Transgender 3/4 year olds ???????

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:45 am

Brighton and Hove parents have raised concerns about being asked to support their three and four-year-olds to choose which gender, if any, they identify with when accepting a place for primary schools.

Has the world gone mad, or is it me out of touch?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:11 pm

The Former.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:35 pm

AnneBoleyn;1494814 wrote: The Former.

So it isn't me, if Annie the revolutionary firebrand agrees with me I am happy.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:46 pm

Few children would challenge their gender assignment at school without an enabling scheme like this in place. Besides, it's Brighton.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:03 pm

spot;1494818 wrote: Few children would challenge their gender assignment at school without an enabling scheme like this in place. Besides, it's Brighton.

I am of the opinion that children are asexual until they get closer to puberty, so 3 or 4 year olds ought to be playing hop scotch or Doctors and Nurses rather than concern themselves with such things.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:08 pm

Bruv;1494820 wrote: I am of the opinion that children are asexual until they get closer to puberty
I don't see any link between gender and sexuality.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:18 pm

Bruv;1494816 wrote: So it isn't me, if Annie the revolutionary firebrand agrees with me I am happy.

:-6

Aw shucks. I wish.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:59 pm

spot;1494823 wrote: I don't see any link between gender and sexuality.

OK perhaps I was supposed to say 'gender neutral'

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:51 pm

Bruv;1494828 wrote: OK perhaps I was supposed to say 'gender neutral'No... boys will be boys, remember, and girls will be girls. It's just that quite a few of the girls will be boys too, and some of the boys would quite like to be girls if that doesn't cause any upset.

There's nothing neutral about gender. 4 year old girls cross-dressing is culturally acceptable in today's climate but it's a right eyebrow-raiser if boys do it, and life oughtn't to be like that Shirley.

I hope Brighton's sensitivity catches on. Nothing in their forms implies gender reassignment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:31 am

spot;1494831 wrote: I hope Brighton's sensitivity catches on.

Brighton is a town, it has no sensitivity as such........you started it..............the pedantry I mean.

How the subject gets on to forms at all............ is a concern of mine, forms are constructed by people that do have sensitivities, I would question the motivation of the person that raised it initially........thats all.

An 'in house' memo or a training course to those involved in the front line might be the best way of handling such issues to raise awareness.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:36 am

Bruv;1494834 wrote: Brighton is a town, it has no sensitivity as such........you started it..............the pedantry I mean.
Brighton is as gay as a West End Musical about sailors.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:58 am

I don't know much about such things at all, but it does seem to me that 3-4 years is a tad young for children to have to make up their mind about such important things like what they will be when they grow up.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:59 am

That's not what they're being asked. They're being asked how they'd like to be addressed in this year's class at school.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:37 am

I even checked to see if it was published on April 1st. Utterly ridiculous. You'd think the bureaucrats would have enough on their plates & have better things on their minds to deal with. Unless there is a physical discrepancy which, although rare, does occur, where there is some doubt as to gender. In the case of gender preference, where appropriate, that is something that should only be made when the person concerned is old enough to make an informed decision for themselves rather than being brainwashed from childhood.

As for nature vs nurture, it has also been demonstrated that when boys are given dolls to play with, they still tend to use those dolls as role play to act as soldiers.

Post by **spot** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:40 am

One might almost think the concept of the tomboy had never been part of English culture, Enid Blyton was mistaken and the Victorians had nothing to disapprove of.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:51 am

spot;1494835 wrote: Brighton is as gay as a West End Musical about sailors.

Brighton is a town, towns are......well towns. The fact that, as you say, Brighton is gay, meaning there is a large gay presence in the town, would flag up concern about the thread's topic, and the motivation behind it..................but that's just me.

spot;1494837 wrote: That's not what they're being asked. They're being asked how they'd like to be addressed in this year's class at school.

What is the problem with John and Jane ?

We don't even ask them their career intentions at that age.

spot;1494840 wrote: One might almost think the concept of the tomboy had never been part of English culture, Enid Blyton was mistaken and the Victorians had nothing to disapprove of.

Shirley you are not equating tomboy behaviour in childhood to gender assignment ?

You think that all male ballet dancers are gay too I suppose ?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 12, 2016 8:37 am

There's a book about school bullying: Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine DressIn the story, Morris is laughed at by his classmates, but eventually, he helps them to understand that he likes wearing the dress because it’s the same color as a tiger, the sun and his mom’s hair. The story aims to teach children acceptance and stop bullying.

Here, in contrast to Brighton's approach, is one review hosted by Amazon from a complainant:I seldom write reviews, but this book was read to my child in 3RD GRADE!!! Parents were not notified, and some teacher thought it was good since there is ONE child whose parents let him wear skirts to school. Teaching boys to ACCEPT this is WRONG!!! THIS BOOK IS AGAINST GOD!!! You parents who let their children ‘express’ their gender inappropriately at school should know better!!! Boys are boys, and should behave and dress as such. This is not tolerance, and this is not about bullying. This is a scathing indictment of the breakdown of American morality. We are literally celebrating perversion!!! You can bet there will be a lawsuit at our school.

The case for Brighton seems overwhelming in the face of attitudes like that.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 12, 2016 12:05 pm

You are failing to see that one option being wrong, doesn't make the polar opposite right.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 12, 2016 1:10 pm

The wrong option needs a good slapping.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 12, 2016 1:23 pm

spot;1495758 wrote: The wrong option needs a good slapping.

I think you mean understanding.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 12, 2016 1:29 pm

I fear I already understand bigots like that all too clearly.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu May 12, 2016 1:32 pm

I read the OP and yes I believe the world has gone a tad mad !

How the heck is a 3 or 4 year old child supposed to know how they feel about such things, and to say whether they want to be called a girl or a boy. They are 3 or 4 for goodness sake. All they are interested in at that age is playing with toys, kicking balls about, playing with Starwars models, and the little girls usually play with dolls and girl things. THEY ARE CHILDREN. What on earth do they understand about gender etc. That's the trouble these days - some adults seem to think that tots just out of nappies should learn about the birds and bees and be able to decide whether they want to be male or female ! What is wrong with allowing children to be children and to do children things and to not have to worry about sex stuff. They won't have many years as children anyway, so why push these little tots into premature teenage with all it's extra hassles, they don't need to have to think about such things at 3 or 4 years old, good grief ! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Thu May 12, 2016 1:35 pm

Why on earth do people keep equating gender with sex?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Thu May 12, 2016 1:48 pm

spot;1495763 wrote: Why on earth do people keep equating gender with sex?

Oh for heaven's sake spot ! What's with this 'people' ? I am Gill ! What would you equate gender with then ? Isn't what these people, at Brighton, are saying to do with sex ? The whole thing is all to do with sex isn't it ? One talks about sex discrimination meaning male/female. That's about sex, or is it something else ?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 12, 2016 2:01 pm

G#Gill;1495765 wrote: Oh for heaven's sake spot ! What's with this 'people' ? I am Gill !

I was bundling you in with Bruv's "You think that all male ballet dancers are gay too I suppose".

What would you equate gender with then ? Isn't what these people, at Brighton, are saying to do with sex ? The whole thing is all to do with sex isn't it ? One talks about sex discrimination meaning male/female. That's about sex, or is it something else ?

Sex discrimination is terminology that was obsolete before the turn of the century, it's what we fought back in the fifties and sixties. The whole point is that gender issues have nothing whatever to do with sexuality, and you mumbling about "the birds and bees" and "sex stuff" is deliberately dragging sexuality in where it's absolutely inapplicable.

To say a primary schoolgirl - and the thread is talking about primary schoolchildren - can and does dress indistinguishably from boys without anyone batting an eyelid but that a primary schoolboy wearing a dress can expect to be bullied is a gender issue. Sexual preference or gender re-assignment are utter red herrings.

The form relates to gender preference and nothing else, and the thread is continually being hijacked by people refusing to focus on what was actually being asked on the form.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Children have no sex/gender until it is learned.

Boys will dress up in female clothing, the reaction by adults is the most telling part of the game.

SEX....The fact of belonging to either the male or female sex

GENDER...The members of one or other sex

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu May 12, 2016 3:18 pm

I think people are confusing Sex with Sexuality. When filling in a form which asked Sex or Gender, would you question just what was really meant by the question? No - you would just answer M or F. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog & barks like a dog, the chances are it's a dog.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2016 12:04 am

Personally, I derive a word's meaning from its context. Check the context throughout the thread. People have been using Sex as shorthand for sexuality, as I demonstrated with examples in my previous post. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog & barks like a dog, the chances are it's a dog.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Fri May 13, 2016 5:59 am

spot;1495766 wrote: I was bundling you in with Bruv's "You think that all male ballet dancers are gay too I suppose".

Sex discrimination is terminology that was obsolete before the turn of the century, it's what we fought back in the fifties and sixties. The whole point is that gender issues have nothing whatever to do with sexuality, and you mumbling about "the birds and bees" and "sex stuff" is deliberately dragging sexuality in where it's absolutely inapplicable.

To say a primary schoolgirl - and the thread is talking about primary schoolchildren - can and does dress indistinguishably from boys without anyone batting an eyelid but that a primary schoolboy wearing a dress can expect to be bullied is a gender issue. Sexual preference or gender re-assignment are utter red herrings.

The form relates to gender preference and nothing else, and the thread is continually being hijacked by people refusing to focus on what was actually being asked on the form.

You just can't resist being derogatory towards people can you ? Why is it that you can't string words together that don't involve denigration? I thought this thread was up for discussion, not a vehicle to promote sarcasm, and denigration by certain members !

That form produced for parents to fill in on behalf of their 3 or 4 year olds must surely cause a little confusion. How on earth does anybody expect a child of 3 or 4 years old to understand sufficiently to be able to give a considered answer ? As I have said already these are CHILDREN ! Their minds are focused on toys and childrens' games not on whether they are male or female ! Why do people in authority make things so damn complicated ?

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2016 7:03 am

The "mumbling" comment was a reflection of your coy euphemisms.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 14, 2016 7:20 am

The whole issue is getting ridiculous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/po ... rooms.html

Apart from male toilets that use urinals, there is no difference between male or female toilets. Here, at the office, we have 1 toilet on each floor. The downstairs one is labelled as the Disabled one (of course), the one on the 1st floor, as female, and the one on the 2nd floor as male. However, no-one takes a blind bit of notice as to the labelling as they are all closed environments & everyone uses them. They are identical in every way apart from the sign on the door.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Fri May 20, 2016 10:51 am

spot;1495791 wrote: The "mumbling" comment was a reflection of your coy euphemisms.

No it was not. It was derogatory and it was intended to be so. I DO NOT MUMBLE !

Post by **spot** » Fri May 20, 2016 11:28 am

G#Gill;1496079 wrote: No it was not. It was derogatory and it was intended to be so. I DO NOT MUMBLE !

Cobblers. "The birds and bees" and "Sex stuff" is textually indistinguishable from mumbling. What would you call it instead? By all means provide your own description.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 20, 2016 11:46 am

Play nicely please.