Boy removed from school in transgender rights row

[Caracus2k]

There's nothing wrong with misgendering someone, its a simple and honest mistake. If you refuse to acknowledge someones gender and it gets to the point of facing jail time then you're probably the entitled one.

This is why people are right to resist this foolishness.....

If you are biologically a male but want to take a more typically woman's name then I have no issue with using your choosen choice of name and I generally don't see an issue with wearing whatever clothes you see fit subject to normal universal work standards.

However I draw a firm line around pro nouns and access to services and treatment where there is a legitimate difference instituted on the basis of a person's sex.

A trans woman is not a (biological) woman (and vice versa) . This is a simple observed biological and practical reality. 'Man' and 'woman' have biological underpinnings and I will not submit to cultural Marxist attempts to subvert biological reality by attempts to force me to say what I know to be untrue..... That a biological man who may still have a penis and testicles and who may have undertaken no hormone treatment is a woman because they say so (note: surgically changing your genitals and/or taking hormones doesn't change my view as to what sex you are but I do think that it's even more ridiculous to assert that a person can merely make an assertion of their sex contrary to their biology independent of any medical process or assessment).

Personally when dealing with or referring to trans individuals (I have worked with two) I simply avoid the use of pro nouns with a sex based underpinning preferring to use terms like 'their' or use of the person's first name (e.g Susan's chair rather than her chair)

I see no need to deliberately use a pro noun opposite to the one they would prefer but I'm not playing the game of using prescribed language I believe to be false and with a political agenda hiding behind it.

 

[Mason-]

The more things that become "You can't say that" the more we regress into newspeak.

 

[explicit4u]

If it's a real, pressing issue then I guess we'll have to find alternatives to many such offensive words. "Mankind" being one of them. The horror! That the collective noun for hupeople has the word "man" in it. Hopefully I get some bonus points for not using the offensive word "humans".

Those horrid males and their misogynist language.

I strongly suspect most women have no problem with words like "mankind", "postman", etc. Thus it would be a minority making a fuss, as per usual. Remember when somebody made a complaint that black bin liners were racist? That's about my assessment of how seriously some of these "issues" should be taken.

Here's a more recent example of manufacture/ laboured "offense" being taken... and then publicised and packaged for consumption.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...nal-for-not-doing-his-recycling-a3673546.html

I just think we're all giving in to collective insanity. Everything is a big deal nowadays, everybody is told to tread on eggshells, and boundaries are being constantly re-drawn.

And yeah it does affect us. We now get to spend hours doing "diversity and discrimination" training at work. Already it's the lengthiest of our induction training programmes. This is only going to get more and more ingrained into all of us, until said training course is 20 hours long. Then coupled with the fact that certain topics at work are now "off limits" and can't be discussed. Half the things said in this forum would result in a disciplinary action at work.

Here I don't mind saying something entirely honest like, "Islam in general fills me with apprehension and I am suspicious of Islam as religious and political system that doesn't fit incredibly well with certain western values." Could I say that at work? ****, no. Do I wish ill on muslims? Nope. But that absolutely could not be discussed or voiced in the workplace without being labelled as a "threat to staff morale and cohesion", and the employer would **** bricks about being seen by somebody - anybody - as having failed to take action against me.

Basically everyone is now scared of being accused, no matter how ludicrously, of some kind of prejudice or discrimination. And that's the real world. The validity of a complaint barely matters these days. If someone gets offended it can grow on Facebook into a huge mountain of bad publicity. It can and does cost people their jobs and reputations.

It's hugely unjust. But everyone is now baying for blood over every last thing they might choose to take a dislike to. Madness. All around us.

The link you posted is a pretty ridiculous example. It's one person taking offense to something that isn't even remotely offensive (if anything it's actually progressive), and his request to take the posters down was rightly rejected by the council.

No ones calling for people to tread on eggshells, but rather just be more aware of the language you use and the effect it can have on other people. If you're worried about being called a racist/bigot/xenophobe or whatever then do some research and learn what you can and can't say and why, simple.

In my opinion the current climate shows that there's a lot of minority groups who are sick of not having a voice and being mistreated in society. Social media is making it easier for them to be heard and they're using this opportunity to educate people (just like that diversity and discrimination training). Hopefully in a few years it won't be necessary and it'll simply be human decency.

Do you seriously think jail time is a proportionate response for simply refusing to acknowledge a gender label that is inconsistent with that person's actual biological sex?
It may well be an honest mistake with no recriminations now, but what about in a year, or 10 years time, when that honest mistake is no longer tolerated and deemed an immediate act of hate speech?

I simply don't believe that hypothetical will ever be the norm. Yeah you might get a few loud vocal people that try to take legal action but I don't see it becoming the norm.

No I don't think it warrants jail time but I'd happily see people who refuse to be tolerant to other peoples beliefs get fired or face disciplinary action.

However I draw a firm line around pro nouns and access to services and treatment where there is a legitimate difference instituted on the basis of a person's sex.

Personally when dealing with or referring to trans individuals (I have worked with two) I simply avoid the use of pro nouns with a sex based underpinning preferring to use terms like 'their' or use of the person's first name (e.g Susan's chair rather than her chair)

I see no need to deliberately use a pro noun opposite to the one they would prefer but I'm not playing the game of using prescribed language I believe to be false and with a political agenda hiding behind it.

So you'd happily use gender neutral pronouns but draw the line at using a pronoun the person you're referring to would feel more comfortable with?

You may think it's foolishness but you've actually gone one step further and eliminated gendered language in some of your interactions!

 

[Caracus2k]

So you'd happily use gender neutral pronouns but draw the line at using a pronoun the person you're referring to would feel more comfortable with?

You may think it's foolishness but you've actually gone one step further and eliminated gendered language in some of your interactions!

I don't care for a person's 'comfort' if it means I have to say things which:

1) I don't accept to be true

And

2) which I beleive are instigated and supported by what I consider to be insidious cultrural/political movements.

I use 'gendered' pronouns all the time but don't see the need to deliberately provoke a trans individual by using a pro noun they actively dissociate themselves from.

I won't however play along and use their preferred pronoun if it doesn't not align with their objective biological sex.

 

[Tunney]

Transgender children who are allowed to present their gender identity and change their names have good mental health outcomes, according to a study released on Friday and hailed as “crucially important”.

The study, published in the March issue of the journal Pediatrics, shows the positive impact family support can have on the lives of transgender children, a group long hidden from public view.

Researchers found normal levels of depression and only slightly elevated anxiety levels in transgender children who were supported by their families.

Source.

I don’t see this as being a political issue. You can either be nice to other people or you can be a ****.

 

[enkoda]

I simply don't believe that hypothetical will ever be the norm. Yeah you might get a few loud vocal people that try to take legal action but I don't see it becoming the norm.

No I don't think it warrants jail time but I'd happily see people who refuse to be tolerant to other peoples beliefs get fired or face disciplinary action.

There's quite often a fine line between someone appearing to be intolerant and refusing to having someone else's beliefs imposed upon them, particularly when that belief doesn't meet any rational, reasonable or justifiable criteria.
Just because someone has a belief doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to have that belief accepted or tolerated.

 

[kindai]

Just because someone has a belief doesn't automatically mean they are entitled to have that belief accepted or tolerated.

Well said!!!!

 

[FoxEye]

Esp when we not only are we supposed accept multiple non-binary genders now, but also the idea that genders are fluid, and someone can be a boy one day, a girl the next, and a dolphin in human form the week after Not that I believe such people are openly taking the mick, more that they're deeply troubled. Accepting them at face value is like accepting the word of a man who claims he's 20,000 years old, without question, and trying to bend everyone else's reality to match his world view. Instead of looking at his birth cert and realising he's 47.

 

[Caracus2k]

Source.

I don’t see this as being a political issue. You can either be nice to other people or you can be a ****.

Sorry you need to dig a bit deeper...

From your source

'Researchers assessed the mental health of 73 socially transitioned transgender children aged three to 12'

'Children in the study had slightly higher anxiety rates than the norm'

So the research was on a group of young children who would not have started or at least completed puberty.

We already know that most young children expressing gender identity issues grow up to be 'cis' adults

I'm not surprised that a bunch of young children yet to have to deal with the biological reality of puberty based on their objective sex and not a feeling or inclination (often aided and abetted by cynical adults with an agenda) were only a bit more anxious than their peers. As the article notes come adulthood mental health in trans individuals plummets and self harm/suicide soars.

You can try and rationlise this as the result of a nasty society that is being mean by refusing to accept that you can be whatever sex you desire to be on any given day or you can perhaps consider an alternative hypothesis that, especially in the case of 'm2f' trans individuals we may not be dealing with 'sexual dysphoria' so much as a sexual phillia 'autogynephilia' where the people involved are actually narcissists who become increasing aroused by the thought of themselves transitioning into an object they desire - a somewhat exaggerated caricature of a woman.

Narcissistic behaviour or course in of itself has a strong correlation with poor mental health and self harm/ suicide. It also has a strong link with individuals who want others to 'validate' there internally held views regardless of the objective truth of those views.....

 

[Tunney]

So they research was on a group of young children who would not have started or at least completed puberty.

Correct and the study intends to follow them into their teens and eventually adulthood. It’s one of the first serious studies to be conducted.

I'm not surprised that a bunch of young children yet to have to deal with the biological reality of puberty based on their objective sex and not a feeling or inclination (often aided and abetted by cynical adults with an agenda) were only a bit more anxious than their peers. As the article notes come adulthood mental health in trans individuals plummets and self harm/suicide soars.

Here’s the actual quote from the article:

Transgender adults experience rates of anxiety, depression and suicide that are dramatically higher than those among non-transgender adults. This is most likely tied to years of discrimination, internal conflict and rejection from social environments, the authors of the study said.

The scientific study’s conclusions differ from yours when it comes to why older transgendered people suffer from poor mental health. I’m inclined to accept their expert opinion.

 

[Caracus2k]

Here’s the actual quote from the article:

Transgender adults experience rates of anxiety, depression and suicide that are dramatically higher than those among non-transgender adults. This is most likely tied to years of discrimination, internal conflict and rejection from social environments, the authors of the study said.

The scientific study’s conclusions differ from yours when it comes to why older transgendered people suffer from poor mental health. I’m inclined to accept their expert opinion.

You have quoted an 'advocacy' piece of 'research' the age range quoted is an obvious cynical choice made to obtain the desired result.

'Dr Ilana Sherer, assistant medical director at the University of San Francisco’s Child and Adolescent Gender Center Clinic'

So a doctor who works in America where they have a vested, financial, interest in promoting more acceptance of 'trans' children as that will mean more patients to 'treat' and more $`s for the Dr.....

Much like your post much noise will be made of the (generally summarised) headline 'study shows trans kids are (almost) fine just as long as their families play along and people are nice to them' whilst ignoring the fact that the 'research' is based on almost exclusively children pre puberty.

'This is most likely tied to years of discrimination, internal conflict and rejection from social environments, the authors of the study said.'

1) 'Internal conflict' sound a lot like a potential result of narcissism to me....

2) we then note the convenient conflation of an internal factor with the behaviours of others 'external factors' so the article can (dishonestly) suggest that trans adults would be just fine if only everyone bought into the feelings of others and disregarded any misgivings they may have legitimate or otherwise

3) and of course 'rejection from social environments' would include cis adults declining to consider sexual relations with trans individuals based on the trans persons perception of their sex vs the objective reality.

Because it's transphobic for a lesbian woman to not want to have sex with someone who had or may still have a penis much like the same is true for a cis man who doesn't want to have sex with a similar individual...

 

[Tunney]

You have quoted an 'advocacy' piece of 'research' the age range quoted is an obvious cynical choice made to obtain the desired result.

The research paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a respected academic journal. The author has a PhD. in Social Psychology from Harvard University. I'm going to go with her conclusions until better information is available.

 

[Caracus2k]

The research paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a respected academic journal. The author has a PhD. in Social Psychology from Harvard University. I'm going to go with her conclusions until better information is available.

The peer review just helps to verify that the findings are sound within the parameters set by the study......

In don't dispute the findings......

I'm just pointing out that the selected parameters (children's age) used in the test look like a cynical choice to achieve a desired result.

A quick look at the media headlines Re the report confirms that they (the media) have done their part (as expected) in selectively headlining the 'results' of this study to push the prevailing agenda...

'
"Truly stunning" findings on transgender kids' mental health'

From CBS for example.

 

[FoxEye]

The research paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a respected academic journal. The author has a PhD. in Social Psychology from Harvard University. I'm going to go with her conclusions until better information is available.

Typically you don't draw firm conclusions from a single research paper. But instead a large body of work from multiple sources, if they reach similar conclusions.

Otherwise you'll be flip-flopping from one POV to another, as soon as a better study comes out and makes a different claim. Either that or you'll just accept whichever study supports your own world view.

Esp in today's world where research can be "sponsored" (for want of a better word) by a special interest group. And don't say that doesn't happen.

 

[RDM]

Typically you don't draw firm conclusions from a single research paper. But instead a large body of work from multiple sources, if they reach similar conclusions.

Otherwise you'll be flip-flopping from one POV to another, as soon as a better study comes out and makes a different claim. Either that or you'll just accept whichever study supports your own world view.

Esp in today's world where research can be "sponsored" (for want of a better word) by a special interest group. And don't say that doesn't happen.

Is there any research that supports your world view? Peer reviewed etc?

 

[FoxEye]

Is there any research that supports your world view? Peer reviewed etc?

I don't expect we'll have a complete understanding of the human mind for several millennia yet.

Do you think there is sufficient research in this area to draw firm conclusions in 2017?

 

[Tunney]

Typically you don't draw firm conclusions from a single research paper. But instead a large body of work from multiple sources, if they reach similar conclusions.

I totally agree. More research needs to be done.

Esp in today's world where research can be "sponsored" (for want of a better word) by a special interest group. And don't say that doesn't happen.

Serious academic journals will have safeguards against this happening. For example, let's look at what was submitted with the paper linked to above:

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: Supported by an internal grant from the Royalty Research Fund at the University of Washington to Dr Olson and a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (K01-MH092526) and the National Institutes of Health (R01-MH103291) to Dr McLaughlin. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose

It isn't a foolproof system but anyone who is caught lying will find their academic career in tatters. I would trust a paper published in a respected journal over most sources.

 

[LateX'Dog]

The author has a PhD. in Social Psychology from Harvard University.

Over 80% of Sociological studies are NEVER referenced. That tells you all you need to know about Sociological studies.

 

[Caracus2k]

Oh and if we are playing the peer reviewed science game....

'The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder'

'Conclusion: The findings of this study revealed that the prevalence of personality disorders was higher among the participants, and the most frequent personality disorder was narcissistic personality disorder (57.1%)'

So trans individuals are more narcissitic then the general population.....

So do we really still want to push the position that 'poor trans mental health is (mostly) the fault of external factors' ?

 

[Tunney]

Oh and if we are playing the peer reviewed science game....

'The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder'

The Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, huh? Is that a trustworthy source on a subject like this? How did you find this paper, by the way?