000 referrals of children to social services in 2017 just in England (not Wales). Essentially, children in need.

Whilst the transgender issue is much discussed hot topic it is important to keep it in perspective with all the other issues, such as the causes of death to under 18's e.g. leukaemia, brain cancer, infectious diseases; or the non-mortal issues such as child neglect/abuse which are obviously much more significant in magnitude and it is self-evident that their occurrence is deleterious to the quality of life of the child.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Whilst the transgender issue is much discussed hot topic it is important to keep it in perspective with all the other issues, such as the causes of death to under 18's e.g. leukaemia, brain cancer, infectious diseases; or the non-mortal issues such as child neglect/abuse which are obviously much more significant in magnitude and it is self-evident that their occurrence is deleterious to the quality of life of the child.

A difference between the current trans movement and all those things you just listed, is that we're not actively paying to cause and promote those other things. The argument of "X is less important than Y so focus on Y", is usually applied as a principle to best direct scare resources. It doesn't really make much sense when X results FROM you focusing on it. Money spent on expensive puberty blocking drugs and unnecessary surgery could be directed towards healthcare needed elsewhere - such as your leukemia and brain cancer. Hundreds of thousands of pounds given to Mermaids to promote their agenda could be put towards other charities - such as helping abused and neglected children in your examples. If you're arguing that these things are more important than the current trans issues, then you're in fact (I would presume) arguing in favour of reigning in some of this TRA agenda by inference.

But really this is somewhat humouring your argument. People are capable of being aware of more than one thing at once. I don't believe this thread or other efforts to raise the alarm take away from, e.g. brain cancer. And we can care about both. In fact, children with gender dysphoria need support and we can give it to them. But currently we are do the opposite of helping them.

(And just on the numbers side, your numbers are off. Firstly, you're comparing referrals to the population as a whole. Referrals are majority children so we should compare to the appropriate demographic. Secondly, it's rising at a very high rate. The number in 2017 more than doubled since 2016 alone. And girls are referred to at 3x or more higher. Finally, the number referred for GID is only a portion of the overall number identified as trans.)

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I think that children who are before the age of reason wanting to change gender is a significant challenge for the medical profession. I hope they get the very best evidence based advice and management medicine has to offer.

There are 11,700,000 children below the age of 18 years in the UK. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/british-population/demographics/age-groups/latest. England and Wales.

NHS says there were 2,356 referrals in relation to gender issues for the under 18s in 2017-2018.

Females are more likely affected 2:1; autism does feature.

2,356/11,700,000 x 100 = 0.02%

Whilst the numbers are increasing it is true to state that this is not a significant problem affecting most children in England and Wales.

In contrast there were 650,000 referrals of children to social services in 2017 just in England (not Wales). Essentially, children in need.

Whilst the transgender issue is much discussed hot topic it is important to keep it in perspective with all the other issues, such as the causes of death to under 18's e.g. leukaemia, brain cancer, infectious diseases; or the non-mortal issues such as child neglect/abuse which are obviously much more significant in magnitude and it is self-evident that their occurrence is deleterious to the quality of life of the child.

Thank you for a post showing some perspective. There are 10s of thousands of children living in poverty in this country, many thousands being abused both psychologically and physically in their own homes. TBH trans just doesn't feature on my worry list.

 

[jpod]

A difference between the current trans movement and all those things you just listed, is that we're not actively paying to cause and promote those ................... only a portion of the overall number identified as trans.)

I do not care what responsible adults do. I believe adults are free to do what they want as long as it does not harm anyone or as long as it is not imposed on the general population.

I do care what is done to children before the age or reason and it is imperative they access evidence based medical care.

I have no opinion on a trans-movement.

I can only apologise if you do not agree with my maths but wonder why you did not post your own calculation.

I believe my figures were reasonable and if anything overstated the prevalence of gender referrals.

My understanding of the NHS published figures, I provide the source above, is that over 12 months, children between 0 and 17 (therefore before the age of majority using your term), a very small number of children, mainly female children were referred in relation to gender issues.

Less than 0.002% of the 0 to 17 age groups.

In contrast child abuse and childhood illnesses are significantly more prevalent problems here in the UK.

I believe it is ethical to be concerned about all issues that impact negatively on children everywhere.

I do not believe it is ethical to single out and focus just on one very small issue. It would not be ethical to mislead in regard to the prevalence of trans gender issues in UK children.

As a scientist I assume it must be very difficult to become expert at managing child gender issues and their families, a dynamic, and can only assume that the evidence base is building if the numbers are so low and spread out geographically.

 

[jpod]

Thank you for a post showing some perspective. There are 10s of thousands of children living in poverty in this country, many thousands being abused both psychologically and physically in their own homes. TBH trans just doesn't feature on my worry list.

I am glad you found it interesting. We are being told by the media that this is important. The figures are interesting and demonstrate it is a minor issue.

The NHS gender stats were here http://gids.nhs.uk/

Ultimately, the medical profession have the unenviable job on navigating all these issues. A difficult job.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Thank you for a post showing some perspective. There are 10s of thousands of children living in poverty in this country, many thousands being abused both psychologically and physically in their own homes. TBH trans just doesn't feature on my worry list.

Might if it were your child rendered infertile for life due to hormone treatments or your daughter forced to shower with boys because those boys decided they were girls and guidance issued to schools said to do this. You might not care and nobody is forcing you to. But why do you object to the rest of us caring and argue against doing so? Seems a very negative attitude to me.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I do not care what responsible adults do. I believe adults are free to do what they want as long as it does not harm anyone or as long as it is not imposed on the general population.

I do care what is done to children before the age or reason and it is imperative they access evidence based medical care.

I have no opinion on a trans-movement.

I can only apologise if you do not agree with my maths but wonder why you did not post your own calculation.

I believe my figures were reasonable and if anything overstated the prevalence of gender referrals.

My understanding of the NHS published figures, I provide the source above, is that over 12 months, children between 0 and 17 (therefore before the age of majority using your term), a very small number of children, mainly female children were referred in relation to gender issues.

Less than 0.002% of the 0 to 17 age groups.

In contrast child abuse and childhood illnesses are significantly more prevalent problems here in the UK.

I believe it is ethical to be concerned about all issues that impact negatively on children everywhere.

I do not believe it is ethical to single out and focus just on one very small issue. It would not be ethical to mislead in regard to the prevalence of trans gender issues in UK children.

As a scientist I assume it must be very difficult to become expert at managing child gender issues and their families, a dynamic, and can only assume that the evidence base is building if the numbers are so low and spread out geographically.

Except as pointed out already, if your aim is to say other causes of harm should be prioritised over the harm caused by trans activism in schools, then you're in opposition to that trans activism because it soaks up resource that could be directed towards those things you think are more worthy. Current trans activism is HARMING children and we are funding it. Your argument of "ignore this so we can direct our resources elsewhere" is self-contradicting. Opposing charities like Mermaids that soak up funding in order to promote gender non-conformity and medical interference in children frees up that funding for elsewhere. You seem to be focused heavily on the Tavistock clinic which is evidence you've not read or understood most of what has been said here. Because the Tavistock clinic actually provides support and care for children with Gender Disphoria. They have some skilled and dedicated people there. This thread hasn't really been about those people at all, if you'd read it. It's been about those promoting the trans ideology and the harm it does. You've come in part way through a conversation and started off on what you think it's about but you're actually mostly talking about something else.

As to your "scientific" view on prioritisation, it's pretty low-level thinking. You've looked at the number of referrals to Tavistock for one thing and then declared this number lower than something else and therefore argued against funding it. Do you have the remotest idea about how much meeting a child and talking through their problems for an hour twice a month for three months costs compared to say, providing end to end leukaemia treatment or taking a neglected child into care or the other things on your list? No - you don't. So you can't have any meaningful conception on whether providing a little support for a gender dysphoric child who's at serious risk compares favourably or unfavourably to these others that you "scientifically" say is more important. Your entire argument is bogus and horribly superficial. And frankly, if you can read about what is being done to children right now and not be angry about it and want to stop it, there's something wrong. Don't you think? You have read this thread, right? You haven't just hopped on, on page 23 and assumed you know what we're talking about, I hope...? Because it's not about the cost of NHS referrals. You are, I think, the first person who's even brought that up. We weren't talking about Tavistock. We were talking about the harm done by groups like Mermaids and the current trans activist movement.

 

[Angilion]

The funny thing is how many of those ideologies are supposedly kicking back against prejudice and not seeing someone as an individual, etc. while inflicting the same prejudices on anyone that doesn't support their cause usually with any irony lost on them.

I think it's inherent. For any biological group advocacy ideology two basic ideas are required.

Firstly a belief in group identity, i.e. that a specfic version of a specific biological trait (real or imagined - that doesn't matter) is the most important thing about a person if not the only important thing about them, that it is the single thing that wholly defines them. It's obviously impossible to advocate everything for one biological group only without believing in group identity and believing that it is defined by that particular biological trait. Being an X-ist requires believing that humanity consists of only two entities - X and not X - with potentially some wiggle room for subdivisions within those two entities (e.g. a whitist might believe that Africans are more inferior than Asians or vice versa). The traditional way of phrasing this requirement for biological group advocacy was "they're all the same", but that has become unfashionable. The way of thinking hasn't changed, just the wording.

Secondly, a belief that the favoured group identity deserves special consideration and preferential treatment and the unfavoured group(s) deserves at best no consideration and more usually blame. There are two basic ways to pretend this belief is rational - either assert that the unfavoured group identity deserves inferior treatment because it's inherently inferior or assert that the unfavoured group deserved inferior treatment because it's the privileged oppressor. Usually both are used.

Given those two things, it's inevitable that any biological group advocacy ideology that pretends to oppose any irrational prejudice will be inflicting the same irrational prejudices they're pretending to oppose. Imposing irrational prejudices is the point - pretending to be opposed to them is just a useful lie. Although people who are devout in their support of irrational prejudice are always in favour of it against their chosen target group and opposed to it against their chosen favoured group.

Blaming the victim has always long been a tool used by unpleasant people seeking power. It's like some thug going up to a victim and saying "Are you looking at me?" or "Did you spill my pint?". Feminism et alia uses more elaborate language, but the principle is the same - blaming the victim. Or ancient Rome...as far as I know, they always portrayed the wars they fought as defensive action after being attacked regardless of what really happened.

 

[Angilion]

Really? Yeah this is off topic but you have a strong distaste for feminism? I consider my myself a feminist, why would anyone not be feminist? [..]

For the same reasons why many people are not, for example, whitists or tallists or brownhairists or shoesize7ists - because most people aren't so extremely irrationally prejudiced that that they choose the irrational prejudice they like as the way they identify themself. Thank goodness.

I have these weird old-fashioned fringe ideas that don't even have a name any more because the regressive left has usurped the words, changed the meaning of them into the opposite and thus made it difficult to communicate the ideas. Doubleplusgood blackwhite newspeak, Citizen!

Weird ideas that used to be called "equality", "tolerance", "diversity", "liberalism"....back when those things didn't mean "fashionable prejudice and discrimination", "vehement intolerance of anything other than total obedience in deed, word, thought and feeling", "enforced conformity in all things and a belief in group identity, i.e. a belief that everyone in the group is the same...and, of course, exclusion of anyone in the target group identity" and "authoritarianism".

Weird ideas such as "person". A concept you have either utterly rejected or made yourself incapable of understanding because you have replaced it with biological group identity. I reject the idea of biological group identity, the idea that "they're all the same". I think that each person is a person...hell, I can't think of a way to explain the concept to you.

You might at some point have read a specific implementation of the idea expressed particularly well by Martin Luther King - "...judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character". Well, I agree with him and I extend the same idea to oppose other forms of irrational prejudice, such as sexism. And that's why I am opposed to feminism.

I am in favour of sexual equality, therefore I am opposed to feminism (and masculism, which is the same thing - advocacy for one sex).
I am in favour of "racial" equality (speech marks intended - I don't believe in "race", it's not a real thing), therefore I am opposed to whitism and blackism and any other <insert "race" here>ism.
I am in favour of sexual orientation equality, therefore I am opposed to heterosexualism, homosexualism, bisexualism, etc.

My position is very simple and very consistent - I dislike irrational prejudice and discrimination and I don't care how fashionable any particular strain of it is in any particular time and place.

EDIT: I've noticed that you both quoted and highlighted the reason in my post that you replied to. Why ask me that question when you had already read the answer, quoted it and highlighted it? I described feminism as

"an odious ideology of irrational prejudice and malice that has destroyed any chance of sexual equality in the foreseeable future."

Surely that made it obvious why I have a strong distaste for it?

 

[jpod]

Except as pointed out already,......................weren't talking about Tavistock. We were talking about the harm done by groups like Mermaids and the current trans activist movement.

My first post stands alone and is not a response to your content.

The second is in response to your post and re-states my position: NHS statistics demonstrate that gender issues facing under 17 years is thankfully very small.

It is difficult to attend to forum buddies who jump to conclusions and infers a broad range of 'here is what I think you are saying/believe'.

However, if adults are influencing children below the age of reason to pursue a course of action which is not in the child's best interest; or is self-serving to the adult's beliefs then that would be child abuse and who is not passionate about protecting those children.

 

[Angilion]

This is off-topic, but the reason is because that last one is no longer true. I finally gave up describing myself as a feminist about three years ago when I had to concede we original feminists had lost control of the term and movement. If someone asks me if I'm a feminist today, I'll reply: "yes, if you mean in the old school Equal Opportunity sense, I'm as feminist as they get. But otherwise, no." Modern feminism isn't about women, it's about power. And I'm quoting Stella Creasey, MP and noted British feminist in that. Hell, the Women's Marches in the USA were organized in cooperation with the Nation of Islam - which teaches women should all be home cooking, cleaning and being pregnant. Again, don't be misled by what an organization calls itself. You still get old school feminists like myself. But other than some of the Rad Fems, we've largely stopped describing ourselves as that. Most Conservative and Right Wing people today believe in Equal Opportunity. If that's the criteria then they're all feminists, by your definition!

You are Winifred Holtby and I claim my £5!

In the mid 1920s, Winifred Holtby wrote about the same thing, the belief that there was an original feminism that was about equality and which was being or had been overwhelmed by a new feminism that wasn't about equality. She wasn't the first to do so, of course, and you won't be the last and there have been many more in between.

You're all wrong, of course - there never was, is not and never will be a feminism that's about equality. It's a ludicrous contradiction in terms. How on earth could defining people by their sex, judging people by sexist stereotyping and advocating everything for one sex only be about sexual equality? That makes no sense at all.

Those "many more in between" Winifred Holtby and you includes me. I fell for that ludicrous lie too. You still believe it, despite acknowledging what's really going on. You still have your rosy spectacles on to look at the past and of course after all this time you're hardly going to want to face the fact that you've been fighting on the wrong side. It was much easier for me - I was only a feminist for about 5 years and I wasn't very active about it.

I'm reminded of the Mitchell and Webb sketch - "Are we the baddies"?

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's just a request and it may be in vain, but can we shift any Feminism discussion to the Feminism thread?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/feminisim-spin-off.18841853/

I have no authority here and don't pretend to. I can just see the discussion here killing off the original topic of this thread if we don't.

 

[Angilion]

It's just a request and it may be in vain, but can we shift any Feminism discussion to the Feminism thread?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/feminisim-spin-off.18841853/

I have no authority here and don't pretend to. I can just see the discussion here killing off the original topic of this thread if we don't.

A fair point. I'll do a cut and paste job on my recent posts in this thread to move them to the feminism spin-off thread. Or would it be better to have a mod move them? What are the rules here for moving posts from one thread to another?

 

[rIcK]

I am a bloke, I have male parts. Because of my physical bits why should society treat anyone different? More specifically why does anyone need to 'act' in a way those physical bits say you apparently have to act?

Why do all the forms need to know if I'm male or female, why do I have to put Mr or Miss when I sign up to everything? Its completely irrelevant and the sooner we put less emphasis on how we are expected to be just because I or anyone's born genitalia the better.

What harm are these kids causing anyone?

 

[Angilion]

I am a bloke, I have male parts. Because of my physical bits why should society treat anyone different? More specifically why does anyone need to 'act' in a way those physical bits say you apparently have to act?

Why do all the forms need to know if I'm male or female, why do I have to put Mr or Miss when I sign up to everything? Its completely irrelevant and the sooner we put less emphasis on how we are expected to be just because I or anyone's born genitalia the better.

What harm are these kids causing anyone?

The point is more about the harm caused to the kids than the harm caused by the kids.

They're being used for exactly the opposite of what you're proposing. The whole point of TRA is extreme sexist stereotyping and the greatest possible importance attached to a person's sex.