Boy removed from school in transgender rights row

balky12 said:
Better put than I did earlier in the thread.

Why are people so quick now to assign kids/children as transgender when they don't 'conform' to gender norms?

On the one hand they argue that there is no real difference between the sexes, that gender is a social construct, no line in the sand when it comes to differences in gender, that gender specific items should no longer exist.

But as soon as a child does something that is against the grain it's OMGTRANSGENDERCHILD!

Why can't it be a child who is just playing?

If you have to assign a gender to the child why can't it just be a boy who likes playing with dolls, or a girl who likes action man? Both of which are fine.

Why do they have to be suddenly 'born in the wrong body'.

Oh I know. Fashionable.
Click to expand...

I think it's more deliberate than fashion. Or, perhaps more accurately a side-effect of something more deliberate.

There has been and continues to be a devout movement for group identity politics, especially biological group identity politics. Feminism is the core of that and the most successful strain of biological group politics, but it's not the only one and allies with others. Biological group advocacy obviously requires belief in biological group identity, so the inevitable result of any success in biological group advocacy is an increase in biological group identity.

Part of belief in biological group identity is assigning traits in behaviour, speech and actions to the group identity. When the group identity is sex, this strengthens sexed stereotypes and thus strengthens the idea that gender and sex are synonymous. It's not enough for something to be seen as feminine - it must be seen as female. It's not enough for something to be seen as masculine - it must be seen as male. We're already at the stage where a non-trivial amount of people believe that sex and gender are the same thing and this message has been deliberately and strongly promoted.

So whereas you and I and some other people see a male/female person (sex) doing something feminine/masculine (gender), believers in biological group identity see a male/female person doing something female/male and many think that means the person is really the other sex. They're so devout in their belief in sexed stereotypes that they really believe that a person doing something feminine must be female and a person doing something masculine must be male. They have no tolerance for non-comformity, which is par for the course for believers in biological group identity.
 
h4rm0ny said:
No. The Civil Rights Movement is, without qualification, best represented by Martin Luther King. Unequivocally he spoke for it more than any other and his views were representative of what was being campaigned for by Civil Rights activists. And he was explicitly for equality and for colour-blindness. His goal was that race should not matter and that people be treated as individuals. All his legal goals were on this principle. Identity Politics sets race (and other attributes) ahead of individual qualities. In many ways, it's the exact antithesis of the Civil Rights Movement. So MLK wanted race to not be a factor in whether someone was admitted to college for example. Whereas modern Identity Politics wants quotas and people to be preferentially admitted based on race. E.g. weighting SAT scores by race.

They are qualitatively different.
Click to expand...

I would go as far as saying that they are mutually exclusive and in key ways opposed to each other.

The most famous succinct summary of the guts of MLK's position was his statement that people should be "judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". That is exactly the opposite of racial group identity politics.

It's a shame there isn't someone with the same views, charisma and oratorial skills alive today.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Some people have rather overcomplicated it.
Click to expand...
like those damn Heliocentrists before them, annoying science and it's obsession with reality, people complaining about this seem to have either not read that nature article or any source of evidence and are denying reality for what they 'believe' is proper!
 
FoxEye said:
Come on, you know what I mean. They have clearly defined male and female parts. Show me the 3rd option that isn't a damaged/mutated/incorrectly developed organ(ism).

Show me this "valid" 3rd sex that is fine as it is.

Show me the person who isn't a man/woman, who we would be happy for our children to end up like. Would you want a child of yours to be intersex if you had a choice? You might still love them, but it isn't what you'd want.

Because deep down we know that if everything develops as it should do, you end up being a man or a woman. Those are the best outcomes. Anything else is a **** up, honestly. In the cold, cold light of day.
Click to expand...

Science suggests that the notion of binary sex is simplistic, in fact the nature article headline is "The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that."

Years of research and understanding are outlined and the case is presented without bias in my opinion.

Crazy guy shouts, 3rd sex is impossible nonsense, would you want it for your child, this isn't how it should be...

Pretty sure the whole Galileo thing went exactly this way.
The world isn't flat, the earth goes around the sun, our understanding of sex isn't showing a simple binary situation.

At this point in time, ignorance is rife amongst some, I find that to be out of choice and not lack of access to information.

For my part, I hope my kid grows to be a happy 70year old, preferably with children of their own, if that's like the old dude with the womb, so be it. edit: a friends child had much to deal with from birth (medical but unrelated) great kid and family, clearly humans deal with the cards we are played!

opinion based on the evidence thus far:
if older people could chill out around 6 year old's, that will probably make this a lot more likely, instead of starting media campaigns about them being 'transgender' because they are in a skirt.
 
Last edited:
It's funny you keep referring to him as "man with womb".

If you're going to push for more than two sexes then he isn't a man, but something else. The very words "man with womb" suggests a starting point of "man" and a deviation. A deviation which does not help him at all perform his reproductive role. A deviation like being born with 12 fingers or a missing limb. A deformity.

Instead of a man, maybe call him a stewskian or something :p

"Man with extra x" or "man with missing y" doesn't really advance the idea that there is a valid 3rd, 4th, 5th option. Like I said, it's just male or female with a deviation. A deviation most of us wouldn't want, because it's effectively a disorder.

You can put a hat on a donkey but it's still a donkey, not some newly classified creature that isn't a donkey :p You can give a man a womb or a woman testes, but it doesn't make them a new sex. Just a deformed man/woman.

We could dance this dance forever, stewski :p
 
I blame the rise of psychiatry for the prominence of all these theoretical issues such as 'transgender'.
Psychiatrists and psychologists spout, what at it's best is 'guesswork' and at worst a cynical attempt to prove their own professsions worth as an adjunct of science. Truth is that no-one understands the human mind and most likely never will. Mental illness is big business though so expect more of these imaginary 'illnesses' to appear in the future.
 
FoxEye said:
It's funny you keep referring to him as "man with womb".

If you're going to push for more than two sexes then he isn't a man, but something else. The very words "man with womb" suggests a starting point of "man" and a deviation. A deviation which does not help him at all perform his reproductive role. A deviation like being born with 12 fingers or a missing limb. A deformity.

Instead of a man, maybe call him a stewskian or something :p

"Man with extra x" or "man with missing y" doesn't really advance the idea that there is a valid 3rd, 4th, 5th option. Like I said, it's just male or female with a deviation. A deviation most of us wouldn't want, because it's effectively a disorder.

You can put a hat on a donkey but it's still a donkey, not some newly classified creature that isn't a donkey :p You can give a man a womb or a woman testes, but it doesn't make them a new sex. Just a deformed man/woman.

We could dance this dance forever, stewski :p
Click to expand...
It's no dance, it's reason and evidence and a moron!
 
tinder said:
I blame the rise of psychiatry for the prominence of all these theoretical issues such as 'transgender'.
Psychiatrists and psychologists spout, what at it's best is 'guesswork' and at worst a cynical attempt to prove their own professsions worth as an adjunct of science. Truth is that no-one understands the human mind and most likely never will. Mental illness is big business though so expect more of these imaginary 'illnesses' to appear in the future.
Click to expand...
Did a psychiatrist call a press conference to label this 6 year old transgender?
 
jpaul said:
Interesting Radio 4 programme about interpretation of scientific research results , which discusses previous cause célèbres
MMR jabs, Global warming, cigarettes, Mad cow disease, (also the real role of the original UK nuclear reactors)
and how the public/us do not sufficiently consider and contest the conclusions being drawn from research.
Click to expand...
Yeah the public do a great job critically evaluating science, as this thread shows! Fox can't even comprehend that dude/man relates to gender. Public views about the Sun orbiting the earth, thankfully changed to fall in line with reality, eventually!
 
Narj said:
I must admit though, whenever gender is mentioned, I'm now confused as to which of the 179 different types I'm meant to address someone as. :)

A lot of this recent BS has clouded the real issues. I can completely sympathise with gender dysphoria as I have first hand experience with TG people. I absolutely detest some of the nonsense I see you Youtube these days, though. "I want to be special so I want my own unique label". It's very irritating and isn't helpful in the least when it comes to building bridges with the less tolerant.
Click to expand...

There's a simple solution to that (and this goes for many topics), don't watch ***** on YouTube. :p

If someone's vlogging don't watch it. Plenty of good stuff on YouTube to watch instead. Just ignore the stuff by people just looking for attention and making controversial claims to get views.
 
pfft. back when I was in infant school all those hundreds of years ago nobody raised an eyebrow when I or other kids would one day wear a dress, and on the next day go out falling out of trees. It's just normal exploration.

Let the kid express themselves naturally, don't force them into one thing or another and if the time comes that they pick to be a woman, man or something in between, then be supportive IMO.
 
I was listening to some woman (who was originally a man) from some UK pro trans-gender group in the week on the radio. She said she would be utterly relaxed for a 3 yr old to undergo surgery to change sex. She claimed her son who is now a girl (what a shock) told her at 18 months he wanted to be a girl and now at 6 is living life as a girl. She also said she was looking in to going to the Ukraine where her child can get surgery.
I tell you with people like her around what you imagine to be absolutely a non-starter nowadays is going to be common place in a short matter of time.
 
John40 said:
She also said she was looking in to going to the Ukraine where her child can get surgery.
Click to expand...
interesting, I guess there is no legislation yet to prevent this, ironic that it sounds just like the FGM situation in reverse, primitive 3rd world traditions and modern 'science',
how will history later view this.
 
John40 said:
I was listening to some woman (who was originally a man) from some UK pro trans-gender group in the week on the radio. She said she would be utterly relaxed for a 3 yr old to undergo surgery to change sex. She claimed her son who is now a girl (what a shock) told her at 18 months he wanted to be a girl and now at 6 is living life as a girl. She also said she was looking in to going to the Ukraine where her child can get surgery.
I tell you with people like her around what you imagine to be absolutely a non-starter nowadays is going to be common place in a short matter of time.
Click to expand...
I hope they were reported to the police for child abuse. The kid needs to get taken away from its idiotic parent asap
 
robj20 said:
You're either a man or a woman. That's it, and it isn't a decision.
Click to expand...

Can you provide supporting evidence and reasoning for that position?

I've looked at evidence and thought about the subject and I can't come up with a rational and accurate definition of sex. An approximation, yes, but not a comprehensive definition.

The only way to make it unchangeable (with current technology) is to define it by genes, but that's neither rational nor accurate. In any case, that will become changeable at some point. We're already at the stage where genes can be edited with a high degree of reliability. Not enough to change a type X chromosome to a type Y or vice versa, but there's no reason to think that will remain the case. Also, it's not about the whole chromosome. It's mainly about only one gene - SRY. The idea that the genes connected with sex are inherently unchangeable doesn't hold up and the idea that genetics = sex doesn't hold up either. Even without human intervention, that's not a 1:1 mapping.

So biology and particularly physiology makes more sense as a definition, but the devil is in the details.

What exactly should be used as the definition? Primary sexual organs would be the obvious choice, but would we be willing to formally classify someone who'd had theirs removed as being neuter? It happens, most often as a treatment for cancer. "Hello, you've just had your ovaries/testicles removed to stop you dying of cancer. You are now neuter and must have all documentation changed to reflect that. You're not allowed to call yourself a man or a woman - it isn't a decision you are allowed to make". Not an appealing prospect, but it would be required if sex is defined by primary sexual organs.

How about type of genitals? That doesn't make all that much sense - the primary sexual organs are the primary sexual organs so if the definition is to be based on sexual organs it should be based on those. But if we go with this for some reason then clearly it is a choice since they can be changed with current technology.

Sexual characteristics in general? Still biology/physiology but a lot harder to define since they are a spectrum and vary between individuals. For example, I have a lot of body hair. Does that make me more of a man? On the other hand, my face is gracile enough for it to have not been all that unusual for me to be mistaken for a woman when I had longer hair and I'd had a close shave. Does that make me less of a man? Where's the line with this definition? Also, these things can be changed with hormones and cosmetic surgery.

It's really not as clear-cut as it might initially seem to be.

I'd go with the "it's a duck" approach as being close enough for practical use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom