Sex Education in schools

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 02 Mar 2017, 23:22

Hatz - sorry can't quote on phone.

I'm sorry but you are talking nonsense. There is no medical ambiguity. Yes you are always the sex you are born "with". It is categorically, biologically IMPOSSIBLE to change sex. It just is. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want but that will not change.

We absolutely must hold sacred the definition of woman as adult human female.

But tell me your definition of a woman.

Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 02 Mar 2017, 23:25

sloopjohnc wrote:
martha wrote:Butler considers gender to be a construct ... I would say that gender, as an objective natural thing, does not exist, rather it is completely a social construction, a fiction, a performative act.


I can see that.


I completely agree with that too.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 02 Mar 2017, 23:31

Out of curiosity, I looked up the dictionary definition of "gender" and found this:

"The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). "

Hence my discomfort with 'female' being used as an exclusively biological definition. I'm uncomfortable with it being exclusively male-defined as well (which I'm assuming is Mrs. Slider's objection). But, as I said, it complicates matters further.
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
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 02 Mar 2017, 23:46

Mrs Slider wrote:Hatz - sorry can't quote on phone.

I'm sorry but you are talking nonsense. There is no medical ambiguity. Yes you are always the sex you are born "with". It is categorically, biologically IMPOSSIBLE to change sex. It just is. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want but that will not change.

We absolutely must hold sacred the definition of woman as adult human female.

But tell me your definition of a woman.


I don't have one - and have made my bewilderment clear. And yes, by YOUR definition - language defined by its usage - than there definitely IS medical ambiguity. Even an artificial penis is defined as a penis. So if a female is equipped with one, she is still 100% female? There are many people that don't accept that definition.

Again, I'm not taking sides. I'm saying there's a discussion to be had. And just know you are not disagreeing with me - you're disagreeing with the dictionary. (Not that there's anything wrong with that - I'm taken issue with many a dictionary definition in my day too - with the word "God," for starters.)
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?

Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 03 Mar 2017, 00:01

toomanyhatz wrote:Even an artificial penis is defined as a penis. So if a female is equipped with one, she is still 100% female? There are many people that don't accept that definition.


:lol: are you being serious?

I mean, if I put on a pair of artificial wings am I a bird?

Yes. Yes, she is still 100% female.

Where are all the scientists that used to be all over the religion threads?

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 03 Mar 2017, 00:04

Actually, I should say I'm perfectly comfortable with the definition of a woman as an adult human female. I'm just not completely comfortable with the hard line definition of "female." And don't have a definition of my own that I'm completely committed to. Which is why I'm discussing it, hopefully respectfully.
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?

Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 03 Mar 2017, 00:04

toomanyhatz wrote:And just know you are not disagreeing with me - you're disagreeing with the dictionary


No I'm really not.

But let's go with that. What do you think of the term Female Genital Mutilation? Does that trouble you?

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 03 Mar 2017, 00:20

Mrs Slider wrote:I mean, if I put on a pair of artificial wings am I a bird?


Were there suddenly hundreds of thousands of people that did just this, and declared that they "felt" like a bird, society might accommodate them by defining their psychological state with a name other than 'human' or 'bird.' This is what's being done in terms of gender. Whether you think it's valid or not, it's undeniable that it's being done. And that's what my responses have been based on. If using the notion that language is based on its usage, then declaring that usage invalid is contradicting yourself. I am not seeking to validate or invalidate it, only acknowledge it. And discuss it, because I think it's interesting.

Mrs Slider wrote:What do you think of the term Female Genital Mutilation? Does that trouble you?


Not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. Does the act trouble me? Of course is does. Does the definition trouble me? Well, I don't find it as ambiguous as I find "female" by itself as it's clearly referring to female genitalia.
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?

Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 03 Mar 2017, 01:01

Oh it's being done alright. And you don't see any problem with redefining language to suit a tiny minority of people, at the expense of erasing meanings which are important to half the world's population?

And if hundreds of thousands of people believed they were birds and demanded I refer to them as birds I don't know about you but I'd be extremely concerned. I certainly wouldn't accept that what I know to be indisputable fact - they are not birds - should capitulate to it.

But the problem isn't that people are wanting a separate and defining name. They want "women" and we are saying they can't have it. You can't take away something which defines our biology and our experiences and our struggles and history and class oppression and appropriate it for yourself just because you feel like it. Just like a white person cannot demand to be called black.

What is female genitalia if female cannot be defined? Because you will find that FGM is now being touted as a trans exclusionary term and therefore bigoted. I kid you not.

Can I claim the black man's struggle please? Because feel like one.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 03 Mar 2017, 01:07

toomanyhatz wrote: I am not seeking to validate or invalidate it, only acknowledge it. And discuss it, because I think it's interesting.
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
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 03 Mar 2017, 01:11

Mrs Slider wrote:But the problem isn't that people are wanting a separate and defining name. They want "women" and we are saying they can't have it. You can't take away something which defines our biology and our experiences and our struggles and history and class oppression and appropriate it for yourself just because you feel like it. Just like a white person cannot demand to be called black.


I don't disagree with this in the slightest. What have I said that led you to believe otherwise?
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
PresMuffley
Posts: 563
Joined: 06 Feb 2017, 12:00

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby PresMuffley » 03 Mar 2017, 02:00

martha wrote:I studied under Professor Judith Butler


I had a hunch you were a smartypants.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 03 Mar 2017, 11:31

toomanyhatz wrote:
Mrs Slider wrote:But the problem isn't that people are wanting a separate and defining name. They want "women" and we are saying they can't have it. You can't take away something which defines our biology and our experiences and our struggles and history and class oppression and appropriate it for yourself just because you feel like it. Just like a white person cannot demand to be called black.


I don't disagree with this in the slightest. What have I said that led you to believe otherwise?


That fake genitalia is authentic? That you are not comfortable with "woman" meaning female?

Look, I'm really not having a go. I'm having to deal with some terrible stuff around this with my job. We have a male, no intention of surgery, who raped and tortured a woman over three days. He's come out of prison and has been allowed into our women's bail hostel, where he swans around in a dress and my resident who works there is distraught. They are all terrified of him. All because he says he's a woman and these terrible fucking new laws put self identification above all. It's a disgrace. We also have a 17 year who wears make up and says he's a woman who is therefore being allowed to work with our Girls Brigade - girls under 10. And what they know to be truth and see with their own eyes is relayed back to them as bigoted. He is not subject to safeguarding. How do we teach girls to trust their own instincts about their safety and dignity in a world where they are vulnerable, if they are told that any man who says he is a woman is speaking the truth? This stuff is vile and dangerous and the latest male privilege, which is being lapped up and defended by people who seem to have lost all critical faculties.

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.

User avatar
K
Posts: 5501
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby K » 03 Mar 2017, 17:14

Mrs Slider wrote:
toomanyhatz wrote:
Mrs Slider wrote:But the problem isn't that people are wanting a separate and defining name. They want "women" and we are saying they can't have it. You can't take away something which defines our biology and our experiences and our struggles and history and class oppression and appropriate it for yourself just because you feel like it. Just like a white person cannot demand to be called black.


I don't disagree with this in the slightest. What have I said that led you to believe otherwise?


That fake genitalia is authentic? That you are not comfortable with "woman" meaning female?

Look, I'm really not having a go. I'm having to deal with some terrible stuff around this with my job. We have a male, no intention of surgery, who raped and tortured a woman over three days. He's come out of prison and has been allowed into our women's bail hostel, where he swans around in a dress and my resident who works there is distraught. They are all terrified of him. All because he says he's a woman and these terrible fucking new laws put self identification above all. It's a disgrace. We also have a 17 year who wears make up and says he's a woman who is therefore being allowed to work with our Girls Brigade - girls under 10. And what they know to be truth and see with their own eyes is relayed back to them as bigoted. He is not subject to safeguarding. How do we teach girls to trust their own instincts about their safety and dignity in a world where they are vulnerable, if they are told that any man who says he is a woman is speaking the truth? This stuff is vile and dangerous and the latest male privilege, which is being lapped up and defended by people who seem to have lost all critical faculties.

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.

Why is he not subject to safeguarding? Working with the Girls Brigade sounds like regulated activity to me. Or is he under constant supervision?
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 57395
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby sloopjohnc » 03 Mar 2017, 17:17

K wrote:
Mrs Slider wrote:
toomanyhatz wrote:
I don't disagree with this in the slightest. What have I said that led you to believe otherwise?


That fake genitalia is authentic? That you are not comfortable with "woman" meaning female?

Look, I'm really not having a go. I'm having to deal with some terrible stuff around this with my job. We have a male, no intention of surgery, who raped and tortured a woman over three days. He's come out of prison and has been allowed into our women's bail hostel, where he swans around in a dress and my resident who works there is distraught. They are all terrified of him. All because he says he's a woman and these terrible fucking new laws put self identification above all. It's a disgrace. We also have a 17 year who wears make up and says he's a woman who is therefore being allowed to work with our Girls Brigade - girls under 10. And what they know to be truth and see with their own eyes is relayed back to them as bigoted. He is not subject to safeguarding. How do we teach girls to trust their own instincts about their safety and dignity in a world where they are vulnerable, if they are told that any man who says he is a woman is speaking the truth? This stuff is vile and dangerous and the latest male privilege, which is being lapped up and defended by people who seem to have lost all critical faculties.

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.

Why is he not subject to safeguarding? Working with the Girls Brigade sounds like regulated activity to me. Or is he under constant supervision?


Yeah, I don't get it either. Just because they want to change gender or sexuality shouldn't give them carte blanche when it comes to past crimes.
Everybody had a wet dream, Everybody saw the sunshine

User avatar
Fonz
Posts: 2829
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:10
Location: Nevermore

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Fonz » 03 Mar 2017, 17:55

.
Heyyyy!

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

Mrs Slider
Posts: 95
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 19:46

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby Mrs Slider » 03 Mar 2017, 20:48

Because he is 17.

They refuse to supervise him. If he says he too is a girl then he is. So he uses the same facilities as the girls etc. One six year old girl asked him if he was a boy and his response was to scream and cry and throw a chair across the room. She was made to apologise in front of the entire group. Her mother told the group leader that "the message my daughter has clearly been given is: here is a man. He knows best and everything he says is true, you are a girl and when you say the truth which you see with your own little eyes and heart, you are wrong. You are wrong and now you must say sorry." I agree.

Whose rights are being centred here?

User avatar
K
Posts: 5501
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby K » 03 Mar 2017, 20:56

Mrs Slider wrote:Because he is 17.

They refuse to supervise him. If he says he too is a girl then he is. So he uses the same facilities as the girls etc. One six year old girl asked him if he was a boy and his response was to scream and cry and throw a chair across the room. She was made to apologise in front of the entire group. Her mother told the group leader that "the message my daughter has clearly been given is: here is a man. He knows best and everything he says is true, you are a girl and when you say the truth which you see with your own little eyes and heart, you are wrong. You are wrong and now you must say sorry." I agree.

Whose rights are being centred here?

Disclosure and barring scheme changes came into effect on 10th September 2012. These include a scaling back on which positions now require and qualify for a DBS check.

These changes include:
A new definition of regulated activity, which has been changed to focus on work involving close and unsupervised contact with vulnerable groups including children.
The removal of the term and category of controlled activity; thereby unless a person has a role involving a regulated activity they will no longer be eligible for a barred list check.
A new minimum age (16) at which someone can apply for a DBS check.
A more rigorous 'relevancy' test for when the police release information held locally on an enhanced DBS check.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 24787
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 » 03 Mar 2017, 22:36

Mrs Slider wrote:That fake genitalia is authentic? That you are not comfortable with "woman" meaning female?


I never claimed that "fake" genitalia should be considered completely equivalent to parts that one is born with. I meant it in the same way that a person with a prosthetic leg would refer to the prosthetic as "my leg" and would not refer to themselves as being legless.

I also never said I wasn't comfortable with "woman" meaning "female." Or maybe I did without meaning to. If I did forgive me. A woman DOES mean female. The disagreement (I think) we're having is over what constitutes "female." I think it is not exclusively a simple matter of parts. And don't think that a man claiming to have certain female characteristics inherently affects your womanhood (or that of any others who are women by birth) any more than a marriage between two men or two women affects my "straight" marriage.

Obviously we are not going to get past "you have your experience, I have mine." I have had two experiences with gender dysphoria.

One is a man who also will not be having surgery. He began taking hormone shots and decided that, even though he would continue to think of himself as a "woman on the inside," it would be a difficult enough on a physical and psychological level than it was easier to remain a man and suffer the resultant depression and general unsettled feelings. He's one of the lucky ones - he has a positive outlook on life, has never (to my knowledge) considered suicide. He is a man in his 40s who's felt this way for a long time, and shared it only with a few close friends (one of whom is my wife). Yes. Physically he chooses to remain a man and is therefore a man. But I assure you he didn't come to this decision on a whim, and is not attempting to claim womanhood away from a physical woman. And is absolutely no threat, in any way, to any man or woman. So by your definition he is a man. That is a fine definition - even to him - but it is by no means a complete one.

The other is a (I presume post-op, I haven't asked) woman by birth, who is living as a man. I refer to him as a "him." I work with him, and run into him in the restroom occasionally (where he politely uses the private stall) and we will quickly nod as two men greeting one another. But by your definition, she is a woman. So should I insist on referring to him that way? Once again - adult, in his 40s. He hasn't come about this decision lightly, and is likewise no threat to anyone. What advantage could there possibly be in doing so? Why not accommodate him as a man?

I am not denying that the particular situations that you note are appalling, and would be extremely surprised if anyone here would. But I also don't believe that every situation invariably presents a choice between who does and doesn't deserve to have their safety (or, yes, "feelings") protected. I think both/all parties involved, in most instances, should and can be considered. And if the law prevents that, it is a law that needs to be changed. You say we are ignoring statistics. Have you seen statistics on suicide, depression and violence against hose with gender dysphora? Do they matter?

Again, I don't have an easy answer for all this. I just strongly suspect there must be a more satisfying one than "tough titties, (brother/sister), you're a (man/woman) 'cause that's what God gave you. Deal with it!" (Yes, I'm being extreme to make a point. I'm not necessarily concluding that this is the whole of your attitude. But again, I am not completely comfortable with "you are what you're born with, period, end of story," either.
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
K
Posts: 5501
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: Sex Education in schools

Postby K » 03 Mar 2017, 22:50

I'm no expert so I always fall back on
The Y chromosome is one of two sex chromosomes (allosomes) in mammals, including humans, and many other animals. The other is the X chromosome. Y is the sex-determining chromosome in many species, since it is the presence or absence of Y that determines the male or female sex of offspring produced in sexual reproduction. In mammals, the Y chromosome contains the gene SRY, which triggers testis development.

I work with a trans woman. She is very nice, we got on when she was a man and now... but still in the back of my mind I keep thinking about the chromosomes. And I don't truly understand.
Does that make me bad? Like Jimbo bad?
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Return to “Nextdoorland”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Copehead and 2 guests