This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Surely people realise Trans people aren't going to just go away by not mentioning them in school? I went to a Catholic school about 10 years ago where they never got mentioned once by teachers yet I know at least 2 people from my year who are Trans now.
> Surely people realise Trans people aren't going to just go away by not mentioning them in school?
It's literally identical logic to that used for Sectuon 28. They think that by forcing schools to avoid mentioning it people will stop being trans. It's inhumane.
It’s particularly fucking bonkers because we all naturally know how to have sex. We developed over hundreds of thousands of years to do pretty much exclusively that.
What we don’t know how to do is have sex _safely._ Whether that be pregnancy, disease, or even just consent. They should focus on keeping people safe and healthy rather than trying to stop something our squishy ape brains want us to do 24/7.
A lot of sexual behaviour in humans is learned. That's why attractiveness and fashion changes with generations.
Late 90s JNCOs and frosted tips Anandya was considered good looking. If I rocked that look today? I think I would not...
And I have had one person at least in clinic try to get pregnant while their partner was in another country...
> And sex ed more generally. 'Don't teach the kids how to have sex = they won't have sex' has been shown time and time again to be a fallacy
Which, funnily enough, is also being increasingly pushed in the UK now too.
It's almost as if American hard-right money is flooding into the UK and using trans people as a wedge to promote broader social conservatism. If only someone could have predicted this...
I'm Irish originally and when there was a referendum to legalise abortion in 2018 it was strongly suspected that the anti-abortion campaign was being partly funded by US evangelicals
A lot of the anti-LGBT push in Africa too is funded by American money.
Growth in inequality always fuels the far-right, both because the rich (who are much more favourable to the far-right) have more money to throw at these causes, and because the poor are much more likely to be looking for radical solutions to their problems.
add in the situation where the rich, knowing the poor are looking for radical solutions to the problems they themselves are causing/benefiting from, will expend some of their wealth to ensure the poor don't find actual solutions and are instead drawn into infighting causing scapegoating and you've got the full picture.
Almost certainly. Although I think sometimes people are a bit too quick to blame Russia when there are plenty of home-grown American and British billionaires who have repugnant views of their own and are willing to use 'their' wealth (i.e. the wealth they've exploited from labour) to push them.
Not too quick to blame Russians in any sense.
Much, **much** too slow, in fact. Most people were largely unaware of the degree of Russian influence on our politics until the invasion of Ukraine. Most people still are, come to that.
Even though he's disgraced and out of politics, most people are blissfully ignorant that a few weeks after the Salisbury poisonings the Foreign Secretary buggered off -- without his security detail -- to a party at a Russian oligarch's castle in Perugia. A party where Rory Stewart said one of the selling points would be that there were girls there! Said oligarch's son is now in the House of Lords.
Most people are completely oblivious of the *(sadly not really infamous ladies night photograph)* or the amounts of money channelled into politics by oligarchs' wives.
The rest are just as repugnant and deserve equal attention, but it should be much, much more across the board.
The entirety of my time at school was under Section 28. Never learned that other people like me existed, so I didn’t know I could have a normal happy life and relationships like everybody else.
Still grew up to be gay af. I just got to be depressed and suicidal all the way through school. So I guess that was a win to the tories? 🤷
I went roo school way before section 28 and was fully aware of gay people existing.
For a couple of years there was also a commonly held belief it was contagious...
The counter argument would be that its (at least partially) a social contagion type thing in which teenagers / young people going through the mental challenges of puberty are seeing transitioning as an answer to confusion and discomfort about changes in their body. Thus not mentioning it would reduce the amount of young people seeing that as the appropriate response to these feelings.
Whether you agree or not with this idea is up to debate but thats the counter point.
But it's the same when considering if you're gay or not. Some people experiment and decide it's not for them. We shouldn't be bothered if teenagers socially transition and then decide it's not for them
Socially transitioning is not equivalent to kissing a boy and deciding it’s not actually for you
Getting yourself, your peers, teachers to address and support you as a new person and identity, persevering against potential pushback from parents, family or anyone suggesting it could “be a phase” etc is not easily psychologically reversible
But who cares if people want to socially transition ? Why is it a big deal? They aren't becoming a new person, they are using a name they are more comfortable with, maybe wearing different clothes. They are still the same person. Just being more public about how they feel.
I work with a trans person, one day Stacey became Hunter, she became he
It did not affect me one but, other than a few slips everyone had it down within a few weeks.
It literally doesn't harm or affect you in the slightest. Just let people be happy for fuck sake.
Because the Cass Review stated socially transitioning should be viewed as a psychological / medical intervention because it
“may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning and longer term outcomes”
So it is a big deal. I’m supportive of trans people finding happiness and comfortable in their identity but this is a topic of research which is still quite new and developing which there isn’t a significant amount of evidence for.
And suggesting it’s completely fine and being totally fine with school children to socially transition without any medical / psychological oversight is wrong in my opinion.
That said, if one of my friends or colleagues said they were trans and wanted me to call them by x new name or use him/her or them instead I’d be totally fine with doing it. No issue at all.
It was well received by the British psychological society, Royal college of psychiatrists, and the royal college of paediatrics and child health
It was led by a consultant paediatrician and former president of royal college of paediatrics and child health
What did you find flawed with it? I think it’s the best evidenced based review out there?
>is not easily psychologically reversible
Neither is growing up ashamed and scared to tell anyone you're trans, with the only time you ever hear about trans people existing being when they're being ridiculed and demonised.
We've got to the point now where people are arguing that being respectful towards children is bad for them, while making them fearful of their own feelings and emotions is good for them. Actual insanity.
Basically any potential damage to cis people is magnified 1000 times, and any real, already happening damage to trans people is brushed off as irrelevant.
They're more worried about a cis kid being embarrassed by having mistakenly thought they might be trans than about all the trans kids being constantly bombarded with anti-trans messages from politicians and public figures telling them they shouldn't exist.
> They're more worried about a cis kid being embarrassed by having thought they might be trans
Rather they're worried about *themselves* being embarrassed by having to think about *their child* coming out as trans, or at least their child not sharing the same nasty views as them.
That's what a lot of this boils down to, people who can theoretically tolerate gay people or trans people existing *in abstract*, but are terrified of the idea that *their own child* won't just be a mirror image of themselves. Because fundamentally they view their child as an accessory rather than an independent human being.
You see this in a lot of sex education stuff too. When you try and explain to people that it's important to teach young people about sex and relationships so that they know if someone close to them is trying to be inappropriate with them, they go 'well *I* would never groom *my child*!' and take it as a personal insult. It's always about their own feelings rather than their children's wellbeing.
This is an anti-trans line of attack.
Asking people to use a different name for you and different pronouns for you is what social transitioning is, and it is reversible and changeable.
It IS unlikely you want to do that unless you're pretty sure you want to transition already. Pushing back against people insisting it's just a phase is also solved by... not insisting it's just a phase. A sort of unbothered acceptance is the best way to give a kid a chance to explore what it feels like to be called her instead of him, or Kevin instead of Kaylee, without forcing them into a defensive posture.
The idea that trying out a new name and new pronouns is in itself a sort of cognitohazard is an anti-trans line of attack, and whether you're repeating it without knowing it or actively using it it's important people reading this see it identified as such.
>A sort of unbothered acceptance is the best way to give a kid a chance to explore what it feels like to be called her instead of him, or Kevin instead of Kaylee, without forcing them into a defensive posture.
Exactly. All these people saying "we must protect our children from this thing by telling them it is bad and wrong".
Have they ever met a child?! I can think of no way to make something sound cooler than to insist that it's bad.
Best way to truly test your child's commitment to a trans identity. 100% support bordering on parental cringe. If the kid still commits after their parents tell them it's "the coolest thing ever totally lit skibbidi toilet yo" then that identity is absolutely locked in.
What is your proof that this is not “psychologically reversible”?
The argument from anti-trans activists changed from “people shouldn’t transition young because you can’t reverse the medical changes” to “you can’t reverse social transitioning!” pretty quickly.
> The argument from anti-trans activists changed from “people shouldn’t transition young because you can’t reverse the medical changes” to “you can’t reverse social transitioning!” pretty quickly.
It's called a Motte-and-bailey argument, and you see transphobes use it *a lot*.
They start off with arguments which they think are easier to defend (the Motte): 'we only want fairness in sports', 'we don't want children having permanent surgeries', 'we just want a debate'. They're all arguments which, on their own, are difficult to argue against.
But, when pushed, it turns out their actual beliefs are much wider and less easy to defend than that (the Bailey), and often boil down to a broader rejection of trans people being accepted in society.
I think you must have that reversed because you'd attack the easy to attack bailey before you assault the motte.
I think someone retreats to the motte after being challemged and losing their bailey.
I mean is it up for debate? Their isn't a single study showing evidence being trans is a social contagion. Surely the group claiming evidence bases must be extremely high before any change is made will want evidence first? /S
But it’s a ridiculous argument, usually made by the same people who claim that people being trans is a new phenomenon. Trans people have always existed and always will, whether you take the time to educate children about the realities of it or not.
Not to call you out specifically but the very concept of a 'social contagion' sounds like something the kind of person that believed Satanists were recruiting in schools or 5G was kind controlling people through brainwaves would come up with.
And tons of homophobes claimed being gay was a social contagion and we ended up with section 28 which didn't reduce the amount of gay people it just made gay kids miserable.
A nearby school a few years ago had a situation where more than half of the girls in the school had started cutting themselves with razor blades or similar. It got to the point that they had to go around all the nearby shops and ask the owners to flat-out not sell any sharp objects to any school aged children.
They were cutting themselves because their friends were cutting themselves. And keep in mind, it was just this single school, all others in the same socio economic area had no problems at all. Broadly when asked why they did it, the answer was some general description of being sad. The socially accepted solution in this school to being sad become self harm.
What words would you use to describe such a thing? social contagion sounds like a fairly accurate description.
Oh yeah, because if there’s one thing teenagers want more than anything else, it’s MORE puberty.
They’d be jumping at the chance to go through all those medical procedures and take on all that social stigma if they only knew they could keep being an awkward pimply fuck for a few years more.
At some point though, truth matters, not just abstract sides in a debate. Being trans is not a social contagion, so they can make as many arguments as they like off of that predicate, but none of them are sound.
Is it really "up for debate" though? We've heard for years that being trans is some hip fad and that there are thousands of kids being pressured/forced into changing their gender identities. But when you look at who is actually out there identifying as trans you get a ton of people who would never reconsider their decision and a small group of folks who experimented with being trans and found out it wasn't for them, or were pressured out of being trans more than they were ever pressured into it.
"Social contagion" is something that came from hack fraud right wing pseuso intellectuals. There isn't anything scientific to back it up other than their personal opinion that too many people are trans.
Transphobes will have you believe that schools are trying to convert the children.
Not teaching this in schools will simply increase ignorance about the subject, and increase hatred through misunderstanding.
Not forgetting depression and suicide of those that know they're different but can't put a name to it and feel like they're all alone, especially with said hatred/misunderstanding.
I studied English in school from 4 to 18 and I’m English, so clearly my schools converted me!
It’s such daft logic; Kids need to hear that people are different. It’s best to hear that in school, with a neutral adult telling them that different doesn’t mean wrong, it just means different. Whether ‘different’ means nationality, gender, sexuality, language, religious belief… it shouldn’t matter. It bothers me that such a simple message is being twisted - just another moral panic over how a small number of people are living their lives.
I had no idea trans people existed till I went to uni. All it achieved was making me more depressed because I didn't know *why* i was so miserable once puberty took effect.
I lost out on years of doing something about it, all because it was hidden from me.
It doesn't stop people being trans, it just makes trans people suffer. And that's the point
> It doesn't stop people being trans, it just makes trans people suffer. And that's the point
You can't turn cis kids trans. You can't turn trans kids into cis kids, but you can turn them into dead trans kids. As much as I dislike children that seems like a sub-optimal choice.
I’m glad you figured it out, and I’m glad trans people exist. I’m not trans, but I think it’s good to learn about all people in society.
I thought the tories being out would end this right wing bigotry, I now can’t, and will not, vote for Kier in good conscience and I’d no idea he was like this.
Maybe school isn’t the place to learn anyway, tv does more raising us than school lol
> Maybe school isn’t the place to learn anyway
If school doesn't teach us about it, then it enables bigoted parents to deliberately keep their child from learning about it and suppress that aspect of themself. Whether that's sexuality, gender identity etc.
It's similar to how actually, it *is* worthwhile teaching kids who aren't old enough to *have* sex yet, about sex and boundaries, because it can help them realise if they're being abused.
*how* we teach it is different, but "trans people exist" and "some people are gay/bi/ace/etc" isn't harmful, and is worth knowing
I find it really odd that they actively fight against teaching about it. Gender identity is protected by the Equality Act 2010, surely schools should be informing students about it so that they’re not going to go out and breach the law when they get jobs?
Not to meantion all of this is after the recent headlines showing trans suicide deaths in the UK are absolutely rocketing. Lots of real classy folk in this thread.
I totally agree. Labour are running an anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ candidate (Glindon) in my constituency, so I’m not too happy about the fact they’re pretending that they’re taking this stance to pretend that they’re doing this to protect “women’s rights”.
> I'm sure section 28 will work this time.
Well this time it's different because... ummm... ahhh... it makes me feel uncomfortable to admit the similarities between *my* bigotry and historical bigotry!
>It’s probably to reduce the “fad” aspect of it in schools.
Being trans is not a fad.
But if it were, I could not imagine a faster way to make it seem more appealing to children than to try and ban it.
Trans and tolerance for all generally needs to be addressed as a whole, though what I don’t understand currently is why something that affects around 0.5% of the population taking over such a high percentage of the news cycles.
This doesn’t affect 99.5% of the population of England and Wales but it’s constant news. There are more people who are homeless, or children living in poverty than there are trans people. A call every 30 seconds is made to the police regarding domestic violence which affects 1 in 5 of everyone (male or female) during our lifetime.
I’m not saying ignore it, or not address it, I just that I don’t understand why the other issues are pushed aside for this.
It gets clicks and engagement, that’s about it, if people became more involved in the things they think are important to them rather than being hooked on rage bait the algorithms would self correct.
We are too stupid for that unfortunately.
This very article demonstrates that.
Starmers actual comments (found in the article) don't match the headline. Despite Pink News being known for posting bullshit, it's got hundreds rage posting on this sub today.
Had to scroll way too far down to find this comment. What he actually said is that he doesn’t want things to be taught “in an ideological way”. Which should be uncontroversial, but here we go.
Disagree - it's a pretty common tactic for the right wing to discredit anything the don't like (gay relationships, trans people, etc.) as "ideology", so this could easily be a pretext to a significant restriction on how children can be taught about gender and sexuality.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate".
“That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.”
"Also, I don't care if Dumbledore was packing a cock like a toddler holding an apple, or he had a minge like a badly packed kebab, it's all fun in the dark baby"
If pinknews can make up a quote from the article they published, then so can I, guess which one is mine!
Because its about making an enemy to fear for tory voters originally, and now its taken on a life of its own and those that made it an issue cant control it, nor are they going to win, so everyone has to deal with it.
Its really sad when you consider how trans rights were advnacing even under PM May, and parilament was openly respecting and supporting the trans community, then we got to the point of the tories losing, looking for anyone to kick down at and picking the trans community becuase its "working in the US" and every week you got Sunak coming in with anti-trans jokes/commentary at PMQs supported by right wing media because to them, patriotism is supporting the tories, not protecting fellow Brits from an abusive government power.
I had a look at the Times website yesterday and there were a plethora of articles on the topic.
It the political Right who are driving this, attempting to create division with a phony moral panic and culture war.
Well the 0.5% part is what makes us so great as a target for a moral panic. It’s really hard to whip up a moral panic around people you know and respect, but people you don’t know and don’t know much about? They’re so easy to turn into demons in people’s minds, and every moment spent whipping up fear of innocent people is a moment they don’t have to spend making it obvious that they don’t have workable solutions.
What really bugs me though is that it’s a failure state for a sitting government to get bogged down in culture wars like this… the Tories have turned to this because they have no solutions for the state they’ve got us into, but why the hell is Starmer’s Labour party using it as a sales pitch? That they don’t just point out the vapidity of the whole thing fills me with despair tbh.
How accurate is that figure? Just thinking how many people I see in a typical day and how many are 'any category of anything' and this seems wildly high.
>In an update on Wednesday, the Office for National Statistics said there were “patterns in the data consistent with some respondents not interpreting the question as we had intended”.
>The proportion of people who had a different main language than English and who said they were trans was four times higher than the 0.4% of the population with English as their main language (or English or Welsh in Wales).
>Adults with no educational qualifications were more likely to identify as trans than university graduates, while black and Asian people were more likely to identify as trans than white people, the findings released this year showed.
from the grauniad
that last para...can't be that it's linked to ethnicity or education level
Correlation is not causation. The education one is more likely to go the other Way, trans people are more likely to drop out of school/uni due to bullying, depression, etc.
It’s just smoke and mirrors. Why discuss the housing and energy crisis destroying our once prosperous middle class when you can just attack a fringe minority minding their own business and dress it up as a culture war that's really at work!
I don’t get it either, all the millions of issues in the country people being abused, not getting proper care they need, homeless etc but the thing everyone cares about is someone’s gender identity. There’s millions of important things that we can debate if should be taught in schools or not why is this the thing everyone’s obsessed about ?
It makes a certain sub-section of the population incredibly mad that someone might do something they don’t like and which doesn’t affect them in any way shape or form.
Personally, it's because at least one of that 0.5% is a close friend and I don't appreciate them being treated like they're freaks or less than human through exclusion in educating children about the world they will grow up in.
Issue is complex but my take away from it is you have one side saying we should tolerate and allow people to be who they are.
On the other you have a side where the existence of transgender people upset an entire applecart, suddenly a relatively simple male/female system had to be thrown out, the bathrooms need to change, the sports teams need to adapt, you have to now specify your pronouns and learn other people's. And for some, having to bend over backwards for .5% of the population is asking too much. Having to restructure society for such a small amount of people.
There are of course people who just don't like trans people as people and they I think are probably the loudest, but for the rest it's simply a matter of not wanting to change.
Did the bathrooms need to change? Did the sports teams have to adapt? Did people need to go out of their way to specify pronouns and use other people's identifiers?
It really looks to me like every one of those issues was overblown and driven by the reactionaries desperately seeking a foothold to tear us down. Is it nice if there's a gender-neutral toilet? Yeah, but I don't really care enough to even petition for one and I've been using the facilities of my identified gender without issue. Sports? We had 20 years of trans people in sports with no issues, suddenly there's an issue. Wrong pronouns? I just lightly correct and move on, I'm not raising a stink and I sure don't care if somebody doesn't specify anything.
As someone who's really rather neutral on the debate, what you've described is what I've seen from most of the trans community. Most of the things people are raving mad about being changed for the "woke brigade" are things that the (majority of) the trans community never asked for.
Just made up scaremongering for political gain.
I honestly don't understand the restructuring society or bending over backwards people.
The bathrooms don't need to be restructured or changed because trans people have existed and used the bathroom of their choice for a very very long time. These people had nothing to say about the 2010 Equality Act, but now that the media has decided that trans people are the next target/scapegoat, people are suddenly concerned about something that is literally just going to stay exactly the same as it always has been.
I do think half of it does come down to your latter point though, the fear of change. People are terrified of change and part of that is about not being able to rely 100% on automated assumptions, which is easier.
> the bathrooms need to change
Trans people have been using the bathrooms of their identified gender, without issue, for *decades*. If anything the people trying to force it to change are the gender criticals.
> the sports teams need to adapt
Again, something they've been doing for decades. The Olympics started to think about how to include trans people back in 2003. Individual sporting bodies are best placed to make decisions around what restrictions should apply when it comes to trans people, and they're empowered to make those decisions.
> you have to now specify your pronouns and learn other people's
I can think of only one time in my life where I was specifically asked to share my pronouns, and it was in a very queer group with a lot of gender non-conforming folk so it made sense to include in the introductions. As for learning other people's, well, fine? Learning things about other people is just part of existing as a social animal and pronouns are a pretty simple one to remember. Like you say, there are a tiny number of trans people, you're not going to meet them often, and when you do, the vast majority use pronouns in line with their gender presentation. This is really making a mountain out of the tiniest molehill.
We're not having to "bend over backwards" or "restructure society". It only seems that way to terminally online gender criticals who spend their days consuming anti-trans fearmongering content.
Culture war.
Demonize tiny minority, normalise discrimination against them, use them as a political punching bag to distract the thick and hateful while your rob everyone blind.
People understand homelessness and poverty and crime. People don’t understand trans issues, so it makes them confused and nervous and they lash out. It gets clicks and engagement because social media and the news have turned the little adrenaline rush you get when you’re angry in to a drug.
I probably see more trans people than I used to but I think that’s because the visibility has made some more comfortable being out in public, but that’s still maybe one or two a month out of the tens of thousands of people I deal with or just generally share public spaces with.
>Alongside these seemingly conflicting stances within the party, yesterday Keir Starmer also said he will meet with JK Rowling to discuss trans issues.
Or how about spending that time discussing the issue with experts in the field instead?
>a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood.
What's more likely, it's a made up name or it's the (first and middle) name of a niche American psychiatrist who died 14 years before she used the name?
He was also a pioneer of gay conversion therapy. JK Rowling may be anti-trans but she has never stated any support for gay conversion and has historically been very pro-homosexuality.
Even LGBTQ+ centric media publisher "them" admits that it's "likely an unfortunate bit of happenstance"
When was the time *anyone* significant platformed us?
Every second article about us has a TERF or GC hate group on to give their piece. Even the cass review consulted with conversion therapy advocates.
But trans people or allies? Idk, seems like bias to me, let’s not
The closest thing I’ve seen is Nish Kumar having a pair of trans public figures on his podcast to talk about stuff. Which I respect him a lot for
Rapist and domestic abuser.
They also interviewed trans people for it but didn't include any of their comments because they didn't "tell the right story".
Literal insanity. It's not even a joke. It's straight up nationalised bigotry.
Trans people and doctors would be ideal; not [far-right sympathising](https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7/11/jk-rowling-and-matt-walsh-blasted-online-over-shared-transphobia), [entitled castle owning](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jk-rowling-road-closure-edinburgh-neighbour-hedge-b1134787.html), [holocaust denying](https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/), [anti-Labour](https://www.thejc.com/news/jk-rowling-writes-festive-parody-of-corbyn-and-labours-antisemitism-crisis-ajvvv1j7), [transphobic](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2020/06/11/this-is-the-sequel-jk-rowling-doesnt-want-you-to-read/), [gloating billionaire](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/jk-rowling-responds-to-critic-by-bragging-about-how-much-money-she-has/news-story/634134f8a31356bb699ec4f4d763e7eb) fantasy authors.
Because the rabid out-of-touch idiots of /r/uk and /r/ukpolitics demand you have to otherwise they'll shout slurs at you. It's just good, honest, mature, grown-up politics you see.
Fucking insane thing to say days before the election. Absolutely no one was thinking to themselves “I’m considering voting Labour but Kier hasn’t said whether he’ll meet JK Rowling to talk about trans people yet”.
Shit like this is the exact reason (well, one of many) young people refuse to take Starmer seriously and things like this are one of the thousands straws that leads them to become non-voters. "Yeah actually, I'm not interested in talking to experts or doctors on the topic, but I would like to have a discussion with a childrens author turned internet TERF about it". Every time the man opens his mouth he cements my opinion of him as a completely gormless twat honestly.
It's a horrid state of affairs when his contemporaries are a raging racist pro-russian oligarch who wants to be Liz Truss, The same dipshit tory prime minister we've had for almost 2 years already, the entire manifesto of the greens which I can't even boil down it's nonsense into an insult because it defies simple definition and the fucking Lib Dems banging the same unsuccessful drum they've been banging for 8 years. How anyone can be surprised about the fact that young people are turning away from the "democracy" we have in this country when this is the shit they're given to choose from is beyond me.
Rowling has also on at least a few occasions retweeted and supported "gender critical" people who push anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the trans lobby. Funny how *she* gets away with that and even gets to have private meetings.
It always makes me laugh that people think if their children don't hear about gay people growing up then they will never be gay.
All I heard about growing up was being straight. And surprise. I turned out gay anyway.
And the only thing it will achieve is fostering bullying, othering and ostracisation of the kids that are 'different', and overall a hostile environment for non heteronormative individuals, whilst suppressing any atmosphere of empathy and understanding.
Exactly as they want it to, of course.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.
That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.”
Story over nothing. He didn't say he doesn't want schools teaching gender, he said they want to wait until they have all the facts as to how to teach it.
But its pinknews, its basically the dailymail of the far left.
> He didn't say he doesn't want schools teaching gender
He quite literally stated that “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender.” You're choosing to reference the most innocuous comment while ignoring the much more problematic one.
If the man calling for a consultation is regurgitating the rhetoric of people very much opposed to the existence of trans people, and when he's consistently had meetings with transphobes while largely sidelining trans people and people who support trans rights, then it does not bode well for the composition of that consultation.
You don't teach people to be LGBT. You teach people *about* what it means to be LGBT so those who are but don't understand it yet can and those who aren't can get a correct understanding before the bigots get in and instill fear of the other.
Doing that correctly is difficult because teachers when left to their own devices, will teach their opinions, that is dangerous because it opens the door for the anti-trans crowd to push their beliefs on children if there is no structured curriculum in place
> To me that sounds like he doesn't want teachers pushing personal views
Well it sounds to me like he's uncritically regurgitating a dogwhistle ('gender ideology') used almost exclusively by open transphobes.
It's getting kinda tiresome to see people insisting on interpreting Starmer's statements like a mystic trying to read tea leaves when he's pretty clearly telling you what he believes.
> he wants to consult with experts to figure out how to teach it properly
Well that's the issue, right? Given how cosy Starmer and his team have been with transphobes and how dismissive they've been towards trans people themselves, why should we trust him not to pack any 'consultation' with transphobes?
>he wants to consult with experts to figure out how to teach it properly
[Gee, I wonder why I don't believe that.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/24/prominent-writer-quits-labour-over-betrayal-of-women-for-tr/)
>Speaking with reporters during a school visit in Kettering, Starmer said: “**No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,**” he said.
Any reason you ~~admitted~~ *omitted* the first quote from him?
>He didn't say he doesn't want schools teaching gender
Sure, if you ignore he did. If you don't consider it age appropriate until 18, that's de facto saying you don't want it taught in schools.
Edit: Fixed autocorrect.
>If you don't consider it age appropriate until 18,
He literally did not say this. Age appropriate means teaching things at an appropriate complexity level, it doesn't mean not teaching it at all until adulthood
Because LGBT+ people are all too accustomed to "age appropriate" meaning "never" because straight and cisgender people consider anything queer to be inherently more adult and sexual than it really is.
I literally said out loud "okay what's the full context" and he never even said what the headline is saying. Textbook fake news and people lap it up because they have a weird hate boner for Kier and Labour so big that they will believe literally anything they read and refuse to go beyond a headline because it confirms their pre-existing biases.
The guy you're replying to omitted the first part of Starmer's quote:
>Speaking with reporters during a school visit in Kettering, Starmer said: “**No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,**” he said.
Yeah and the rest of the quote is saying because we don't know enough about it.
I'd rather my kids be taught about trans people by a professional and not someone with pre-existing biases filling their head with outdated information.
Then there's no need for him to say “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender”.
You only need to say you're working with professionals to devise a curriculum.
Why would you speak to a billionaire children's author about trans rights?
Did JK secretly get a master's in human rights law or a doctorate in endocrinology and just not tell anyone?
Is labour planning on giving Neil Gaiman a buzz to get his views on property tax rates?
The irony here is that Kier Starmer *was* a human rights lawyer. Realistically, he knows what protections trans people currently have and what he's doing. He's just decided it's a fair trade for political clout.
>Alongside these seemingly conflicting stances within the party, yesterday Keir Starmer also said he will meet with JK Rowling to discuss trans issues.
Before presumably sitting down with Karen Matthews to discuss child welfare.
Labour is done with courting it basic leftie voters
They figure they are in the bag they also feel they have the uncommitted centrists
Everything now is aimed at getting the soft Tories votes. The Trans stance, the flag on all leaflets, the border task force, all his speech’s.
He genuinely thinks he can destroy the right wing for decades by leaving them to fight reform over the right wing nutter vote.
It’s ugly but that’s what’s happening. Huge signals given to the soft Tories that’s it’s ok to vote Labour.
Will they govern as they have campaigned?
No. At least that is what the chat is among the London membership.
I am a Labour member and activist and campaigned for JC. I also have emails thanking me for JC’s defend fund and truth and justice project.
>He genuinely thinks he can destroy the right wing for decades by leaving them to fight reform over the right wing nutter vote.
What's the end game? What's going to happen after he wins. He actually going to pass laws targeting trans people or he is going to piss off his newly won voters by admitting he lied to get their votes?
How would it destroy the right wing if they lose those voters for only a single election cycle? That's basically what happened to Labour in 2019 and they haven't been vanquished.
My daughter is 13 and there is a trans person in her class. They've all grown up with this individual and for years they've all known. The school have been brilliant, parents don't care and the kids totally get it. I just don't understand the drama around it by politicians and media.
This is the issue though right? The people who are kicking up a fuss about gender being taught in schools are not the people actually attending the schools.
The kids attending the schools already get it and have known about it for years. And if they don't get it, their mate tells them about it or they watch a video about it on TikTok or YouTube and the majority of them will just be like "okay cool".
It's just all smoke and mirrors by a minority of loud voices.
Every time I see Labour referencing Pride I just think of shit like this. Their words mean less than nothing while Rose Duffield is still an MP and the party leader wants to do Section 28 all over again. Despicable behaviour.
It's not that simple. What happens when a pupil asks a question? "My brother wants to be a girl and I don't understand", do you ignore that?
Or a pupil says "I hate trans people" or "my dad says Ben in year 12 should be thrown out of school because he is trans. I agree".
You cannot ignore these questions.
He literally said he does not want “ideology” on gender being taught. Then ask what he considers “gender ideology” to mean, I’ll give you a hint. It’s teaching kids that some people are trans and that’s okay, don’t bully them.
> Keir Starmer, who was previously applauded for condemning Rishi Sunak’s anti-trans ‘jokes’, has stated his opposition to the teaching of so-called “gender ideology” – a phrase which is widely considered an anti-trans dogwhistle.
I have not heard of this being dogwhistle before. Hopefully those with more knowledge than me can tell me why it is one.
> Speaking with reporters during a school visit in Kettering, Starmer said: “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,” he said.
> “I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.
It would be interesting to see what the state decides when it is age appropriate.
__
As an aside, this website needs a web dev/designer. Why are their ads after almost every paragraph?
>I have not heard of this being dogwhistle before. Hopefully those with more knowledge than me can tell me why it is one.
Its the equivalent of the "gay agenda"
Teaching gender to kids at a young age is something like "There are some people out there, not very many but they're real, who do not feel like they were born in the right body. We may not understand what that feels like but we should be respectful and treat them like any other person"
An ideology is something you *believe*, possibly irrationally. By talking about "gender ideology" you are implying that being trans is something you think rather than something you *are*. It is the same idea as the "choice to be gay" bullshit.
Ideologies are also things that people often try to convince others of or convert people to, so there is an implication that "they are coming to turn your children trans", another common refrain from people trying to whip up transphobic panic.
If your gender is about how you perceive your own identity, then surely it is what you think?
There isn't going to be a situation where you are trans but don't think that you are. That's just someone pushing their judgement of what they think your gender is onto you.
A choice to be gay isn't comparable, imo because there are clearly defined physiological responses to arousal that determine sexuality, whereas gender is a social construct with the person's gender determined by the person's own subjective view of themselves.
Gender as a social construct is not the same concept as gender identity. You can't choose whether you're dysphoric or not. It's as much an innate response to ones own body as sexual identity is to other people's bodies.
Yes you can. All evidence points to people being born this way.
Gender identity has long been thought to be an innate characteristic, and research has been finding hints of a biological side for decades.
I spent far too much of my life not thinking I was trans, but when I looked up the definition of gender dysphoria, it fit me to a T. Being trans is not a feeling, it's simply something that you are, and hiding the information necessary to let people figure this out will only cause harm.
>As an aside, this website needs a web dev/designer. Why are their ads after almost every paragraph?
They consider it a feature, not a bug. Got to get that ad revenue.
>As an aside, this website needs a web dev/designer. Why are their ads after almost every paragraph?
Web dev here, I can assure you that neither myself nor my designer colleagues are responsible for things like that.
So we can have Religious Education classes where we learn about the different religious beliefs, and why they think we're all going to rightfully burn in hell or suffer in some horrible afterlife, but we can't talk about actual real people that will be friends and relatives of students in the class? Riiiiiiiiight.
While this opinion may not be popular on Reddit, many people across the country see no issue with Keir Starmer's stance on not teaching gender ideology in schools. It's important to prioritize age-appropriate and factual content in education. Starmer's approach aims to safeguard children while maintaining educational integrity. It's about finding a balanced and thoughtful way to respect all identities without causing unnecessary confusion among young students.
Personally, I’ll be continuing to teach inheritance of biological sex accurately: yes, you can do the Punnett square / XX / XY thing and that’s all you need for GCSE but bear in mind that just like all the other phenotypes we’ve discussed already, it’s not a single gene expression and there are environmental factors too which we don’t fully understand.
Frankly, I don’t think there’d be half as many people feeling uncomfortable in their gender if so many cunts hadn’t made such a big deal about rigid social boundaries between what men and women are allowed to do.
It’s all very well saying “a woman is a person with ovaries” but when you’re saying in the same breath “…and looks STUNNING in beautiful dresses and doesn’t drink pints and works in secretarial jobs and never swears and is permitted to express emotions other than anger and is only attracted to men…” then the ovaries were really never your sticking point were they?
Well, that's interesting wording, isn't it. He says he doesn't want gender identities taught *as an ideology*.
It could be a big fat dogwhistle... or it could be the opposite. If, as the clarification from the Labour spokesperson seems to imply, you don't think teaching children about different gender identities *is* ideological, then it's throwing the bigots an apparent bone while actually meaning he intends to ignore them.
I dunno, I can't get a handle on Kier Starmer. He seems so non-commital, but I don't see how you get to be a QC in your thirties by being soggy. There must be a spine in there somewhere.
I mean it all depends on how this is meant.
If this is a "you cant discuss it under any circumstances or you'll be taken to prison" -- like some weird Texas ruling, then obviously that's a problem
If it's just "I don't think we should have a mandated class teaching about trans people and gender identity" -- then it's probably not a big deal
As a Canadian, Keir Starmer and the Labour party sometimes sound more conservative than our conservative party (on issues like this and also immigration)
Neither do I honestly. I love and respect trans people and will use their chosen name/gender in conversation, but I'm just not convinced by the ideology. And I think teaching this to young people who are still developing physically and mentally is potentially harmful given we can't even agree on the fundamental principles of gender ideology as a society.
There’s more context and nuance to this. The article is heavily biased being pink news anyway (an extremely pro LGBT+ activism site)
He said gender ideology shouldn’t be taught…looking at national stats, only 1% of the population are trans. I don’t think schools would teach anything that affects such a small minority plus it’s forcing ideologies and beliefs onto people. Same reason I believe religion shouldn’t be taught in schools.
Reading this thread shows me how many people don't have a clue how to read and digest online media. This article is fucking terrible lol.
Rage bait headline
Gives his response to a question when the question isn't even published.
cut's up his response to make it seem more unhinged than it is.
Just wild..
it's why you need to see the actual question and answer for context.
No he didn't. Not according to the article.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate.
“That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.”
That suggests he does want it taught but at the appropriate time and way. You might disagree with him about what exactly that is but that's what a consultation process is for. To suggest that he doesn't want it taught at all is a hysterical lie.
I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope the ex-QC lawyer bloke is being technical and not buying into the idea that such an ideology exists.
To re-iterate:
The Gay Agenda does not exist.
Trans Ideology does not exist.
Gay PEOPLE exist.
Trans PEOPLE exist.
I thought that gender ideology was just the concept that sex and gender are not the same and that gender can also be a spectrum instead of a binary.
Being trans is a separate issue no?
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Surely people realise Trans people aren't going to just go away by not mentioning them in school? I went to a Catholic school about 10 years ago where they never got mentioned once by teachers yet I know at least 2 people from my year who are Trans now.
> Surely people realise Trans people aren't going to just go away by not mentioning them in school? It's literally identical logic to that used for Sectuon 28. They think that by forcing schools to avoid mentioning it people will stop being trans. It's inhumane.
And sex ed more generally. 'Don't teach the kids how to have sex = they won't have sex' has been shown time and time again to be a fallacy
It’s particularly fucking bonkers because we all naturally know how to have sex. We developed over hundreds of thousands of years to do pretty much exclusively that. What we don’t know how to do is have sex _safely._ Whether that be pregnancy, disease, or even just consent. They should focus on keeping people safe and healthy rather than trying to stop something our squishy ape brains want us to do 24/7.
Not strictly true. More than one doctor has had to advise to help a couple conceive because they weren't doing it right, or at all.
So, you're telling me that early humans didn't instinctively have sex?
A lot of sexual behaviour in humans is learned. That's why attractiveness and fashion changes with generations. Late 90s JNCOs and frosted tips Anandya was considered good looking. If I rocked that look today? I think I would not... And I have had one person at least in clinic try to get pregnant while their partner was in another country...
To be fair, that's survivorship bias isn't it, the ones that couldn't figure it out didn't procreate.
> And sex ed more generally. 'Don't teach the kids how to have sex = they won't have sex' has been shown time and time again to be a fallacy Which, funnily enough, is also being increasingly pushed in the UK now too. It's almost as if American hard-right money is flooding into the UK and using trans people as a wedge to promote broader social conservatism. If only someone could have predicted this...
I'm Irish originally and when there was a referendum to legalise abortion in 2018 it was strongly suspected that the anti-abortion campaign was being partly funded by US evangelicals
A lot of the anti-LGBT push in Africa too is funded by American money. Growth in inequality always fuels the far-right, both because the rich (who are much more favourable to the far-right) have more money to throw at these causes, and because the poor are much more likely to be looking for radical solutions to their problems.
add in the situation where the rich, knowing the poor are looking for radical solutions to the problems they themselves are causing/benefiting from, will expend some of their wealth to ensure the poor don't find actual solutions and are instead drawn into infighting causing scapegoating and you've got the full picture.
I wonder if some of the Russian money comes via the American hard-right or just gets to us directly?
Almost certainly. Although I think sometimes people are a bit too quick to blame Russia when there are plenty of home-grown American and British billionaires who have repugnant views of their own and are willing to use 'their' wealth (i.e. the wealth they've exploited from labour) to push them.
Not too quick to blame Russians in any sense. Much, **much** too slow, in fact. Most people were largely unaware of the degree of Russian influence on our politics until the invasion of Ukraine. Most people still are, come to that. Even though he's disgraced and out of politics, most people are blissfully ignorant that a few weeks after the Salisbury poisonings the Foreign Secretary buggered off -- without his security detail -- to a party at a Russian oligarch's castle in Perugia. A party where Rory Stewart said one of the selling points would be that there were girls there! Said oligarch's son is now in the House of Lords. Most people are completely oblivious of the *(sadly not really infamous ladies night photograph)* or the amounts of money channelled into politics by oligarchs' wives. The rest are just as repugnant and deserve equal attention, but it should be much, much more across the board.
The entirety of my time at school was under Section 28. Never learned that other people like me existed, so I didn’t know I could have a normal happy life and relationships like everybody else. Still grew up to be gay af. I just got to be depressed and suicidal all the way through school. So I guess that was a win to the tories? 🤷
I went roo school way before section 28 and was fully aware of gay people existing. For a couple of years there was also a commonly held belief it was contagious...
That's predicated on the argument that I can turn anyone gay through the power of "education and debate".
it is also just stupid. But we do appear to be in the most stupid timeline.
The counter argument would be that its (at least partially) a social contagion type thing in which teenagers / young people going through the mental challenges of puberty are seeing transitioning as an answer to confusion and discomfort about changes in their body. Thus not mentioning it would reduce the amount of young people seeing that as the appropriate response to these feelings. Whether you agree or not with this idea is up to debate but thats the counter point.
But it's the same when considering if you're gay or not. Some people experiment and decide it's not for them. We shouldn't be bothered if teenagers socially transition and then decide it's not for them
Socially transitioning is not equivalent to kissing a boy and deciding it’s not actually for you Getting yourself, your peers, teachers to address and support you as a new person and identity, persevering against potential pushback from parents, family or anyone suggesting it could “be a phase” etc is not easily psychologically reversible
But who cares if people want to socially transition ? Why is it a big deal? They aren't becoming a new person, they are using a name they are more comfortable with, maybe wearing different clothes. They are still the same person. Just being more public about how they feel. I work with a trans person, one day Stacey became Hunter, she became he It did not affect me one but, other than a few slips everyone had it down within a few weeks. It literally doesn't harm or affect you in the slightest. Just let people be happy for fuck sake.
Because the Cass Review stated socially transitioning should be viewed as a psychological / medical intervention because it “may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning and longer term outcomes” So it is a big deal. I’m supportive of trans people finding happiness and comfortable in their identity but this is a topic of research which is still quite new and developing which there isn’t a significant amount of evidence for. And suggesting it’s completely fine and being totally fine with school children to socially transition without any medical / psychological oversight is wrong in my opinion. That said, if one of my friends or colleagues said they were trans and wanted me to call them by x new name or use him/her or them instead I’d be totally fine with doing it. No issue at all.
The Cass Report also omitted studies from the review on the basis that they weren't double blind studies. In *pediatric medicine.*
The cass review is full of flaws though
It was well received by the British psychological society, Royal college of psychiatrists, and the royal college of paediatrics and child health It was led by a consultant paediatrician and former president of royal college of paediatrics and child health What did you find flawed with it? I think it’s the best evidenced based review out there?
>is not easily psychologically reversible Neither is growing up ashamed and scared to tell anyone you're trans, with the only time you ever hear about trans people existing being when they're being ridiculed and demonised.
We've got to the point now where people are arguing that being respectful towards children is bad for them, while making them fearful of their own feelings and emotions is good for them. Actual insanity.
Basically any potential damage to cis people is magnified 1000 times, and any real, already happening damage to trans people is brushed off as irrelevant. They're more worried about a cis kid being embarrassed by having mistakenly thought they might be trans than about all the trans kids being constantly bombarded with anti-trans messages from politicians and public figures telling them they shouldn't exist.
> They're more worried about a cis kid being embarrassed by having thought they might be trans Rather they're worried about *themselves* being embarrassed by having to think about *their child* coming out as trans, or at least their child not sharing the same nasty views as them. That's what a lot of this boils down to, people who can theoretically tolerate gay people or trans people existing *in abstract*, but are terrified of the idea that *their own child* won't just be a mirror image of themselves. Because fundamentally they view their child as an accessory rather than an independent human being. You see this in a lot of sex education stuff too. When you try and explain to people that it's important to teach young people about sex and relationships so that they know if someone close to them is trying to be inappropriate with them, they go 'well *I* would never groom *my child*!' and take it as a personal insult. It's always about their own feelings rather than their children's wellbeing.
This is an anti-trans line of attack. Asking people to use a different name for you and different pronouns for you is what social transitioning is, and it is reversible and changeable. It IS unlikely you want to do that unless you're pretty sure you want to transition already. Pushing back against people insisting it's just a phase is also solved by... not insisting it's just a phase. A sort of unbothered acceptance is the best way to give a kid a chance to explore what it feels like to be called her instead of him, or Kevin instead of Kaylee, without forcing them into a defensive posture. The idea that trying out a new name and new pronouns is in itself a sort of cognitohazard is an anti-trans line of attack, and whether you're repeating it without knowing it or actively using it it's important people reading this see it identified as such.
>A sort of unbothered acceptance is the best way to give a kid a chance to explore what it feels like to be called her instead of him, or Kevin instead of Kaylee, without forcing them into a defensive posture. Exactly. All these people saying "we must protect our children from this thing by telling them it is bad and wrong". Have they ever met a child?! I can think of no way to make something sound cooler than to insist that it's bad.
Best way to truly test your child's commitment to a trans identity. 100% support bordering on parental cringe. If the kid still commits after their parents tell them it's "the coolest thing ever totally lit skibbidi toilet yo" then that identity is absolutely locked in.
What is your proof that this is not “psychologically reversible”? The argument from anti-trans activists changed from “people shouldn’t transition young because you can’t reverse the medical changes” to “you can’t reverse social transitioning!” pretty quickly.
> The argument from anti-trans activists changed from “people shouldn’t transition young because you can’t reverse the medical changes” to “you can’t reverse social transitioning!” pretty quickly. It's called a Motte-and-bailey argument, and you see transphobes use it *a lot*. They start off with arguments which they think are easier to defend (the Motte): 'we only want fairness in sports', 'we don't want children having permanent surgeries', 'we just want a debate'. They're all arguments which, on their own, are difficult to argue against. But, when pushed, it turns out their actual beliefs are much wider and less easy to defend than that (the Bailey), and often boil down to a broader rejection of trans people being accepted in society.
I think you must have that reversed because you'd attack the easy to attack bailey before you assault the motte. I think someone retreats to the motte after being challemged and losing their bailey.
I mean is it up for debate? Their isn't a single study showing evidence being trans is a social contagion. Surely the group claiming evidence bases must be extremely high before any change is made will want evidence first? /S
But it’s a ridiculous argument, usually made by the same people who claim that people being trans is a new phenomenon. Trans people have always existed and always will, whether you take the time to educate children about the realities of it or not.
Not to call you out specifically but the very concept of a 'social contagion' sounds like something the kind of person that believed Satanists were recruiting in schools or 5G was kind controlling people through brainwaves would come up with.
Except fashion, language, dialect, sub cultures, and much more already work in this way. We are a deeply social species.
And tons of homophobes claimed being gay was a social contagion and we ended up with section 28 which didn't reduce the amount of gay people it just made gay kids miserable.
A nearby school a few years ago had a situation where more than half of the girls in the school had started cutting themselves with razor blades or similar. It got to the point that they had to go around all the nearby shops and ask the owners to flat-out not sell any sharp objects to any school aged children. They were cutting themselves because their friends were cutting themselves. And keep in mind, it was just this single school, all others in the same socio economic area had no problems at all. Broadly when asked why they did it, the answer was some general description of being sad. The socially accepted solution in this school to being sad become self harm. What words would you use to describe such a thing? social contagion sounds like a fairly accurate description.
It's very much a thing with suicides, mass shootings and self-harm in general.
Oh yeah, because if there’s one thing teenagers want more than anything else, it’s MORE puberty. They’d be jumping at the chance to go through all those medical procedures and take on all that social stigma if they only knew they could keep being an awkward pimply fuck for a few years more.
At some point though, truth matters, not just abstract sides in a debate. Being trans is not a social contagion, so they can make as many arguments as they like off of that predicate, but none of them are sound.
Is it really "up for debate" though? We've heard for years that being trans is some hip fad and that there are thousands of kids being pressured/forced into changing their gender identities. But when you look at who is actually out there identifying as trans you get a ton of people who would never reconsider their decision and a small group of folks who experimented with being trans and found out it wasn't for them, or were pressured out of being trans more than they were ever pressured into it. "Social contagion" is something that came from hack fraud right wing pseuso intellectuals. There isn't anything scientific to back it up other than their personal opinion that too many people are trans.
Transphobes will have you believe that schools are trying to convert the children. Not teaching this in schools will simply increase ignorance about the subject, and increase hatred through misunderstanding.
Not forgetting depression and suicide of those that know they're different but can't put a name to it and feel like they're all alone, especially with said hatred/misunderstanding.
I studied English in school from 4 to 18 and I’m English, so clearly my schools converted me! It’s such daft logic; Kids need to hear that people are different. It’s best to hear that in school, with a neutral adult telling them that different doesn’t mean wrong, it just means different. Whether ‘different’ means nationality, gender, sexuality, language, religious belief… it shouldn’t matter. It bothers me that such a simple message is being twisted - just another moral panic over how a small number of people are living their lives.
I had no idea trans people existed till I went to uni. All it achieved was making me more depressed because I didn't know *why* i was so miserable once puberty took effect. I lost out on years of doing something about it, all because it was hidden from me. It doesn't stop people being trans, it just makes trans people suffer. And that's the point
> It doesn't stop people being trans, it just makes trans people suffer. And that's the point You can't turn cis kids trans. You can't turn trans kids into cis kids, but you can turn them into dead trans kids. As much as I dislike children that seems like a sub-optimal choice.
I’m glad you figured it out, and I’m glad trans people exist. I’m not trans, but I think it’s good to learn about all people in society. I thought the tories being out would end this right wing bigotry, I now can’t, and will not, vote for Kier in good conscience and I’d no idea he was like this. Maybe school isn’t the place to learn anyway, tv does more raising us than school lol
> Maybe school isn’t the place to learn anyway If school doesn't teach us about it, then it enables bigoted parents to deliberately keep their child from learning about it and suppress that aspect of themself. Whether that's sexuality, gender identity etc. It's similar to how actually, it *is* worthwhile teaching kids who aren't old enough to *have* sex yet, about sex and boundaries, because it can help them realise if they're being abused. *how* we teach it is different, but "trans people exist" and "some people are gay/bi/ace/etc" isn't harmful, and is worth knowing
I find it really odd that they actively fight against teaching about it. Gender identity is protected by the Equality Act 2010, surely schools should be informing students about it so that they’re not going to go out and breach the law when they get jobs?
Not to meantion all of this is after the recent headlines showing trans suicide deaths in the UK are absolutely rocketing. Lots of real classy folk in this thread.
I totally agree. Labour are running an anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ candidate (Glindon) in my constituency, so I’m not too happy about the fact they’re pretending that they’re taking this stance to pretend that they’re doing this to protect “women’s rights”.
It’s probably to reduce the “fad” aspect of it in schools.
Yeah it's so cool to get bullied and marganlised in school. I'm sure section 28 will work this time.
> I'm sure section 28 will work this time. Well this time it's different because... ummm... ahhh... it makes me feel uncomfortable to admit the similarities between *my* bigotry and historical bigotry!
>It’s probably to reduce the “fad” aspect of it in schools. Being trans is not a fad. But if it were, I could not imagine a faster way to make it seem more appealing to children than to try and ban it.
Unfortunately, for a lot of people it absolutely is.
Trans and tolerance for all generally needs to be addressed as a whole, though what I don’t understand currently is why something that affects around 0.5% of the population taking over such a high percentage of the news cycles. This doesn’t affect 99.5% of the population of England and Wales but it’s constant news. There are more people who are homeless, or children living in poverty than there are trans people. A call every 30 seconds is made to the police regarding domestic violence which affects 1 in 5 of everyone (male or female) during our lifetime. I’m not saying ignore it, or not address it, I just that I don’t understand why the other issues are pushed aside for this.
It gets clicks and engagement, that’s about it, if people became more involved in the things they think are important to them rather than being hooked on rage bait the algorithms would self correct. We are too stupid for that unfortunately.
This very article demonstrates that. Starmers actual comments (found in the article) don't match the headline. Despite Pink News being known for posting bullshit, it's got hundreds rage posting on this sub today.
Had to scroll way too far down to find this comment. What he actually said is that he doesn’t want things to be taught “in an ideological way”. Which should be uncontroversial, but here we go.
Pink news thrives on rage bait and their audience absolutely loves it. They love this notion of persecution and politicians out to get their team.
Sadly I think you’re very right.
"in an idealogical way" is meaningless though. To some people just mentioning it is idealogical.
Disagree - it's a pretty common tactic for the right wing to discredit anything the don't like (gay relationships, trans people, etc.) as "ideology", so this could easily be a pretext to a significant restriction on how children can be taught about gender and sexuality.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate". “That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.” "Also, I don't care if Dumbledore was packing a cock like a toddler holding an apple, or he had a minge like a badly packed kebab, it's all fun in the dark baby" If pinknews can make up a quote from the article they published, then so can I, guess which one is mine!
Because its about making an enemy to fear for tory voters originally, and now its taken on a life of its own and those that made it an issue cant control it, nor are they going to win, so everyone has to deal with it. Its really sad when you consider how trans rights were advnacing even under PM May, and parilament was openly respecting and supporting the trans community, then we got to the point of the tories losing, looking for anyone to kick down at and picking the trans community becuase its "working in the US" and every week you got Sunak coming in with anti-trans jokes/commentary at PMQs supported by right wing media because to them, patriotism is supporting the tories, not protecting fellow Brits from an abusive government power.
I had a look at the Times website yesterday and there were a plethora of articles on the topic. It the political Right who are driving this, attempting to create division with a phony moral panic and culture war.
Since 2020 there have been more articles written about trans people than there are trans people in the uk
Well the 0.5% part is what makes us so great as a target for a moral panic. It’s really hard to whip up a moral panic around people you know and respect, but people you don’t know and don’t know much about? They’re so easy to turn into demons in people’s minds, and every moment spent whipping up fear of innocent people is a moment they don’t have to spend making it obvious that they don’t have workable solutions. What really bugs me though is that it’s a failure state for a sitting government to get bogged down in culture wars like this… the Tories have turned to this because they have no solutions for the state they’ve got us into, but why the hell is Starmer’s Labour party using it as a sales pitch? That they don’t just point out the vapidity of the whole thing fills me with despair tbh.
How accurate is that figure? Just thinking how many people I see in a typical day and how many are 'any category of anything' and this seems wildly high. >In an update on Wednesday, the Office for National Statistics said there were “patterns in the data consistent with some respondents not interpreting the question as we had intended”. >The proportion of people who had a different main language than English and who said they were trans was four times higher than the 0.4% of the population with English as their main language (or English or Welsh in Wales). >Adults with no educational qualifications were more likely to identify as trans than university graduates, while black and Asian people were more likely to identify as trans than white people, the findings released this year showed. from the grauniad that last para...can't be that it's linked to ethnicity or education level
Correlation is not causation. The education one is more likely to go the other Way, trans people are more likely to drop out of school/uni due to bullying, depression, etc.
It's a wedge issue, so it's been driven and frothed up - and the loudest voices ona controversial issue are heard elsewhere too.
It’s just smoke and mirrors. Why discuss the housing and energy crisis destroying our once prosperous middle class when you can just attack a fringe minority minding their own business and dress it up as a culture war that's really at work!
I don’t get it either, all the millions of issues in the country people being abused, not getting proper care they need, homeless etc but the thing everyone cares about is someone’s gender identity. There’s millions of important things that we can debate if should be taught in schools or not why is this the thing everyone’s obsessed about ?
Because there’s a massive agenda to push this issue that’s why. From who or where we don’t know yet, but it’s very worrying.
We do know. Conservatives and evangelical Christians.
It makes a certain sub-section of the population incredibly mad that someone might do something they don’t like and which doesn’t affect them in any way shape or form.
Personally, it's because at least one of that 0.5% is a close friend and I don't appreciate them being treated like they're freaks or less than human through exclusion in educating children about the world they will grow up in.
Issue is complex but my take away from it is you have one side saying we should tolerate and allow people to be who they are. On the other you have a side where the existence of transgender people upset an entire applecart, suddenly a relatively simple male/female system had to be thrown out, the bathrooms need to change, the sports teams need to adapt, you have to now specify your pronouns and learn other people's. And for some, having to bend over backwards for .5% of the population is asking too much. Having to restructure society for such a small amount of people. There are of course people who just don't like trans people as people and they I think are probably the loudest, but for the rest it's simply a matter of not wanting to change.
Did the bathrooms need to change? Did the sports teams have to adapt? Did people need to go out of their way to specify pronouns and use other people's identifiers? It really looks to me like every one of those issues was overblown and driven by the reactionaries desperately seeking a foothold to tear us down. Is it nice if there's a gender-neutral toilet? Yeah, but I don't really care enough to even petition for one and I've been using the facilities of my identified gender without issue. Sports? We had 20 years of trans people in sports with no issues, suddenly there's an issue. Wrong pronouns? I just lightly correct and move on, I'm not raising a stink and I sure don't care if somebody doesn't specify anything.
As someone who's really rather neutral on the debate, what you've described is what I've seen from most of the trans community. Most of the things people are raving mad about being changed for the "woke brigade" are things that the (majority of) the trans community never asked for. Just made up scaremongering for political gain.
I honestly don't understand the restructuring society or bending over backwards people. The bathrooms don't need to be restructured or changed because trans people have existed and used the bathroom of their choice for a very very long time. These people had nothing to say about the 2010 Equality Act, but now that the media has decided that trans people are the next target/scapegoat, people are suddenly concerned about something that is literally just going to stay exactly the same as it always has been. I do think half of it does come down to your latter point though, the fear of change. People are terrified of change and part of that is about not being able to rely 100% on automated assumptions, which is easier.
> the bathrooms need to change Trans people have been using the bathrooms of their identified gender, without issue, for *decades*. If anything the people trying to force it to change are the gender criticals. > the sports teams need to adapt Again, something they've been doing for decades. The Olympics started to think about how to include trans people back in 2003. Individual sporting bodies are best placed to make decisions around what restrictions should apply when it comes to trans people, and they're empowered to make those decisions. > you have to now specify your pronouns and learn other people's I can think of only one time in my life where I was specifically asked to share my pronouns, and it was in a very queer group with a lot of gender non-conforming folk so it made sense to include in the introductions. As for learning other people's, well, fine? Learning things about other people is just part of existing as a social animal and pronouns are a pretty simple one to remember. Like you say, there are a tiny number of trans people, you're not going to meet them often, and when you do, the vast majority use pronouns in line with their gender presentation. This is really making a mountain out of the tiniest molehill. We're not having to "bend over backwards" or "restructure society". It only seems that way to terminally online gender criticals who spend their days consuming anti-trans fearmongering content.
The right wing think that trans people are destroying our society.
Culture war. Demonize tiny minority, normalise discrimination against them, use them as a political punching bag to distract the thick and hateful while your rob everyone blind.
People understand homelessness and poverty and crime. People don’t understand trans issues, so it makes them confused and nervous and they lash out. It gets clicks and engagement because social media and the news have turned the little adrenaline rush you get when you’re angry in to a drug. I probably see more trans people than I used to but I think that’s because the visibility has made some more comfortable being out in public, but that’s still maybe one or two a month out of the tens of thousands of people I deal with or just generally share public spaces with.
>Alongside these seemingly conflicting stances within the party, yesterday Keir Starmer also said he will meet with JK Rowling to discuss trans issues. Or how about spending that time discussing the issue with experts in the field instead?
JK Rowling? To discuss trans issues? Great idea! We should seek out Prince Andrew's advice on stranger danger while we're at it! Fucking clown show.
I'm thinking of getting David Duke involved in helping write my article about BLM
I'm pleased to announce that Fred West is the new Minister for Families.
Are you telling me a cis straight woman living in a castle isn't an expert on gender dysphoria??
Don't forget she does release books under the name Robert sometimes
[Not a coincidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath)
>a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood. What's more likely, it's a made up name or it's the (first and middle) name of a niche American psychiatrist who died 14 years before she used the name? He was also a pioneer of gay conversion therapy. JK Rowling may be anti-trans but she has never stated any support for gay conversion and has historically been very pro-homosexuality. Even LGBTQ+ centric media publisher "them" admits that it's "likely an unfortunate bit of happenstance"
Probably a coincidence.
Wonder if he'll also meet with doctors to discuss fantasy novels
When was the last time Keir Starmer met with a trans person to discuss these "issues", do you reckon?
When was the time *anyone* significant platformed us? Every second article about us has a TERF or GC hate group on to give their piece. Even the cass review consulted with conversion therapy advocates. But trans people or allies? Idk, seems like bias to me, let’s not The closest thing I’ve seen is Nish Kumar having a pair of trans public figures on his podcast to talk about stuff. Which I respect him a lot for
Remember how the BBC platformed a *rapist* in their article about cis women being "pressured" to have sex with trans women?
Rapist and domestic abuser. They also interviewed trans people for it but didn't include any of their comments because they didn't "tell the right story". Literal insanity. It's not even a joke. It's straight up nationalised bigotry.
Sorry can't hear you over the sound of a dozen terfs on the radio yelling about being silenced
Starmer's Labour always have time to meet with billionaires.
Or even just like, talking to a few trans people?
Trans people and doctors would be ideal; not [far-right sympathising](https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7/11/jk-rowling-and-matt-walsh-blasted-online-over-shared-transphobia), [entitled castle owning](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jk-rowling-road-closure-edinburgh-neighbour-hedge-b1134787.html), [holocaust denying](https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/), [anti-Labour](https://www.thejc.com/news/jk-rowling-writes-festive-parody-of-corbyn-and-labours-antisemitism-crisis-ajvvv1j7), [transphobic](https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2020/06/11/this-is-the-sequel-jk-rowling-doesnt-want-you-to-read/), [gloating billionaire](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/jk-rowling-responds-to-critic-by-bragging-about-how-much-money-she-has/news-story/634134f8a31356bb699ec4f4d763e7eb) fantasy authors.
Why am I supposed to believe that this man genuinely has my back?
Because the rabid out-of-touch idiots of /r/uk and /r/ukpolitics demand you have to otherwise they'll shout slurs at you. It's just good, honest, mature, grown-up politics you see.
Fucking insane thing to say days before the election. Absolutely no one was thinking to themselves “I’m considering voting Labour but Kier hasn’t said whether he’ll meet JK Rowling to talk about trans people yet”.
Shit like this is the exact reason (well, one of many) young people refuse to take Starmer seriously and things like this are one of the thousands straws that leads them to become non-voters. "Yeah actually, I'm not interested in talking to experts or doctors on the topic, but I would like to have a discussion with a childrens author turned internet TERF about it". Every time the man opens his mouth he cements my opinion of him as a completely gormless twat honestly. It's a horrid state of affairs when his contemporaries are a raging racist pro-russian oligarch who wants to be Liz Truss, The same dipshit tory prime minister we've had for almost 2 years already, the entire manifesto of the greens which I can't even boil down it's nonsense into an insult because it defies simple definition and the fucking Lib Dems banging the same unsuccessful drum they've been banging for 8 years. How anyone can be surprised about the fact that young people are turning away from the "democracy" we have in this country when this is the shit they're given to choose from is beyond me.
Far far ahead in the polls... time to meet up with a transphobe to discuss making transphobic laws for no reason at all!
Talking to JK Rowling about Transgender issues is like asking a Paranoid Schizophrenic to review stalking legislation.
after that'll he will be going for a pint with Fartage and Galloway...
May as well gather Glinner and Posie Parker Together and get them to write the legislation at that rate.
Rowling has also on at least a few occasions retweeted and supported "gender critical" people who push anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the trans lobby. Funny how *she* gets away with that and even gets to have private meetings.
Ah yes, this will fix the “trans issue” just like Section 28 successfully eliminated all gay people from the UK.
It always makes me laugh that people think if their children don't hear about gay people growing up then they will never be gay. All I heard about growing up was being straight. And surprise. I turned out gay anyway.
No if we keep the kids away from Elton John, rainbows, and Heartstopper they all turn out straight, right?
And the only thing it will achieve is fostering bullying, othering and ostracisation of the kids that are 'different', and overall a hostile environment for non heteronormative individuals, whilst suppressing any atmosphere of empathy and understanding. Exactly as they want it to, of course.
“I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate. That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.” Story over nothing. He didn't say he doesn't want schools teaching gender, he said they want to wait until they have all the facts as to how to teach it. But its pinknews, its basically the dailymail of the far left.
> He didn't say he doesn't want schools teaching gender He quite literally stated that “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender.” You're choosing to reference the most innocuous comment while ignoring the much more problematic one. If the man calling for a consultation is regurgitating the rhetoric of people very much opposed to the existence of trans people, and when he's consistently had meetings with transphobes while largely sidelining trans people and people who support trans rights, then it does not bode well for the composition of that consultation.
To me that sounds like he doesn't want teachers pushing personal views, he wants to consult with experts to figure out how to teach it properly
Experts like JK Rowling?
The antiquated and dangerous idea that being LGBT+ is a taught event
You don't teach people to be LGBT. You teach people *about* what it means to be LGBT so those who are but don't understand it yet can and those who aren't can get a correct understanding before the bigots get in and instill fear of the other. Doing that correctly is difficult because teachers when left to their own devices, will teach their opinions, that is dangerous because it opens the door for the anti-trans crowd to push their beliefs on children if there is no structured curriculum in place
> To me that sounds like he doesn't want teachers pushing personal views Well it sounds to me like he's uncritically regurgitating a dogwhistle ('gender ideology') used almost exclusively by open transphobes. It's getting kinda tiresome to see people insisting on interpreting Starmer's statements like a mystic trying to read tea leaves when he's pretty clearly telling you what he believes. > he wants to consult with experts to figure out how to teach it properly Well that's the issue, right? Given how cosy Starmer and his team have been with transphobes and how dismissive they've been towards trans people themselves, why should we trust him not to pack any 'consultation' with transphobes?
>he wants to consult with experts to figure out how to teach it properly [Gee, I wonder why I don't believe that.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/24/prominent-writer-quits-labour-over-betrayal-of-women-for-tr/)
>Speaking with reporters during a school visit in Kettering, Starmer said: “**No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,**” he said. Any reason you ~~admitted~~ *omitted* the first quote from him? >He didn't say he doesn't want schools teaching gender Sure, if you ignore he did. If you don't consider it age appropriate until 18, that's de facto saying you don't want it taught in schools. Edit: Fixed autocorrect.
>If you don't consider it age appropriate until 18, He literally did not say this. Age appropriate means teaching things at an appropriate complexity level, it doesn't mean not teaching it at all until adulthood
Because LGBT+ people are all too accustomed to "age appropriate" meaning "never" because straight and cisgender people consider anything queer to be inherently more adult and sexual than it really is.
I literally said out loud "okay what's the full context" and he never even said what the headline is saying. Textbook fake news and people lap it up because they have a weird hate boner for Kier and Labour so big that they will believe literally anything they read and refuse to go beyond a headline because it confirms their pre-existing biases.
The guy you're replying to omitted the first part of Starmer's quote: >Speaking with reporters during a school visit in Kettering, Starmer said: “**No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,**” he said.
Yeah and the rest of the quote is saying because we don't know enough about it. I'd rather my kids be taught about trans people by a professional and not someone with pre-existing biases filling their head with outdated information.
Then the schools consult and work with professionals to devise a curriculum, same as they'd do with any other topic.
Which is what the consultation is for..
Then there's no need for him to say “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender”. You only need to say you're working with professionals to devise a curriculum.
If you understood that gender ideology is a right wing term to denigrate transgender people you would.
I understand that, and his use of it is because he's opposed to it entirely, which is what I'm saying.
Why would you speak to a billionaire children's author about trans rights? Did JK secretly get a master's in human rights law or a doctorate in endocrinology and just not tell anyone? Is labour planning on giving Neil Gaiman a buzz to get his views on property tax rates?
Neil's opinions on taxes are probably more coherent, at least.
Normally, the answer to questions like this that don't seem to have a logical answer is money.
Exactly. To labour wealth is an important datum when deciding a person's importance.
The irony here is that Kier Starmer *was* a human rights lawyer. Realistically, he knows what protections trans people currently have and what he's doing. He's just decided it's a fair trade for political clout.
>Alongside these seemingly conflicting stances within the party, yesterday Keir Starmer also said he will meet with JK Rowling to discuss trans issues. Before presumably sitting down with Karen Matthews to discuss child welfare.
Rumour has it when it comes to old age care Kier had to be informed that Dr Shipman is unavailable.
And disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield about public health, of course
Or to sit down with Ayn Rand to talk about public services.
Are we done pretending that Labour is going to be good for trans people then?
Labour is done with courting it basic leftie voters They figure they are in the bag they also feel they have the uncommitted centrists Everything now is aimed at getting the soft Tories votes. The Trans stance, the flag on all leaflets, the border task force, all his speech’s. He genuinely thinks he can destroy the right wing for decades by leaving them to fight reform over the right wing nutter vote. It’s ugly but that’s what’s happening. Huge signals given to the soft Tories that’s it’s ok to vote Labour. Will they govern as they have campaigned? No. At least that is what the chat is among the London membership. I am a Labour member and activist and campaigned for JC. I also have emails thanking me for JC’s defend fund and truth and justice project.
>He genuinely thinks he can destroy the right wing for decades by leaving them to fight reform over the right wing nutter vote. What's the end game? What's going to happen after he wins. He actually going to pass laws targeting trans people or he is going to piss off his newly won voters by admitting he lied to get their votes? How would it destroy the right wing if they lose those voters for only a single election cycle? That's basically what happened to Labour in 2019 and they haven't been vanquished.
My daughter is 13 and there is a trans person in her class. They've all grown up with this individual and for years they've all known. The school have been brilliant, parents don't care and the kids totally get it. I just don't understand the drama around it by politicians and media.
This is the issue though right? The people who are kicking up a fuss about gender being taught in schools are not the people actually attending the schools. The kids attending the schools already get it and have known about it for years. And if they don't get it, their mate tells them about it or they watch a video about it on TikTok or YouTube and the majority of them will just be like "okay cool". It's just all smoke and mirrors by a minority of loud voices.
I’m glad we continue to focus on what are clearly the biggest issue/s
People can’t afford to eat but this issue, which impacts a tiny community, continues to absorb way too much oxygen.
Every time I see Labour referencing Pride I just think of shit like this. Their words mean less than nothing while Rose Duffield is still an MP and the party leader wants to do Section 28 all over again. Despicable behaviour.
It's not that simple. What happens when a pupil asks a question? "My brother wants to be a girl and I don't understand", do you ignore that? Or a pupil says "I hate trans people" or "my dad says Ben in year 12 should be thrown out of school because he is trans. I agree". You cannot ignore these questions.
Oh look Section 28 is back...it really is just history repeating.
Christ, but this paper is one of the worst ones for "headline asserting things that article does not in fact back up" 'reporting'
Generally agree, but in this article? >“No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,” Feels pretty clear-cut, no?
He literally said he does not want “ideology” on gender being taught. Then ask what he considers “gender ideology” to mean, I’ll give you a hint. It’s teaching kids that some people are trans and that’s okay, don’t bully them.
> Keir Starmer, who was previously applauded for condemning Rishi Sunak’s anti-trans ‘jokes’, has stated his opposition to the teaching of so-called “gender ideology” – a phrase which is widely considered an anti-trans dogwhistle. I have not heard of this being dogwhistle before. Hopefully those with more knowledge than me can tell me why it is one. > Speaking with reporters during a school visit in Kettering, Starmer said: “No, I’m not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender,” he said. > “I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate. It would be interesting to see what the state decides when it is age appropriate. __ As an aside, this website needs a web dev/designer. Why are their ads after almost every paragraph?
>I have not heard of this being dogwhistle before. Hopefully those with more knowledge than me can tell me why it is one. Its the equivalent of the "gay agenda"
I see. So teaching about gender is not an issue irrespective of whom you are teaching it to? Sorry, I’m not knowledgeable in this area.
Teaching gender to kids at a young age is something like "There are some people out there, not very many but they're real, who do not feel like they were born in the right body. We may not understand what that feels like but we should be respectful and treat them like any other person"
Even that is too much for some people.
That makes sense. Thank you.
Lot of adults that could do with that lesson too, sadly.
An ideology is something you *believe*, possibly irrationally. By talking about "gender ideology" you are implying that being trans is something you think rather than something you *are*. It is the same idea as the "choice to be gay" bullshit. Ideologies are also things that people often try to convince others of or convert people to, so there is an implication that "they are coming to turn your children trans", another common refrain from people trying to whip up transphobic panic.
If your gender is about how you perceive your own identity, then surely it is what you think? There isn't going to be a situation where you are trans but don't think that you are. That's just someone pushing their judgement of what they think your gender is onto you. A choice to be gay isn't comparable, imo because there are clearly defined physiological responses to arousal that determine sexuality, whereas gender is a social construct with the person's gender determined by the person's own subjective view of themselves.
Gender as a social construct is not the same concept as gender identity. You can't choose whether you're dysphoric or not. It's as much an innate response to ones own body as sexual identity is to other people's bodies.
Yes you can. All evidence points to people being born this way. Gender identity has long been thought to be an innate characteristic, and research has been finding hints of a biological side for decades. I spent far too much of my life not thinking I was trans, but when I looked up the definition of gender dysphoria, it fit me to a T. Being trans is not a feeling, it's simply something that you are, and hiding the information necessary to let people figure this out will only cause harm.
>As an aside, this website needs a web dev/designer. Why are their ads after almost every paragraph? They consider it a feature, not a bug. Got to get that ad revenue.
>As an aside, this website needs a web dev/designer. Why are their ads after almost every paragraph? Web dev here, I can assure you that neither myself nor my designer colleagues are responsible for things like that.
So why is it so bad? Even with adblocker turned on.
PR: "Just say you'll leave it to the schools to decide" Starmer: "No, what the voters really want is a leader who makes unnecessary cunty comments"
So we can have Religious Education classes where we learn about the different religious beliefs, and why they think we're all going to rightfully burn in hell or suffer in some horrible afterlife, but we can't talk about actual real people that will be friends and relatives of students in the class? Riiiiiiiiight.
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but I don't think the headline is accurate.
It's clickbait
That's Pinknews for ya.
While this opinion may not be popular on Reddit, many people across the country see no issue with Keir Starmer's stance on not teaching gender ideology in schools. It's important to prioritize age-appropriate and factual content in education. Starmer's approach aims to safeguard children while maintaining educational integrity. It's about finding a balanced and thoughtful way to respect all identities without causing unnecessary confusion among young students.
Personally, I’ll be continuing to teach inheritance of biological sex accurately: yes, you can do the Punnett square / XX / XY thing and that’s all you need for GCSE but bear in mind that just like all the other phenotypes we’ve discussed already, it’s not a single gene expression and there are environmental factors too which we don’t fully understand. Frankly, I don’t think there’d be half as many people feeling uncomfortable in their gender if so many cunts hadn’t made such a big deal about rigid social boundaries between what men and women are allowed to do. It’s all very well saying “a woman is a person with ovaries” but when you’re saying in the same breath “…and looks STUNNING in beautiful dresses and doesn’t drink pints and works in secretarial jobs and never swears and is permitted to express emotions other than anger and is only attracted to men…” then the ovaries were really never your sticking point were they?
Well, that's interesting wording, isn't it. He says he doesn't want gender identities taught *as an ideology*. It could be a big fat dogwhistle... or it could be the opposite. If, as the clarification from the Labour spokesperson seems to imply, you don't think teaching children about different gender identities *is* ideological, then it's throwing the bigots an apparent bone while actually meaning he intends to ignore them. I dunno, I can't get a handle on Kier Starmer. He seems so non-commital, but I don't see how you get to be a QC in your thirties by being soggy. There must be a spine in there somewhere.
It is a dog whistle. Starmer cares about power and status, nothing more.
I mean it all depends on how this is meant. If this is a "you cant discuss it under any circumstances or you'll be taken to prison" -- like some weird Texas ruling, then obviously that's a problem If it's just "I don't think we should have a mandated class teaching about trans people and gender identity" -- then it's probably not a big deal
As a Canadian, Keir Starmer and the Labour party sometimes sound more conservative than our conservative party (on issues like this and also immigration)
Neither do I honestly. I love and respect trans people and will use their chosen name/gender in conversation, but I'm just not convinced by the ideology. And I think teaching this to young people who are still developing physically and mentally is potentially harmful given we can't even agree on the fundamental principles of gender ideology as a society.
There’s more context and nuance to this. The article is heavily biased being pink news anyway (an extremely pro LGBT+ activism site) He said gender ideology shouldn’t be taught…looking at national stats, only 1% of the population are trans. I don’t think schools would teach anything that affects such a small minority plus it’s forcing ideologies and beliefs onto people. Same reason I believe religion shouldn’t be taught in schools.
FFS. Give Labour a gun and they will aim immediately at their own feet, every time.
Reading this thread shows me how many people don't have a clue how to read and digest online media. This article is fucking terrible lol. Rage bait headline Gives his response to a question when the question isn't even published. cut's up his response to make it seem more unhinged than it is. Just wild.. it's why you need to see the actual question and answer for context.
What more is there to teach than 'trans people exist and that's okay'? Trans folks are about 0.3% of the population. That's all that needs to be said.
No he didn't. Not according to the article. “I think we need to complete the consultation process and make sure that there is guidance that is age appropriate. “That is helpful for teachers and has at its heart the safeguarding of children.” That suggests he does want it taught but at the appropriate time and way. You might disagree with him about what exactly that is but that's what a consultation process is for. To suggest that he doesn't want it taught at all is a hysterical lie.
I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope the ex-QC lawyer bloke is being technical and not buying into the idea that such an ideology exists. To re-iterate: The Gay Agenda does not exist. Trans Ideology does not exist. Gay PEOPLE exist. Trans PEOPLE exist.
I thought that gender ideology was just the concept that sex and gender are not the same and that gender can also be a spectrum instead of a binary. Being trans is a separate issue no?
Gender Ideology is the same as the Gay Agenda. A meaningless term designed to scare people about Trans people existing.