Mad stuff, dafuq is the world coming to?
Agreed. It's deliberately disingenuous.
...
Good. Spare me the continuous word salad and the various links you repeat only to say we agree on all substantial points.
It has eventually become clear that you simply don't like being labelled a transphobe, or evidence of why you might be seen as one. It's understandable. Yes, if you are a transphobic asshole (you may be), I cannot compel you to agree.
Avoid discussing the issue why you might appear so, just skip it, act as if you are being misunderstood, and repeat the word salad that might appear to justify your position. It is obvious that what you believe in your private life has no concern in public policy on trans rights.
So before you were saying it is wrong to teach them anything related to sex/gender.
Now you are saying teach them sex?
Make up your mind.
Also worth pointing out AGAIN (maybe someday you will all understand) that the Scottish guidance makes no recommendations on teaching anything. Just made up nonsense in your head for you to get angry at.
True, sex and gender are not the same.... but they're linked. Consider, for a moment, the movement that is " Trans ". It includes everything from gender fluid, non-binary, to full and partial physical transitioning. It's not a movement that is separated into parts when people talk about it.. and when people advocate Trans rights or Trans beliefs, that talk includes subject matter related to the overall movement.
You see, I've made this point a number of times but nobody has addressed it. In order to cater to/support the needs of children who naturally seek gender change (that tiny group), the remainder of the group will need to be informed about gender change (so that those who are hiding their desire, know that they can come out without fear), and to do that in a manner for children to understand, the language will need to be coached in a manner that makes gender change and the overall trans ideology as being acceptable, and without risk. That means promoting gender change to children who would never have thought of it themselves (the majority). It also means removing the complexities involved in the trans topic, and ensuring that it is promoted in the best possible way...
It's the beginning of conditioning to make the Trans movement accepted by targeting children. It doesn't stop with pronouns. Language shapes our identity. The words we use to address others, and describe ourselves do impact on how our self-image is formed. Which is fine for adults because we can choose to alter our identity, but it's questionable how much children can do this when they're still forming their initial image. Now, I get that we should be helping that tiny group of people who naturally respond to gender change or have these feelings. That makes sense.. but that isn't this.
This is parents projecting their complicated world into the vulnerable period of childrens development, by introducing a series of beliefs that are still very much experimental. We know so little about how the overall trans issues affect people in the long term. And we want very young children involved? It's simply fucked up. Fine.. spend another twenty-thirty years applying Trans ideas to Adults, with meticulous research into the positives and negatives, and then, once we know that this is a good thing to consider, then... introduce children to it.
I'd consider calling it Child abuse to be a bit exaggerated, but not by much. It's short sighted and agenda driven. We should be protecting children from Adult crap, not exposing them to **** that we barely understand.
Then we are in agreement.
I didn't say anything to contradict that.
Leave the multigender theory to one side, and instead just teach children that there are boys and girls - and that's it.
Come again?
Oh I have plenty of issues with lots of ideas with regard to what people claim are “trans rights”, and I have plenty of issues with the guidelines which are being provided to schools in Scotland regarding supporting children who are transgender - the idea for example that they are not encouraging discussions in class regarding social transitioning as part of the guidelines when that’s exactly what the guidelines are suggesting as good practice in supporting children who are transgender.
I’m not overly concerned about the material itself because I know that apart from the fact that children are notoriously skeptical, most children are unlikely to be able to relate to most of it in any case given that school is not the only place where children are exposed to a multitude of ideas over the course of their lifetimes as opposed to just being exposed to a single idea, or framework, or ideology.
I have no issue with the law which I know does not compel anyone to say anything, it’s part of the right to freedom of expression - that people are also protected from being compelled to express a belief they do not hold, or a belief they profoundly disagree with. People also have the right to freedom of thought, conscience or belief, and the right to freedom from belief.
That’s why I suggested to Morgans earlier that I foresee similar scenes to what were witnessed outside schools in the UK already -
And that’s when Morgans chose to drop the analogy with Islam and change tack. However the same principles and rights apply - nobody can be compelled to express a belief they do not hold, and when it comes to preferred pronouns, people cannot be compelled to use a person’s preferred pronouns either. Anyone has the right to have their preferred gender recognised in law, but even that right has it’s limited application in law -
It’s for these reasons that “the power of pronouns compels you”, just doesn’t make for a very compelling argument in any case.
Then...just teach sex!?
I don't see how it's "child abuse" just to refer to a child by what they say are their preferred pronouns - those who have actually been abused as children might have a view on that one - but I don't think children as young as four are even aware of the ramifications that pronouns have.
There are two sexes. It's gender that is the ambiguous one. Sex and gender are not the same.
Those "so what is a woman?" debates never fail to astound/insult me.
There’s only two genders. You shouldn’t be able to transition between the genders until you are a legal adult. It’s that simple.
At the risk of misinterpreting you, are you arguing that you have no issues with trans- per se, but that you don't want the law to compel you to use certain speech forms / language re: trans-?
Morgans I’ve already been more than fair to you in explaining that from my perspective, there is no issue - I cannot be compelled to refer to anyone however they wish to be referred to. Nobody can.
You’ve previously tried to claim that I’m portraying myself as a victim in the face of your “trans rights” advocacy and from your perspective I’m a transphobic asshole.
Still not an issue for me, still not unreasonable for me to point out that nobody has the right to compel another person to agree with them. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think they had the right to demand that anyone has to agree with them.
Last post I'll make on this. My point is that it boils down to this. Concepts and ideas shouldn't be introduced to people or entertained if those people cannot from a conceptional standpoint understand them. Doing anything else is abuse, plain and simple.
It becomes even more egregious when we're talking about subjects like sex and identity with what are pretty much toddlers. IMO it's sick and nothing in this world will ever change my opinion on that - if anything it shows how much of a stranglehold far left ideology and group identity over the individual has over education and many other institutions... people are afraid to speak out about it.
I have no doubt the vast majority of people feel the same way I do - parents need to mobilize in private meetings and take action against school boards if such propositions arise.
You always hear the same defence when these types of subjects come up, "They're not forcing anyone to do anything", or "Get a grip it doesn't work like that". It ALWAYS starts like that, those defending such policies see it as a stepping stone to further actions down the line. The logic of believing that such changes are a one off is so disgustingly disingenuous and those making such an argument must have a really low opinion of the intelligence of others or are totally indoctrinated by their own idealogy.
I remember there was a thread about transgender athletes in college in the US and the main rebuttal was "It's only colleges and semi amateur competition what's the harm? you're talking like it effects professional sport". Well what did we in the past Olympics? Males competing in weight lifting competitions, the lunacy and wokeness of it all overtook reasoning and logic to the point only after the Olympics and the backlash over it that the board there came out publicly and said they had to review the rules.
They know what they're doing, when I hear phrases downplaying the introduction of such policies I think to myself - "They must really think people are stupid". Either that or they're brainwashed beyond hope.
You still are not dealing with the issue. I've spelled out several instances where it is incredibly simple for you to address the issue. You are pretending to address the issue.
Yes Anne says that a woman is anyone with XX chromosomes. Therefore a newborn baby can be a woman.
Have you ever heard a baby being described as a woman?
…really?
Well I've never heard a newborn baby being described as a woman before.
But by your definition that is incorrect. A baby can be a woman.
Great definition.
And the parents should have their kids taken off them.
You too. Have a nice girls weekend.
You are correct. Have a good weekend.
So I assume you are refusing to give the definition?
My condition for continued engagement is that you provide the definition of girl.
Since you can't I believe we are done.
The point is that I knew you'd raise "...that the cis woman identifies as a woman" nonsense. Again, dragging in personal experience / feelings.
So, I think I've reached the end of the road with this one.
As @Gatling earlier argued, there is no debating the following position: when asked what is a man, your response is "either a cis man or a trans man", and that a woman is "either a cis woman or a trans woman".
First, these are embarrassing attempts at definitions and an attempt to wish away the real definitions because they are inconvenient to suit your narrative.
Second, a man is XY and a woman is XX - full stop. Nice, simple, clean definitions. I don't care what they think. The biology stands as evidence alone. In the same way I don't care what a horse thinks or an elephant thinks. What matters is the biology. You are hoping to wish or explain that away with pseudo-linguistic, postmodern tricks.
Third, we have clearly established why these arguments should not be introduced to 4-year olds. Whilst this level of depth may not be introduced, it serves as a slippery slope to the kind of nonsense they may be expected to confront at a phase too early in their lives.
Fourth, you have singularly failed to provide a definition of man/woman without resorting to self-referential versions. A total and utter failure.
For these reasons, I won't be continuing this phase of the discussion on this thread. Readers can come to their own conclusions.
On the contrary, I completely expected you to point it out, which is why I was very up-front and specific about what the conditions for continued engagement are.
There would be many differentiators. One is that the cis woman identifies as a woman and the cis man identifies as a man. Sexual.organs would be different, etc.
It's irrelevant whether they are asleep or not. You couldn't tell if a person was Gay or straight of they were asleep. Does that.mean there are no differences between gay and straight people?
You say that a man is either a cis man or a trans man, and a woman is either a cis woman or a trans woman (again, embarrassing attempts at definitions).
What is the key differentiator between a cis man and a cis woman?
Assume for the sake of this definitional question that both participants are asleep.
There is no contortion of language. You just don't understand the difference between terms (language) concepts (mental) and reality.
You have yet to provide anything other than a vague definition of girl or woman. It's extremely hypocritical to criticise me.
It is a definition. You know (as you admitted in the previous thread) that both Caitlyn Jenner and Hilary Clinton are women by that definition even though you personally believe Caitly Jenner to be a man.
The definition has succeeded in communicating to you who is a woman by the definition.
That's all a definition needs to do.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/64adc52434b2c8aeb21506c8d692a94a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ff31c5efcae78d33c58211071909122.svg)