Crosswords0 min ago
Finally Some Common Sense
239 Answers
Single-sex schools will be able to reject transgender pupils and teachers can refuse to call children by their preferred pronouns under new Government guidelines
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
1. What support should transgender students get at mixed schools?
2. Some single-sex schools may wish to accept transgender students. Is this OK, and if so what support should such students get?
3. Conversely, a student already at a single-sex school might see themselves as transgender. Should they be obliged to leave the school, or, since they are still the same sex as all other students, do they still "fit in" despite being transgender? And, again, what support should they get?
2. Some single-sex schools may wish to accept transgender students. Is this OK, and if so what support should such students get?
3. Conversely, a student already at a single-sex school might see themselves as transgender. Should they be obliged to leave the school, or, since they are still the same sex as all other students, do they still "fit in" despite being transgender? And, again, what support should they get?
ClareTG0ld,
1. What support would you expect them to get other than being called by their chosen name? You insist that they're accepted as what they claim to be and yet you want some sort of special treatment for them which makes no sense at all.
2. A thoroughly thoughtless and selfish question with not a moment's consideration for other students. By the very nature of an all girls' school for example, young females would be obliged to share toilets, changing rooms, and showers with people in possession of a full set of male genitalia. That, in any circumstances, cannot be right.
3. A student already at a single sex school who sees themselves as transgender should not be obliged to leave. Regardless of how they wish to present, none of them have anything that's likely to shock or embarrass their classmates. Yes, they do 'fit in' - because boys are boys and girls are girls - and they always will be.
1. What support would you expect them to get other than being called by their chosen name? You insist that they're accepted as what they claim to be and yet you want some sort of special treatment for them which makes no sense at all.
2. A thoroughly thoughtless and selfish question with not a moment's consideration for other students. By the very nature of an all girls' school for example, young females would be obliged to share toilets, changing rooms, and showers with people in possession of a full set of male genitalia. That, in any circumstances, cannot be right.
3. A student already at a single sex school who sees themselves as transgender should not be obliged to leave. Regardless of how they wish to present, none of them have anything that's likely to shock or embarrass their classmates. Yes, they do 'fit in' - because boys are boys and girls are girls - and they always will be.
//I'm asking about *yours*. I'm asking where *you* draw the line between a reasonable, as you see it, position, and an unreasonable one, when it comes to transgender people.//
But I’ve provided quite a clear explanation of where I draw the line. I don’t care whether a man calls himself a woman (or a horse, for that matter); I don’t care whether Arthur suddenly wants to be addressed as Amanda; I don’t care how Arthur dresses or presents himself. Those things are of no concern to me whatsoever. Arthur has an inalienable right to do all those things. So where is my line drawn? What Arthur must not expect is to invade women-only spaces and facilities; he must not expect women-only institutions to accept him as a member if the other members do not wish it. This is because he is not a woman. Because he’s said he is does not make it a fact. He will remain a man until the day he dies. People can choose to call themselves anything they like but choosing whether one actually is a man or a woman is not within the individual’s personal gift – it is determined upon conception and as unfortunate as it may seem for some, they’re stuck with it.
//1.What support should transgender students get at mixed schools?//
The same support as non-transgender pupils.
//2. Some single-sex schools may wish to accept transgender students. Is this OK, and if so what support should such students get?//
Only if the school is reserved for those of their biological sex. Otherwise it is not OK.
//3. Conversely, a student already at a single-sex school might see themselves as transgender. Should they be obliged to leave the school,...//
Yes, if they want to live the life of the opposite sex. Alternatively they can remain at the school providing they live the life of their biological sex.
//…or, since they are still the same sex as all other students, do they still "fit in" despite being transgender?//
Only they would know that. There were lots of ways in which pupils do not “fit in.” I didn’t fit in with the mainstream because I could not play football to save my life. But I did not expect those who could to abandon the sport, so I took up rowing instead.
//And, again, what support should they get?//
And again, the same as all the other pupils.
I think I'm out of this now because I think we've done this previously in another thread. The same intractable positions are displayed. My main objection to the current dogma which we are being asked to swallow unconditionally is that we are asked to accept that a man who calls himself a woman is a woman for all purposes. He is not and he never will be. It's being asked to accept fiction or an opinion as undisputable fact. As a result there will be some places and facilities that are not open to him. Life's a bit tough sometimes.
But I’ve provided quite a clear explanation of where I draw the line. I don’t care whether a man calls himself a woman (or a horse, for that matter); I don’t care whether Arthur suddenly wants to be addressed as Amanda; I don’t care how Arthur dresses or presents himself. Those things are of no concern to me whatsoever. Arthur has an inalienable right to do all those things. So where is my line drawn? What Arthur must not expect is to invade women-only spaces and facilities; he must not expect women-only institutions to accept him as a member if the other members do not wish it. This is because he is not a woman. Because he’s said he is does not make it a fact. He will remain a man until the day he dies. People can choose to call themselves anything they like but choosing whether one actually is a man or a woman is not within the individual’s personal gift – it is determined upon conception and as unfortunate as it may seem for some, they’re stuck with it.
//1.What support should transgender students get at mixed schools?//
The same support as non-transgender pupils.
//2. Some single-sex schools may wish to accept transgender students. Is this OK, and if so what support should such students get?//
Only if the school is reserved for those of their biological sex. Otherwise it is not OK.
//3. Conversely, a student already at a single-sex school might see themselves as transgender. Should they be obliged to leave the school,...//
Yes, if they want to live the life of the opposite sex. Alternatively they can remain at the school providing they live the life of their biological sex.
//…or, since they are still the same sex as all other students, do they still "fit in" despite being transgender?//
Only they would know that. There were lots of ways in which pupils do not “fit in.” I didn’t fit in with the mainstream because I could not play football to save my life. But I did not expect those who could to abandon the sport, so I took up rowing instead.
//And, again, what support should they get?//
And again, the same as all the other pupils.
I think I'm out of this now because I think we've done this previously in another thread. The same intractable positions are displayed. My main objection to the current dogma which we are being asked to swallow unconditionally is that we are asked to accept that a man who calls himself a woman is a woman for all purposes. He is not and he never will be. It's being asked to accept fiction or an opinion as undisputable fact. As a result there will be some places and facilities that are not open to him. Life's a bit tough sometimes.
It's notable that, again, Naomi seems more interested in how *I'd* answer these questions, than she is in answering them herself.
For (1), merely token acknowledgement is hardly support; and, in any case, this still leaves unanswered ZM's question about how Naomi intends to separate the "genuine" transgender people from those who are, by some measure, not so genuine. For (2), Naomi's answer seems to miss the point entirely. Some women -- quite a lot of them, in fact -- actually welcome and are very accepting of trans women. It stands to reason that some organisers of single-sex schools, and many of their pupils, would be accepting of transgender pupils. How is this thoughtless? And, for (3), it's revealing that there are clear differences in NJ's and Naomi's answers.
As for NJ -- again, you're too busy justifying your ostensibly reasonable position to explain what an unreasonable extension of it will be. I'm again struck that in your hypothetical example, you refer to someone whose given name is now Amanda as "Arthur" throughout; even Naomi would take the step of calling that person Amanda.
For (1), merely token acknowledgement is hardly support; and, in any case, this still leaves unanswered ZM's question about how Naomi intends to separate the "genuine" transgender people from those who are, by some measure, not so genuine. For (2), Naomi's answer seems to miss the point entirely. Some women -- quite a lot of them, in fact -- actually welcome and are very accepting of trans women. It stands to reason that some organisers of single-sex schools, and many of their pupils, would be accepting of transgender pupils. How is this thoughtless? And, for (3), it's revealing that there are clear differences in NJ's and Naomi's answers.
As for NJ -- again, you're too busy justifying your ostensibly reasonable position to explain what an unreasonable extension of it will be. I'm again struck that in your hypothetical example, you refer to someone whose given name is now Amanda as "Arthur" throughout; even Naomi would take the step of calling that person Amanda.
// I answered the question. //
Oh, please. Your first answer was to deliberately and transparently flip the question. Then you deferred to NJ's non-answer; then you vaguely said that it can always exist, but with no hint of an example.
You're too hung up, it seems, on trying to explain why you're not a bigot yourself, to call it out in others.
Oh, please. Your first answer was to deliberately and transparently flip the question. Then you deferred to NJ's non-answer; then you vaguely said that it can always exist, but with no hint of an example.
You're too hung up, it seems, on trying to explain why you're not a bigot yourself, to call it out in others.
Can't imagine why...
One problem, which I expressed in my first comment here, is that most people's experience of transgender politics is somewhat indirect. And where that's the case, you only really end up seeing the "worst" of it.
An essentially similar attitude permeates NJ's framing: there's no discussion about what changes in Amanda's life occur beyond changing her name, manner of dress, etc.; no acknowledgement of the potentially years or decades before she "suddenly wanted" to be addressed as a woman; and, perhaps more revealing still, there's always this tone of "demanding" access. There's never any room in this world view for being invited in. But there's far more acceptance of transgender people than all that, and very little acknowledgement of this.
It also goes without saying that this assumes by default that "man" and "woman" are inexorably tied to biology somehow. But that just bulldozes straight through the intellectual issue here, which is that gender and sex are different concepts, even if they are usually linked. But if you ignore that, or don't even engage with it, it's little wonder that everything else that's so dismissive of transgender people follows.
It's a horribly oversimplified view. Draw comfort from reducing the world to neat little boxes, if you wish, NJ, I won't stop you, but I do wish you'd engage more honestly with the complexity, with the variety, of the human experience, beyond your narrow perception of it. And, honestly, I'm still not sure why you seemed to determined to prove to me that you weren't yourself expressing anything bigoted. It was never the question.
One problem, which I expressed in my first comment here, is that most people's experience of transgender politics is somewhat indirect. And where that's the case, you only really end up seeing the "worst" of it.
An essentially similar attitude permeates NJ's framing: there's no discussion about what changes in Amanda's life occur beyond changing her name, manner of dress, etc.; no acknowledgement of the potentially years or decades before she "suddenly wanted" to be addressed as a woman; and, perhaps more revealing still, there's always this tone of "demanding" access. There's never any room in this world view for being invited in. But there's far more acceptance of transgender people than all that, and very little acknowledgement of this.
It also goes without saying that this assumes by default that "man" and "woman" are inexorably tied to biology somehow. But that just bulldozes straight through the intellectual issue here, which is that gender and sex are different concepts, even if they are usually linked. But if you ignore that, or don't even engage with it, it's little wonder that everything else that's so dismissive of transgender people follows.
It's a horribly oversimplified view. Draw comfort from reducing the world to neat little boxes, if you wish, NJ, I won't stop you, but I do wish you'd engage more honestly with the complexity, with the variety, of the human experience, beyond your narrow perception of it. And, honestly, I'm still not sure why you seemed to determined to prove to me that you weren't yourself expressing anything bigoted. It was never the question.
// > Ellipsis, Someone else asked if bigotry against transgender people exists. I answered that.
I have read the thread twice looking for your answer and I can't see it. It's just a Yes or No answer, please could you let me know ...//
The closest Naomi seems to have got is her answer at 11.00, https:/
I have read the thread twice looking for your answer and I can't see it. It's just a Yes or No answer, please could you let me know ...//
The closest Naomi seems to have got is her answer at 11.00, https:/
Latest Posts
Road rules5 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
News21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
