Woke watch.

[Long slender neck]

I showed your post to someone and they've said Stonewall dont claim what you say they're claiming.

[CEB]

I showed your post to someone and they've said Stonewall dont claim what you say they're claiming.

Which claims specifically? I’m willing and able to back up everything I’ve said here.

[Currywurst and Chips]

I showed your post to someone and they've said Stonewall dont claim what you say they're claiming.

[CEB]

I showed your post to someone and they've said Stonewall dont claim what you say they're claiming.

I suspect so, but I’m perfectly happy to debunk any nonsense about stonewall.

This is interesting: Stonewall’s glossary of terms - despite using the terms “woman” and “man” to describe what trans women and “men” identify *as* doesn’t actually give their own definition of “woman” or “man” - it’s completely nebulous https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advic ... gbtq-terms

[Long slender neck]

I showed your post to someone and they've said Stonewall dont claim what you say they're claiming.

Which claims specifically? I’m willing and able to back up everything I’ve said here.

So many giant leaps in CEB’s response.

“Stonewall claims that this shows that the child is telling you who they really are.”

That is absolutely not what Stonewall routinely claims.

[CEB]

Routinely?
How often must they claim it (and openly advocate for an affirmation only approach to disclosure of one’s “trans identity”) for it to be “routinely”? Sounds a bit like me demonstrating where Stonewall has done this isn’t enough?

[CEB]

"Research"

This is Stonewall a couple of days ago, sparking this latest round. The post is still up despite a massive backlash. Should they repost it weekly so it fits your definition of “routinely”?

[Long slender neck]

He also says

"He makes it sound like Stonewall suggest any child not displaying trad male/female traits is trans, and that’s so obviously not their position."

[CEB]

It flows perfectly logically from Stonewall’s position:

1: that the terms “boy” and “girl” describe an innate gender identity, not male children and female children respectively.

2: that a child who learns that the words “boy” and “girl” describe an innate “gender identity” rather than a neutral fact about their sex is, self evidently, in a context where they will decide whether they are a boy or a girl based on their personality, rather than recognising that it describes only their body type.

If you want any further, follow up responses, I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better that just “no it’s not” - robust rebuttal of my assertions will do nicely, “that’s not what they say actually” won’t

[Long slender neck]

Is that what stonewall actually say?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Informative.
In answer to your question, I said I’m not sure I’m against it because I’m not sure. Partly because I don’t know enough about it. And the main gap in my knowledge was the point I made, that you’ve answered.
It’s interesting, if not terrifying, that in practice we are treating kids more equally regardless of sex, giving more opportunities to be exposed to all different toys, hobbies, clothes, which is great. But because our society still doesn’t seem to know how to actually deal with the result of that I.e. my 3 year old boy likes barbies. And even though it’s made out that this is a very complex issue lots of people seem to be really simplifying things to the ridiculous point that we are saying your child could think they are a different gender based on the fact that they like traditionally girl or boy interests. Potentially in adults too? And parents are trying to be so so woke that they (sometimes subconsciously) assign this to a gender misalignment!?Have I understood your point correctly?

You do only really see it when you have a child. Even his Nan jokes (but is serious) about him not wearing pink. We both don’t give a sh*t what he wears or plays with but you do get some looks and judgement, even in this day and age so it doesn’t surprise me that a lot of parents question these sort of things and misunderstand them.

To be clear, I’m not necessarily anti trans. In children it’s a slightly different and more difficult things, though.

[CEB]

Informative.
In answer to your question, I said I’m not sure I’m against it because I’m not sure. Partly because I don’t know enough about it. And the main gap in my knowledge was the point I made, that you’ve answered.
It’s interesting, if not terrifying, that in practice we are treating kids more equally regardless of sex, giving more opportunities to be exposed to all different toys, hobbies, clothes, which is great. But because our society still doesn’t seem to know how to actually deal with the result of that I.e. my 3 year old boy likes barbies. And even though it’s made out that this is a very complex issue lots of people seem to be really simplifying things to the ridiculous point that we are saying your child could think they are a different gender based on the fact that they like traditionally girl or boy interests. Potentially in adults too? And parents are trying to be so so woke that they (sometimes subconsciously) assign this to a gender misalignment!?Have I understood your point correctly?

You do only really see it when you have a child. Even his Nan jokes (but is serious) about him not wearing pink. We both don’t give a sh*t what he wears or plays with but you do get some looks and judgement, even in this day and age so it doesn’t surprise me that a lot of parents question these sort of things and misunderstand them.

To be clear, I’m not necessarily anti trans. In children it’s a slightly different and more difficult things, though.

I don’t think it’s necessarily that parents are trying to be woke - I think it’s that most progressive parents are in a similar position to you; not knowing lots about the subject, and defaulting to the idea that reputable organisations are probably the best sources. (and also, that less progressive parents, the type that impose restrictions on behaviour if deemed inappropriate for their sex, do the most to create an environment in which a child might end up distressed with their sexed body, and referred to gender clinics after being backed up that, yes, something might be wrong if their child is persistently gender non conforming)

Regarding your question about adults, I think the first issue is that there are actually several different things happening that are bracketed as being “trans”, and they are not all the same thing; a male child of a sexist parent, upset that he can’t wear pink or have long hair, and who learns that “girl” means “child who thinks they’re a girl”, is not experiencing the same thing as a middle aged heterosexual male who comes out in middle age and believes himself to be a lesbian despite having no desire or intention to have surgery; that’s also a different phenomenon from a same sex attracted male with intense distress at his male body who seeks surgery and hormonal intervention as a last resort to alleviate chronic dysphoria.
This is also different from young, same sex attracted, teenage girls who spend a lot of time on social media learning “a woman is someone who feels like a woman”, with ultra femininised trans women held up as *the* most oppressed of all women, and who grow up in an environment where “lesbian” is a porn category for male peers to enjoy, not a word that fits them - and who then identify first as non-binary, and then crowdfund for mastectomies before they even turn 18.

They’re different experiences, and - it should go without saying - those who have these experiences all deserve compassion and freedom from harm, but also deserve treatment based on good evidence.
But mainstream trans organisations handwave away all possible concerns on this, based on this idea of innate “gender identity”, that we all know who we are, if you look on stonewalls website, you’d think it’s parody based on how circular all the logic is on there.

Remember, trans activism is advocating for there to be *no diagnostic criteria whatsoever* for a trans identity to be accepted as the truth of a person’s inner self. And that’s because there is *no possible* definition of what it is to be a woman, but which includes male people, which isn’t either circular, or sexist.

I’d be on board and supportive of a definition like this:
“A trans woman is a person who was born male, and due to intense, ongoing distress with being male, has taken steps to alter their body to resemble that of the opposite sex, and to present as feminine, which alleviates some distress”


But the trans organisations see sex as *irrelevant*, which is why the “can a woman have a penis” question has become a thing, and a way of political point scoring.

A better question to think about is this: “When a male person says “I am a woman”, what is he saying about 1: what he is saying he doesn’t share with you and I, two male people who don’t identify as women? 2: and what is he saying he shares with women?”

I genuinely can’t think of a non sexist answer to that question. Can you?

(Edited to add: I don’t know whether you’d describe me as anti trans. Possibly you would. I don’t think I’m anti trans, but what I am, is convinced that the current mainstream form at trans rights activism is grossly sexist, misogynistic and rooted in reality denial and magical thinking, and that laws and policies around trans rights need to actually be thrashed out publicly, having hard conversations, and scrutinising some assertions.)

[CEB]

This is a recording of a Mermaids facilitator delivering training in a primary school (to staff) about gender identity. It’s recorded by the man in the audience who asks uncomfortable questions during the training. I’d challenge anyone to listen to this and still believe that Mermaids is an organisation that should be anywhere near children who are experiencing discomfort with their body/sense of self



And here’s the chart that is referred to during the session, used by the Mermaids trainer not as an example of regressive thinking, but as a useful tool for how we might work out what our gender identity is.
These arseholes are regressive, sexist backwards charlatans who should be shut down.

[CEB]

I’ve got a hell of a post lined up for later, once I’ve got time to write it… strap in

[CEB]

OK, I’m going to split this over a few posts and potentially discuss in the interim so it’s not just an essay. here’s an example of a recent “trans toolkit”, created in collaboration with mainstream trans rights/advocacy organisations.

https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/15892 ... idance.pdf

On page two, it acknowledges the organisations and documents it used in the creation of the “toolkit”; there’s the gender identity, research & education society http://www.gires.org.uk/e-learning, and links to a couple of other existing toolkits, which were created with reference to, and in collaboration with Mermaids, the leading charity for trans children, which itself has close links with Stonewall, who were the subject of the story the other day - so this isn’t an example where a school has asked a trans staff member to throw something together - this is a recent reflection of what mainstream organisations actually believe.
(As a side note, it’s also worth remembering that this is the stuff they think they can write openly and get away with. I personally am aware that the actual beliefs and practices go much further, but I’m going to focus on what I can *show*, not what I *believe*)

Assuming you’re still with me, when I highlight some of what’s said in this “toolkit”, consider the impact on a couple of hypothetical examples of children - each of these examples are based on children I’ve worked with over my career, who would undoubtedly be “on the radar” based on some of this - I’d invite you to think about what might be flagged about them

1: a ten year old female Somali child with a strong interest in playing football bordering on obsession, and she’s very skilled. Many of her peer group accidentally think she’s a boy when they first meet her, due to her short hair in corn rows and boisterous, confident personality. She is starting to tentatively have “crushes” on female actors, and some female adult role models. Her older siblings are openly homophobic, and her parents are religious.

2: a seven year old white male child who enjoys playing with feminine stereotyped toys, and does so at school because he isn’t allowed them at home. He has short hair but would like to have longer hair, but his parents won’t allow it

3: a similar male child to above, however, he has long hair, is mistaken for a girl but isn’t bothered by this. His parents are encouraging of his interests - they’re open minded and believe it to be a *good* thing that their son doesn’t feel restricted by gendered norms.

Any questions or comments so far? Or an example of a hypothetical child that you think might be worth including in that list?

Particularly interested in engaging with Brendan, if he’s actually open to hearing other viewpoints, and Apple Wumble who, despite some hostility that’s gone both ways, is clearly engaging in good faith, and oxo, with whom the conversations have been imteresting, even if we’re not on the same page.

[Long slender neck]

Right, so they all have the opposite genders stereotypical interests? First one could be lesbian, but wouldnt be if she's trans?

[CEB]

Right, so they all have the opposite genders stereotypical interests? First one could be lesbian, but wouldnt be if she's trans?

Yes, the three children are all examples of children who don’t conform to gendered stereotypes and expectations.

To answer the second part of your question, what is your understanding of what it actually means to be “trans”, and why do you think that that word might apply to the child in my first example?

[CEB]

In the meantime, Stonewall have back pedalled into a vague half arsed waffle after saying the quiet part out loud.
This will be interesting when related to the analysis of this trans toolkit in use in schools

[CEB]

Reminder that this is what they actually said: not “letting children explore”, but asserting that two years olds understand that they are trans.
You’d think it’d be important to be clear, no?

[Currywurst and Chips]

It's great women's football is in the spotlight but, racism

[Max Fowler]

How is it woke?

There's more blonde ponytails in the England team than my pornhub search history.

[Currywurst and Chips]

[Long slender neck]

Can girls not idolise white women? Thats racist.

[CEB]

The article itself isn’t “woke” (though there’s a couple of sentences that are straight out of a script rather than seeming to be genuinely convincing on the idea that the whiteness of the England team will mean young black girls are not inspired/stop participating. That feels more like a grown up projection than based on any analysis of how kids respond to the ethnic make up of sports teams) and makes lots of really good points about the structural issues that can be a barrier to working class participation, and how that disproportionately impacts on participation by girls from ethnic minority backgrounds.

If we’re defining “woke” in a pejorative sense as “progressive hyperbole in service of a culture war we insist isn’t happening”, then the guardian’s choice of what to focus on in the headline - the idea that the lack of diversity *in the squad* will “stop kids dreaming” fits the bill. It’s the guardian’s choice of framing that’s off here; you could have a headline “the Euro’s have been a massive success and will inspire a new generation - but how can we ensure the next generation reflects the diversity of the country?” and while I’m sure someone would still post it on this thread, there could only be a bad faith reason for doing so in that case. The headline as it is, places the guardian somewhere predictable on a front in a “culture war”, and prioritises outrage clicks and Twitter engagement both from people who don’t read the story and say “oh so we have to put black players in even if they’re not good enough?” and from those who engage to say “have you read the article? It’s a completely reasonable piece of writing by someone who knows what she’s talking about”

[PutneyO]

Anta Asante has got one enormous chip on her shoulder