nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Christian parents 'to sue school' coz boy in son's class was allowed to wear dress

Wombatman

A Christian couple are reportedly threatening to sue a Church of England primary school because it allowed a boy in their son's class to wear a dress.

The family withdrew the six-year-old from the school and will now educate him at home, alongside his eight-year-old brother, who was taken out of school a year ago after a boy in his class also began to wear dresses.

http://www.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/christian-parents-to-sue-school-because-boy-in-sons-class-was-allowed-to-wear-dress-36120146.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

_Whimsical_

Brian? wrote: »

You understand the difference between gender reassignment surgery and hormones?

Its not legal to give children that age those hormones. Children of 12 can be given puberty blockers to stop puberty until 16, then they can decide on transitioning hormone treatment.
Giving a child hormones to physically transition them at 12 is a dreadful thing to do,it has enormous implications physically and emotionally that are not reversible .

noaddedsugar

Sweetemotion wrote: »

These hormones can cause great damage including sterilisation.

^This
You only have to look at Jazz Jennings to see the damage hormones do. A 16yr old with the penis of a prepubescent boy, sterile, with no sex drive. Hormones are far from harmless. Jazz has been on puberty blockers since the age of 10, taking estrogen since the age of thirteen and now at the grand old age of 16 is talking to surgeons about 'bottom surgery' which will be extremely complicated due to the aforementioned penis size.

On what planet is a good idea to sterilise 12 year olds? To perform elective, cosmetic surgery on minors?

Shenshen

The poor boy - just imagine how ill it must make him to see women wearing trousers. He'll be ill for the rest of his life, I suspect.

Tom Mann Centuria

Shenshen wrote: »

The poor boy - just imagine how ill it must make him to see women wearing trousers. He'll be ill for the rest of his life, I suspect.

It works both ways though, and the child who's parents say wants to identify as a girl, could also wear trousers.

_Whimsical_

Jungle Fever Watermelon wrote: »

Why would you give a child puberty blockers??

To put it bluntly, if you want to make a vagina, you need a penis. A boy who never went through puberty won't have enough 'raw material' to make a vagina.

Apologies if yer eating your dinner while reading this.

I wasn't saying I thought puberty blockers were a good idea either, but giving them at 12 is currently the "best medical practice"

Youre right about that having implications for future operations too. It is a much more difficult operation to create adult size sex organs like a vagina out of a very small penis that has not grown because of puberty blockers. It is now a big problem for those children that requires them rubbing testosterone cream on that area trying to encourage it to grow at 15/16 so there'll be enough tissue to create a vagina for an operation at a later time. That problem often means they need several operations to create it rather than one too.
If you've grown to 16 believing you're a girl and your society and parents reflecting this to you I can't imagine how stressful it would be rubbing yourself with testosterone cream trying to make that happen.
The whole lot of it is so crazily traumatic. I can't understand how anyone would take it lightly at all.

jamesbere

I lose fate in humanity everytime I see articles like this.

Shenshen

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

It works both ways though, and the child who's parents say wants to identify as a girl, could also wear trousers.

Of course he could. The question that puzzles me is why people think he should.

Victor

fatknacker wrote: »

He should try wearing a hijab too, while he's at it.

Hijabs are only worn after puberty. It would be rare for a 6 year old to reach puberty.

Billy86

I love the reactions of 'free speech' brigade that love to give out about censorship and how easily offended are these days when it comes to stories like this.

If the kid wants to wear a dress, let them wear a dress. It could just be a phase, they might think it was funny (like some kids in my class around 3rd/4th class in the mid 90s who dressed up as the Spice Girls for Halloween), and plenty of transgender people have identified as such since they were this age and even younger.

The school clearly didn't have issue with it either, but for the 'free speech' brigade who haven no issue with all the race baiting (through immigration) and staunch homophobia (through SSM sweeping into many countries) we've seen in recent years because they claim everyone should have the right to express themselves... a boy wearing a dress is just clearly where the line needs to be drawn!

Billy86

mzungu wrote: »

We only know that one set of parents are bounded by ideology, that being their religious beliefs. The parents of the transgender child may not be ideologues, we don't know. It might just be the case that their child has gender dysphoria and they did what they thought was best from there.

If your kids are gay it is because you made them gay with your big gay ideology and forced them to be gay against their own wishes because nobody wants to be gay. This is especially true if you hate the gays and your kid is gay, you closet gay maker.

I mean that kind of makes sense if you think about it while ramming chopsticks up your nostrils as far as they will go, no?

DickSwiveller

It's funny that lots of the posters defending transgenderism will scoff at Christians for being delusional and anti-science. Transgenderism is the ultimate delusion and is completely anti science. It's basic biology that men and women are different. The fact that I even have to say this is terrifying.

[Deleted User]

There must have been millions of "Tom Boys" over the years and no one bat's an eyelid. Some of these girls even went to barbers for a short back and sides. I doubt it if many of these "Tom Boys" went on to get surgery in later life.

Billy86

Gravelly wrote: »

Do I think it likely a 6 year old boy really wants to wear a dress to school because he is "figuring out his identity"? No, I don't think that's likely at all. .

Here is some worthwhile reading for you:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/transgender-kids/jacob-s-journey-life-transgender-5-year-old-n345131
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/transgender-children-my-son-told-me-he-was-a-girl/

And here is a reddit threat with transgender people saying they had a feeling they were 'not a boy/girl' from as young as four years of age - https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/35v1t8/i_knew_i_was_transgender_when/

A transgender actress off that show Orange in the New Black tried to kill herself when she was 11 because of bullying for not acting like a boy... worth keeping in mind for the thousands of adults up and down the UK and Ireland right now giving out that this eight year old kid should be forced out of their dress and into pants, like boys should do!

LirW

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's funny that lots of the posters defending transgenderism will scoff at Christians for being delusional and anti-science. Transgenderism is the ultimate delusion and is completely anti science. It's basic biology that men and women are different. The fact that I even have to say this is terrifying.

It's not that simple. When you break it down to it, transgenderism is an anomaly that appears in animals and humans (I'm saying anomaly because it's outside the "typical" X and Y that usually appears). It's a small percentage that you'll find in species but it happens. It can even happen that this is caused by genetics, for example an anomaly in receptors that binds hormones, which is critical for the development of sexual characteristics.

This is in fact science and not delusional.

[Deleted User]

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I really don't agree with you, to express concern here is not bigotry at all.

It certainly isn't bigotry to be concerned and raise questions, but concern for the welfare of the child is probably the last thing on the minds of those who have already decided that the parents are nothing but "virtue-signalling" "trendy" "progressive" bogeymen without entertaining the thought that maybe, just maybe, they're trying to do what's best for their child.

If the kid doesn't want to wear a skirt and his parents are forcing him to, that's obviously shít parenting. What bugs me is that there's no indication that this the case but so many automatically assume that it is.

There has been a growing movement of this across the US and more recently in Europe too, an ideology that believes your child will know their own gender at 2,before they can speak or comprehend most anything in the world and that they will tell you what they want. Lots of well meaning but anxious parents are taken in by this idea and in trying to do what they think is best but theyre reading ordinary childish behaviors as cues of transgenderism. They fear they'll discover it too late for their child to seamlessly transition or have hormonal blockers so some are rushing right in to socially transition the child immediately.

Just like with the current anti-vaxxer movement I'd trust peer-reviewed research and qualified medical professionals to assist in deciding what the best path to take is, instead of quacks on the internet (be they radical lefties who live in Lalaland or right-wingers with a hard on for criticising anything that verges on societal progression.)

Spider Web wrote: »

Well there was a case of a family in Sweden and another family in Canada, who each chose to raise their son "genderless". Genderless meant veering him towards girls' clothes - horrible, weird experimentation. So I'd believe it.

Must admit I'm not familiar with those cases but in theory I don't think raising a child as genderless need be such a bad thing; of course, if the parent forces their own preference on the child then that's a different matter and defeats the whole purpose. While it's certainly unethical to raise a child solely for the sake of some social experiment, it doesn't necessarily mean that rigid and forced gender roles on a child are a good thing either.

I don't know - if a little boy really wants to wear a skirt... it's very easy to say it'd be no problem but I'm not sure how easy it would be. He is going to be ridiculed - I mean it looks pretty silly, let alone the deeper social connotations.

It looks silly because we're used to thinking "dresses/skirts = girls, pants = boys". But is there really any objectively good reason for why this is the case, other than "because it's the way things are"? I'm not saying we should all be forcing boys to wear dresses, but if one boy does (without being forced to do so by his parents) and another kids bullies him as a result then maybe it's the kid who's the bully that has the problem.

silverharp

Billy86 wrote: »

I love the reactions of 'free speech' brigade that love to give out about censorship and how easily offended are these days when it comes to stories like this.

If the kid wants to wear a dress, let them wear a dress. It could just be a phase, they might think it was funny (like some kids in my class around 3rd/4th class in the mid 90s who dressed up as the Spice Girls for Halloween), and plenty of transgender people have identified as such since they were this age and even younger.

The school clearly didn't have issue with it either, but for the 'free speech' brigade who haven no issue with all the race baiting (through immigration) and staunch homophobia (through SSM sweeping into many countries) we've seen in recent years because they claim everyone should have the right to express themselves... a boy wearing a dress is just clearly where the line needs to be drawn!

I dont know how its a free speech issue, though I saw a comment that the school would force the other kids to use the "correct" pronouns and be forced to refer to the kid as a girl. thats jumping over a line

Billy86

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's funny that lots of the posters defending transgenderism will scoff at Christians for being delusional and anti-science. Transgenderism is the ultimate delusion and is completely anti science. It's basic biology that men and women are different. The fact that I even have to say this is terrifying.

If I were to tell you there is actually a whole lot of science to it with extensive tests and studies done that run counter to your claims, would you at all consider changing your mind or rethinking your views?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality#Brain_structure

Billy86

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know how its a free speech issue, though I saw a comment that the school would force the other kids to use the "correct" pronouns and be forced to refer to the kid as a girl. thats jumping over a line

Please link to the comment, you wording on it is a bit odd.

And it's very much a free speech and freedom of expression issue if the kid want to wear a dress and their parents (and school) are happy for them too. The sheer irony of situations like this and the sudden need for censorship from the 'free speech' crowd is always gas.

retro:electro

Billy86 wrote: »

I love the reactions of 'free speech' brigade that love to give out about censorship and how easily offended are these days when it comes to stories like this.

If the kid wants to wear a dress, let them wear a dress. It could just be a phase, they might think it was funny (like some kids in my class around 3rd/4th class in the mid 90s who dressed up as the Spice Girls for Halloween), and plenty of transgender people have identified as such since they were this age and even younger.

The school clearly didn't have issue with it either, but for the 'free speech' brigade who haven no issue with all the race baiting (through immigration) and staunch homophobia (through SSM sweeping into many countries) we've seen in recent years because they claim everyone should have the right to express themselves... a boy wearing a dress is just clearly where the line needs to be drawn!

What the fcuk has wanting free speech got to do with encouraging a developing child to permanently mutilate themselves?

mzungu

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's funny that lots of the posters defending transgenderism will scoff at Christians for being delusional and anti-science. Transgenderism is the ultimate delusion and is completely anti science. It's basic biology that men and women are different. The fact that I even have to say this is terrifying.

It is not anti-science, gender dysphoria is a thing. It does exist.

silverharp

Billy86 wrote: »

Please link to the comment, you wording on it is a bit odd.

And it's very much a free speech and freedom of expression issue if the kid want to wear a dress and their parents (and school) are happy for them too. The sheer irony of situations like this and the sudden need for censorship from the 'free speech' crowd is always gas.

free speech is free speech, this is just another version of hair length, uniform/not uniform. House rules apply, if the school says its ok, thats the end of it. If there was a freedom of speech point it would be that there is no compulsion on the other kids

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/10/parents-sue-christian-school-boy-allowed-wear-dress/

The school in question said transgender pupils were protected under the Equalities Act of 2010, and that it had policies in place to tackle transphobic behaviour. It defined transphobia as including a failure to use a person’s adopted name or to accept he or she was a “real” boy or girl.

Billy86

anna080 wrote: »

What the fcuk has wanting free speech got to do with encouraging a developing child to permanently mutilate themselves?

Who encouraged what now? Transgender people frequently have an idea from a very young age, even down to four years old, and you literally have nothing but your own biases and agenda to tell you this isn't the case (or that they're not just going through a phase). And transgender children kill themselves at a shocking rate over that kind of stuff, because the same people who support bigotry on the basis of 'free speech' and expression think a child who wants to wear a dress is just way too much free speech and expression for the world to have to put up with.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

If the kid doesn't want to wear a skirt and his parents are forcing him to, that's obviously shít parenting. What bugs me is that there's no indication that this the case but so many automatically assume that it is.

Exactly, there seems to be an inbuilt assumption that all parents of transgender children are ideologues. In this case, all we know is some kid was taken out of school because a classmate had a dress on. So far, there is no evidence the parents of the transgender kid are even going down the surgery route. The only reason people know about this case is because the other kids parents wanted to get lawyers involved.

As an aside, I have seen the documentaries featuring ideologue parents, and I would have grave reservations about any parent or physician that would put any child through full transition (rare now thankfully) or even a course of puberty blockers (sterilisation risk). It is tantamount to child abuse. Let them dress up in all the dresses they want, just leave the serious medical stuff until they get past 18.

retro:electro

Billy86 wrote: »

Who encouraged what now? Transgender people frequently have an idea from a very young age, even down to four years old, and you literally have nothing but your own biases and agenda to tell you this isn't the case (or that they're not just going through a phase). And transgender children kill themselves at a shocking rate over that kind of stuff, because the same people who support bigotry on the basis of 'free speech' and expression think a child who wants to wear a dress is just way too much free speech and expression for the world to have to put up with.

Ah would ya ever stop. When I was four I wanted to be an ambulance. Four year olds haven't notion. They don't understand permanency. If a four year old's parent dies they don't understand and think she's coming back. Four year olds can't make decisions like that. Like I said, when you're an adult, knock yourself out- but listening to your child at four and five that they are trapped in the wrong body- and acting on that in a way that will have consequences in the future- is stupidity and recklessness of the highest order.

Dirty Dingus McGee

silverharp wrote: »

free speech is free speech, this is just another version of hair length, uniform/not uniform. House rules apply, if the school says its ok, thats the end of it. If there was a freedom of speech point it would be that there is no compulsion on the other kids

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/10/parents-sue-christian-school-boy-allowed-wear-dress/

But this young lad wearing a dress is not a real girl.

silverharp

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

But this young lad wearing a dress is not a real girl.

we're in a post fact world :pac:

Billy86

silverharp wrote: »

free speech is free speech, this is just another version of hair length, uniform/not uniform. House rules apply, if the school says its ok, thats the end of it. If there was a freedom of speech point it would be that there is no compulsion on the other kids

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/10/parents-sue-christian-school-boy-allowed-wear-dress/

I agree that it's an extremely complex matter and must be highly confusing for young kids (not just those with the identity crisis but their classmates too), but the parents are not suing because they and their children are being forced to refer to little Tommy as 'Tommi' or 'her/she' (which they would argue limits their free speech and expression) but because a young boy wore a dress into school (which is an attempt to limit the freedom of speech and expression of someone else).

Billy86

anna080 wrote: »

Ah would ya ever stop. When I was four I wanted to be an ambulance. Four year olds haven't notion. They don't understand permanency. If a four year old's parent dies they don't understand and think she's coming back. Four year olds can't make decisions like that.

There are grown up transgender people here who disagree with you and have had an idea of it since they were as young as four years of age, I think they're more of an authority on the matter than you or I are, no? https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/35v1t8/i_knew_i_was_transgender_when/

Like I said, when you're an adult, knock yourself out- but listening to your child at four and five that they are trapped in the wrong body- and acting on that in a way that will have consequences in the future- is stupidity and recklessness of the highest order.

And that's a big reason why suicide rates are so high among young transgender people - 30% suicide attempt rate and 42% self harm rate, that would be the equivalent of about 18 children in this picture trying to kill themselves and 25 self harming. The example I gave earlier being the actress Laverne Cox from Orange in the New Black trying to kill themselves at 11 years of age because of bullying over not 'acting like a boy'.

_Kaiser_

anna080 wrote: »

Ah would ya ever stop. When I was four I wanted to be an ambulance. Four year olds haven't notion. They don't understand permanency. If a four year old's parent dies they don't understand and think she's coming back. Four year olds can't make decisions like that. Like I said, when you're an adult, knock yourself out- but listening to your child at four and five that they are trapped in the wrong body- and acting on that in a way that will have consequences in the future- is stupidity and recklessness of the highest order.

Exactly... but the amount of virtue-signalling going on in this thread is truly disturbing if these views actually carry over into Reality

A child of that age (as you rightly point out) hasn't a clue about such concepts, and rightly so to be honest - let them enjoy their innocence as long as they can. Trying to project adult concepts of sexuality onto a child is just irresponsible and frankly wrong... they're not capable of understanding it, and nor should they have to.

When or if they make such a choice when they're old enough to understand such concepts then there's no issue whatsoever.. but using innocent kids as a means to push an agenda or make a "statement" is a wholly different matter.

One eyed Jack

Billy86 wrote: »

The example I gave earlier being the actress Laverne Cox from Orange in the New Black trying to kill themselves at 11 years of age because of bullying over not 'acting like a boy'.

Actor, no?

I'm only pulling your leg