Sex Education in schools

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Samoan
Posts: 9351
Joined: 28 May 2008, 10:22
Location: The Steaming Metropolis

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Samoan » 06 Mar 2017, 09:17

kath wrote:.
.



p.s. nick, i'm still having major connex problems here. i got through the carol example of the article before the times kept timing out. i agree the author sounds reasonable. as far as i got, i do think using an example of a trans who could be encapsulated essentially with "whatever will i wear??" might be a tad unfair, but i couldn't read it all. i will revisit. regardless, i am so glad to see you here! longgg time.

I don't know if this article about the article helps or hinders but here's a link to it from The Guardian website yesterday -

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine
Pat O'Banton wrote:My Polish punk did me no favours at all.

User avatar
Fonz
Posts: 2975
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:10
Location: Nevermore

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Fonz » 06 Mar 2017, 09:40

However WE define sex and gender, and this board is a generally decent and coherent microcosm of society (I believe), it still leaves society with the problem of how to educate children on these issues.

What are the solutions?
How should society approach this?

I don't want utopian ideal solutions, I want to read about real-world, pragmatic solutions, otherwise it's all just hot air and pseudoacademic point-scoring.
Toby got the ball rolling with his men's group, which in the relative vacuum of education on these things, seemed like a reasonable start.
Clive gets close with the idea that society is only just starting to get to grips with accepting the non-binary paradigm, and that a 'third space', either literally in the case of toilets, or notionally in the case of how we imagine gender/sex and accept people who fall outside the binary 'norm'.

(I don't have any answers BTW)
Heyyyy!

"Fonz clearly has no fucks to give. I like the cut of his Cupicidal gib."

User avatar
kath
Groovy Queen of the Cosmos
Posts: 32260
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 15:20
Location: bama via new orleans

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby kath » 06 Mar 2017, 20:57

Samoan wrote:
kath wrote:.
.



p.s. nick, i'm still having major connex problems here. i got through the carol example of the article before the times kept timing out. i agree the author sounds reasonable. as far as i got, i do think using an example of a trans who could be encapsulated essentially with "whatever will i wear??" might be a tad unfair, but i couldn't read it all. i will revisit. regardless, i am so glad to see you here! longgg time.

I don't know if this article about the article helps or hinders but here's a link to it from The Guardian website yesterday -

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine


thanks for this. i had no probs accessing this one. i will come back to it.

(then i tried to pull up info on the ground rules for sex ed classes in america as part of a response to fonz's last post, and i crashed again. maybe it's a conspiracy. i'll alert the media!)

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58306
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby sloopjohnc » 06 Mar 2017, 21:04

toomanyhatz wrote:
K wrote:I'm thinking I'm agreeing with Betty.


Do you agree with this part?

Mrs Slider wrote:We are ignoring facts and statistics and biological truths to pander to a tiny majority of men who demand we capitulate to brainwashing and their privilege.


Or are there situations - such as the ones that we express - where it is better to accommodate someone's "feelings" as long as they don't cause harm to others?


Isn't this just one side of the story though - I'm sure there's gotta be some women identifying as men who use men's bathrooms. This seems to be skewing a debate one way.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58306
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby sloopjohnc » 06 Mar 2017, 21:14

toomanyhatz wrote:Oh, I should also add that, also within my experience is a friend's child - who is now 6 or 7, I think - was born a boy and is living as a girl. While it's fairly easy and, in my opinion, harmless to accommodate that at that age, statistics show that when gender dysphora (I'll continue to call it that for now even if it might not be totally satisfying or accurate as it's the best I can do for now) shows up that early, it often disappears by adulthood. My friend's attitude is that she should be free to live as she feels, whereas my feelings (which I have kept to myself and not expressed to him) are that perhaps he shouldn't be so quick to accommodate, and might at least attempt to say "actually, you're a boy, but if you want to PRETEND to be a girl, go right ahead. Just know that you might change your mind later. Either way I love you."


At 6 or 7, I don't know if I'd have that conversation as a dad. Might be too early. I might find a therapist experienced in these matters, and probably not too hard to find in the Bay Area, who has more experience. My fear is that my child would be teased and puts his or her teacher in an uncomfortable situation he or she is not equipped to handle either.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 25269
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby toomanyhatz » 06 Mar 2017, 22:54

sloopjohnc wrote:
toomanyhatz wrote:
K wrote:I'm thinking I'm agreeing with Betty.


Do you agree with this part?

Mrs Slider wrote:We are ignoring facts and statistics and biological truths to pander to a tiny majority of men who demand we capitulate to brainwashing and their privilege.


Or are there situations - such as the ones that we express - where it is better to accommodate someone's "feelings" as long as they don't cause harm to others?


Isn't this just one side of the story though - I'm sure there's gotta be some women identifying as men who use men's bathrooms. This seems to be skewing a debate one way.


Yes - I specifically noted someone at my work who does just that (assuming he has not had surgery, which, as I said, I don't know). But I do certainly agree that the dynamic is very different. I can't imagine there are many men who would feel threatened by his (her) presence. The gist of that part of my argument, I guess, is that there are plenty of men who DON'T demand we capitulate to brainwashing and privilege - and that threats of violence should be treated as threats of violence rather than an inevitable product of that privilege. As others have already argued on this and other threads, statistics show transsexuals are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.
Jimbo wrote:A discredited and shady online publication which gets its information straight from Vladmir Putin himself has accused our hometown good boy Toomanyhatz of belonging to an online band of junkies and McDonald's eaters.
.
1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

User avatar
kath
Groovy Queen of the Cosmos
Posts: 32260
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 15:20
Location: bama via new orleans

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby kath » 07 Mar 2017, 04:36

kath wrote:
Samoan wrote:
kath wrote:.
.



p.s. nick, i'm still having major connex problems here. i got through the carol example of the article before the times kept timing out. i agree the author sounds reasonable. as far as i got, i do think using an example of a trans who could be encapsulated essentially with "whatever will i wear??" might be a tad unfair, but i couldn't read it all. i will revisit. regardless, i am so glad to see you here! longgg time.

I don't know if this article about the article helps or hinders but here's a link to it from The Guardian website yesterday -

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine


thanks for this. i had no probs accessing this one. i will come back to it.

(then i tried to pull up info on the ground rules for sex ed classes in america as part of a response to fonz's last post, and i crashed again. maybe it's a conspiracy. i'll alert the media!)


and i am back.

what i really like about the article:

Murray, writing in the Sunday Times magazine, said that she was “not transphobic or anti-trans” and called for respect and protection from bullying and violence equally for “transsexuals, transvestites, gays, lesbians and those of us who hold to the sex and sexual preference assumed at birth”. 

in america, the trans folk are the ones who face the brunt of violence.

like nick and hatz, i do understand what she is trying to say. i understand people who do not think trans women should be called "real women".

i just don't agree with it myself. i have problems with it, on many levels. the two extended examples, carol and india, follow what i said earlier on the "whatever will i wear?" principle. no, i don't think choosing two trans people who are all about makeup, shaving legs and all things superficial are anything close to doing fairness to trans people as a group and what are surely their different notions of identity and self. i agree with rachel cohen. i think it is reductive.

not that i've ever really been a fan of the you are not one of us approach. i am quite sure that every person on this board has felt it in one context or another. i distrust the motivations of exclusion. i spent a significant portion of my life in the dark ages having both men and women telling me i wasn't a real woman. i was called a tomboy growing up. i played sports. i read vonnegut. i listened to king crimson. i loved armor and epic. i threw axes whenever possible. i've never worn makeup. others tried to convince me that i was fucqued up or something was wrong with me, that i was somehow missing womanness, but i never bought it. i cared about being-me-ness.

putting people in convenient group packages for the purpose of targeting them as somehow "lesser" is one of those truly sucky things about humans. if being a "real woman" means buying into that strategy, then i'll pass.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 25269
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby toomanyhatz » 07 Mar 2017, 07:15

kath wrote:putting people in convenient group packages for the purpose of targeting them as somehow "lesser" is one of those truly sucky things about humans. if being a "real woman" means buying into that strategy, then i'll pass.


I don't think it does, and I don't think anyone's saying it does. I think the point here is that it's another bastion of male dominance - in other words, not only can't you define your own identity, but I claim it for myself if I want it. I agree that that's a real thing, and may even be the prevailing wisdom in the (once again, appalling) situations Mrs. S has detailed. That's the part that I think it's important to me to be sensitive about (not as a man, as a human - what demeans others demeans me, or, like the song says, if some of us are chained, none of us are free). Personal compassion should go without saying, but as I and others have said, it's a battleground in many ways and from many directions. And I also think a feeling of being out of synch with your own body is a real thing as well.

The part I think is reductive is to ONLY recognize, and ONLY talk about, the male privilege motivation. That is why I brought up my personal experience, to make the point that everyone is colored by their experience. What I have trouble accepting is that that's the norm.That and, I do think there's a spectrum of masculinity and femininity. I'm unable to draw a hard line.
Jimbo wrote:A discredited and shady online publication which gets its information straight from Vladmir Putin himself has accused our hometown good boy Toomanyhatz of belonging to an online band of junkies and McDonald's eaters.
.
1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24016
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Nick » 07 Mar 2017, 10:16

Excerpt from a longer and more general article by Nick Cohen, which you can read here: https://nickcohen.net/2016/12/28/the-pc-revolution-devours-its-own/

Until the 1990s, the loudest voices in feminism belonged to those who wanted to ban pornography and prostitution, and believed that a biological gulf separated men and women. Today they are being shouted down by rival feminists, who believe that to deny sex workers the right to work is to display “whorephobic” prejudice, and to set limits to womanhood is to display “transphobic” bigotry. Before they will allow a feminist a hearing, she must answer a question few asked 30-years ago: how do you define a woman? If she gets that wrong, she’s damned as a TERF – a “trans exclusionary radical feminist”.

The old feminists did not accept that men who have undergone sex reassignment treatment were women. They asked whether a transwoman should deal with the victims of rape, or be allowed into women’s prisons, toilets or changing-rooms. What if she had had hormone replacement therapy, but not full sex reassignment surgery? What, to put it bluntly, if she still had a penis?

As with pornography, the hurt caused was real. Feminists were questioning a transwoman’s identity and hopes. Put yourselves in her position. She has undergone drug treatment and maybe surgery too. She has rejected the expectations of her family, her friends and wider society. She has faced prejudice and violence. Then she hears feminists tell her it has all been for nothing; that she can never belong. Despite all she has gone through, she is not a real woman. Feminists have already taught her she need not prove that arguments she loathes are inciting violence against her. By their own admission, all she must do is show is that they offend her.

Her pain is understandable, but it is hardly insufferable. It is not as if there is an organised feminist campaign against trans-women. In a sign of an age when identity politics has gone haywire, censorship is not provoked by a comprehensive attack but by an offending passage in an article or book written years ago.

One of the banned, Julie Bindel, has done more to help rape victims than any British activist I know. Her good work counts for nothing. Every time she tries to speak on any subject, trans campaigners and their supporters try to stop her. For years, they had her on a National Union of Students blacklist. All because she wrote a piece in 2004 that disparaged a transsexual who had gone to the courts to demand the right to counsel raped women, even though she had recently been a man herself.

Neither Bindel nor anyone else I know on the Left excuses attacks on transsexuals. No matter. Feminists are now denounced as the equivalent of racist bigots: the Ku Klux Klan in sensible shoes.

A writer in the left-wing New Statesman described the frenzy:

Any discussion of experiences which are not shared by trans women because they were not born with female bodies is liable to be denounced as ‘trans-exclusionary’. That was the reason why a US women’s college recently announced it would be discontinuing its annual performance of The Vagina Monologues: it’s exclusionary to talk about vaginas when some women do not have one. Last year a trans activist on Twitter denounced feminist campaigns against FGM as “cissexist”. Discussions of menstruation, pregnancy and abortion rights are all regularly interrupted by the same complaint.

Tellingly, the prudent journalist did not put her own name on the article. She hid behind a pseudonym to spare her from having to spend the next decade dodging demands that she be “no-platformed”.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Fonz
Posts: 2975
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:10
Location: Nevermore

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Fonz » 07 Mar 2017, 11:26

It's all censorship if one form or another.

It just highlights how difficult it is to form an opinion that is unassailable.
It's sad that a basic level of 'respect' isn't being shown to people on any side of the multiple concurrent discussions.

Respect should be the bedrock of any discussion.
Heyyyy!

"Fonz clearly has no fucks to give. I like the cut of his Cupicidal gib."

User avatar
kath
Groovy Queen of the Cosmos
Posts: 32260
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 15:20
Location: bama via new orleans

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby kath » 07 Mar 2017, 14:10

toomanyhatz wrote:
kath wrote:putting people in convenient group packages for the purpose of targeting them as somehow "lesser" is one of those truly sucky things about humans. if being a "real woman" means buying into that strategy, then i'll pass.


I don't think it does, and I don't think anyone's saying it does. I think the point here is that it's another bastion of male dominance - in other words, not only can't you define your own identity, but I claim it for myself if I want it. I agree that that's a real thing, and may even be the prevailing wisdom in the (once again, appalling) situations Mrs. S has detailed. That's the part that I think it's important to me to be sensitive about (not as a man, as a human - what demeans others demeans me, or, like the song says, if some of us are chained, none of us are free). Personal compassion should go without saying, but as I and others have said, it's a battleground in many ways and from many directions. And I also think a feeling of being out of synch with your own body is a real thing as well.

The part I think is reductive is to ONLY recognize, and ONLY talk about, the male privilege motivation. That is why I brought up my personal experience, to make the point that everyone is colored by their experience. What I have trouble accepting is that that's the norm.That and, I do think there's a spectrum of masculinity and femininity. I'm unable to draw a hard line.


my last post was talking about what i saw as reductive in presenting trans people basically as playing dress up. as being fake, superficial women. that article, to me, is using a few examples of exactly that superficiality to cast an entire group as some version of "lesser." i've talked about other attitudes i find reductive under this complex topic elsewhere in this thread (the chromosomal argument, for example. and that's about as reductive as you can get when it comes to humans).

but it's not as though i disagree with anything you are saying, actually. it is also reductive to treat trans folk as merely being out for more male privilege and dominance over women. (obviously, that does not take away any of my sympathy for mrs slider and her concerns, as i have posted before.)

what i have a problem with is the broad-stroking, generalized attitudes in casting a group a certain way. i am not sure in any area of this topic that that casting is anything other than negative and... lessering. i don't like it wherever it comes from and whichever group it's against.

i believe in tolerance, acceptance, respect. i couldn't agree more that what demeans others demeans me. we may find different things demeaning, but the principle is the same.

maybe the real problem is drawing hard lines.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58306
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby sloopjohnc » 07 Mar 2017, 16:57

Nick wrote:Excerpt from a longer and more general article by Nick Cohen, which you can read here: https://nickcohen.net/2016/12/28/the-pc-revolution-devours-its-own/

Until the 1990s, the loudest voices in feminism belonged to those who wanted to ban pornography and prostitution, and believed that a biological gulf separated men and women. Today they are being shouted down by rival feminists, who believe that to deny sex workers the right to work is to display “whorephobic” prejudice, and to set limits to womanhood is to display “transphobic” bigotry. Before they will allow a feminist a hearing, she must answer a question few asked 30-years ago: how do you define a woman? If she gets that wrong, she’s damned as a TERF – a “trans exclusionary radical feminist”.

The old feminists did not accept that men who have undergone sex reassignment treatment were women. They asked whether a transwoman should deal with the victims of rape, or be allowed into women’s prisons, toilets or changing-rooms. What if she had had hormone replacement therapy, but not full sex reassignment surgery? What, to put it bluntly, if she still had a penis?

As with pornography, the hurt caused was real. Feminists were questioning a transwoman’s identity and hopes. Put yourselves in her position. She has undergone drug treatment and maybe surgery too. She has rejected the expectations of her family, her friends and wider society. She has faced prejudice and violence. Then she hears feminists tell her it has all been for nothing; that she can never belong. Despite all she has gone through, she is not a real woman. Feminists have already taught her she need not prove that arguments she loathes are inciting violence against her. By their own admission, all she must do is show is that they offend her.

Her pain is understandable, but it is hardly insufferable. It is not as if there is an organised feminist campaign against trans-women. In a sign of an age when identity politics has gone haywire, censorship is not provoked by a comprehensive attack but by an offending passage in an article or book written years ago.

One of the banned, Julie Bindel, has done more to help rape victims than any British activist I know. Her good work counts for nothing. Every time she tries to speak on any subject, trans campaigners and their supporters try to stop her. For years, they had her on a National Union of Students blacklist. All because she wrote a piece in 2004 that disparaged a transsexual who had gone to the courts to demand the right to counsel raped women, even though she had recently been a man herself.

Neither Bindel nor anyone else I know on the Left excuses attacks on transsexuals. No matter. Feminists are now denounced as the equivalent of racist bigots: the Ku Klux Klan in sensible shoes.

A writer in the left-wing New Statesman described the frenzy:

Any discussion of experiences which are not shared by trans women because they were not born with female bodies is liable to be denounced as ‘trans-exclusionary’. That was the reason why a US women’s college recently announced it would be discontinuing its annual performance of The Vagina Monologues: it’s exclusionary to talk about vaginas when some women do not have one. Last year a trans activist on Twitter denounced feminist campaigns against FGM as “cissexist”. Discussions of menstruation, pregnancy and abortion rights are all regularly interrupted by the same complaint.

Tellingly, the prudent journalist did not put her own name on the article. She hid behind a pseudonym to spare her from having to spend the next decade dodging demands that she be “no-platformed”.


I was watching the mini-series, When We Rise, last week. Apparently, Betty Friedan, the leader of NOW, had huge problems with lesbians and didn't want to accept their cause into the feminism cause. Obviously, this turned some women off to the movement - and I think it's sucky for someone to have to pick which cause to choose based on prejudices of an organization when you're trying to fight prejudice in the first place.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
Belle Lettre
Éminence grise
Posts: 14649
Joined: 09 Oct 2008, 07:16
Location: Antiterra

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Belle Lettre » 07 Mar 2017, 18:20

Another article on the fallout from Jenni Murray's piece:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jen ... 16151.html
Nikki Gradual wrote:
Get a fucking grip you narcissistic cretins.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58306
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby sloopjohnc » 14 Mar 2017, 18:14

Interesting article, I thought, in light of this conversation.

http://www.theroot.com/trans-women-are- ... 1793202635
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 28992
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Goat Boy » 14 Mar 2017, 18:21

Well I'm glad the debate is now over.
Copehead wrote:You are making a fool of yourself.


Lord Rother, talking about Big Big Train wrote:the best band on the planet right now

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 25269
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby toomanyhatz » 16 Mar 2017, 16:33

Yeah, I'm not too fond of "end of story" arguments to begin with, but that's a particularly simplistic one. Though there are clearly arguments being made on every side that I don't agree with, you don't make those issues go away by de-legitimizing them.
Jimbo wrote:A discredited and shady online publication which gets its information straight from Vladmir Putin himself has accused our hometown good boy Toomanyhatz of belonging to an online band of junkies and McDonald's eaters.
.
1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?


Return to “Nextdoorland”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests