Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Boys should be free to wear tutus and tiaras, says Church of England Watch

    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Its ridiculous. Tiaras are for girls and not for boys. I don't see why a boy would want to wear one. I remember back when I was at primary school (8 years ago now) if a guy wore girl clothes they wouldn't hear the end of it. Even the teachers would join in with the banter.
    Well everyone has different preferences. Just because a piece of plastic is marketed to one gender doesn't mean it's exclusively ONLY FOR THEM. Guess girls can't wear trousers or high heels because those were originally 'for boys and not for girls'. I find it ridiculous that people care about things that don't effect them personally, but what a world we live in...
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    General reply to all of you asking 'why?'

    my objections are to do with how this relates to transgender children. And how I see this fueling the rise in acceptance and specifically medical intervention in young kids:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    1, Speaking as an ex-transgender individual I have quite a different view of the gender-breaking movement. There are two things that you must know before assessing weather promoting transgender inclusivity is a good thing:

    1, on average the suicide rate and the rate of depression that individuals with gender based dysphoria experiance pre-coming out, does NOT diminish after transitioning, they remain unhappy and their suicide rate remains high.

    2, A huge number of people - like myself - de-transition. This rarely ever gets reported on, but there are significant communities of us online who have been through parts of the process and end up reverting back. It is not at all the case that promoting a child who expresses their gender in a certain way to move away from the gender that correlates with their sex, will always end up in a positive life change.

    My objection is this - Given the number of people who de-transition, and the lack of evidence showing how transitioning actually helps individuals mental states, What you risk by promoting gender non-conformity in young kids is a generation of children who have a 'transgender phase' or a 'genderqueer phase'. The problem with this is its not at all the same as a phase of experimenting with your sexuality, as many kids try. This is because some of the options with transgender treatment are irreversible. Hormone treatment before puberty creates irreversible effects.

    There is a system in place to process these kids though - I know this because I have been through it. I have been sent to the NHS gender clinics.. to the specialist psychologists and counselors and to the doctors. NEVER ONCE were my experiences or perception questioned. I was listened to, and my young naive thoughts were taken as truth. At every stage I met other transgender individuals who worked for the NHS clinics, telling me how much better I would feel, and how much progress I could make - I had a path mapped out by doctors for the next few years that included hormone treatment, and multiple surgeries..

    As a young person, especially a child identity is not something you can fully understand yet, and kids are very easily led. Its hard for a child to question the direction they are being taken in by doctors, and its very very hard to differentiate between a child who would truly benefit from a severe life-change, and one who is just experimenting and going through a phase.

    My expectation is that as we see the number of transgender treatments rise year after year at a huge rate (as they are right now) you will see more and more unhappy individuals with a lot of regret. A small minority will have received the treatment they desperately needed, but a larger group will be left confused and hurt by a process that cannot yet fully differentiate whether they need treatment or not based anything imperial, only the words and understanding of a child.

    Specific replies:

    (Original post by Future-Barista)
    I guess boys can't be feminine or have free will?
    Also, I didn't necessarily understand how it's going to hurt someone if the whole message it about normalizing feminine behaviour in boys.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    No child from good parents has free-will. They are not yet able to make their own decisions, so parents have to make decisions for them. Arguing that they are entitled to choose what they wear is as futile as arguing that they are able to choose what they eat, where they go or any of the other myriad of decisions that could affect their life but they do not have control over. Until they are in their late teens, the free-will argument is not valid in my eyes.

    As for allowing boys to be feminine. We already promote the heavy feminisiation of young boys. Our entire school system is built around a more female orientated learning style, and the last bastions of promotion for young boys are fading with campaigns against 'boys will be boys' etc.

    The outcomes and statistics for young boys and men are dire at the moment, they are under performing at all levels of education, and the mental health statistics and suicide rates are damming. You may relate this to boys just needing to be more in touch with their emotion - but I would suggest that this is a historically illiterate viewpoint. Boys historically have performed very well, and gone on to become men who built large parts of the modern world. They did not require being able to cry or being more feminine to do this, they require the specific benefits that come from more male personality traits. A lack of agreeableness, a generally high level of competitiveness, a willingness to fight for and defend what seems right. We do not need a generation of boys with normalized feminine behavior - we need to develop a system of education that helps promote the positive strengths of male behavior within boys.



    (Original post by ByEeek)
    How? I turned up to my after school club to pick up my 4 year-old son. He and his mate were playing mum's and dads. Both were dressed in Princess Dresses (they have a massive box of dress up) and each had their respective prams and dolls.

    Are you suggesting I should have taken them to one side, given them a firm talking to along the lines of "Boys don't do things like that. A man's job in this world is to work down t'pit whilst mother does all the cooking, cleaning and women's work."?

    It made me smile. I love my son very much just the way he is and if he wants to be a princess when he is older, I will fully support him in that ambition. What business is it of anyone else to dictate how my son should act.

    There is a general backlash against promoting what one might describe as alternative lifestyles, yet there is no similar backlash against promoting traditional masculine feminine roles. That would be where men are not permitted to display emotion and women must be seen to be weak and submissive.

    Why can't we just promote the idea that all lifestyles that don't impact on others are acceptable and of equal value?
    Spoiler:
    Show

    'There is no similar backlash against promoting traditional masculine feminine roles' - well actually their is a huge movement against it, and its been going on for the last half a century. Its a shame though, whole civilizations have been built on and thrived under more traditional gender patterns - as did our society. The modern world we all live in was forged at a time when boys/girls were not the same. If you live in the UK, then the wealth you sit on today was created by a highly successful period when values were more traditional.

    'Why can't we just promote the idea that all lifestyles.... are of equal value' - because they are categorically not. To argue that every single lifestyle taken by parents is of equal flies in the face of everything we know about society and parenting. Its a claim that can be broken in seconds just by looking at parenting styles in our country and which one brings up the best, most productive, and happiest children. A good test of any claim like yours is to push it to the extreme and see what happens. If all lifestyles are equal, is a family lifestyle of abuse equal to one of love? No. So there is a spectrum there from good to bad lifestyles - its not black and white.. there are some that are more positive then others.. then you just have to evaluate where each fits in.



    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    I'm not aware of any Church of England teaching that would've ever said the opposite. Bit weird they're making headlines for stating the obvious. Will it help bullying? **** if I know, you wouldn't guess that was the aim


    Sorry, who's getting hurt by it exactly? It's not like they've condemned anybody for choosing to still follow the stereotypical route if they so please.
    See my first spoilered reply


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Whose lives are being hurt by this?

    See my first spoilered reply
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If the objective is to reduce bullying then I'm not sure this policy would have any positive impact. If anything it could have a reverse effect.

    I just watched the local news and at the end of the clip, a mum said "Oh I think it's great, my son Jason likes to dress as a princess at home so it's fantastic he has free choice at school". I have to say my first thought was come Monday the other boys are going to have a right laugh at Jason's expense now knowing he dresses as a princess at home thanks to his mum!

    I'm fairly open minded but as I say, I don't see this as helping reduce bullying.

    Further education and more emphasis in schools on a "kindness Counts" type policy would be more productive rather than creating more situations where children could be ridiculed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    General reply to all of you asking 'why?'

    my objections are to do with how this relates to transgender children. And how I see this fueling the rise in acceptance and specifically medical intervention in young kids:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    1, Speaking as an ex-transgender individual I have quite a different view of the gender-breaking movement. There are two things that you must know before assessing weather promoting transgender inclusivity is a good thing:

    1, on average the suicide rate and the rate of depression that individuals with gender based dysphoria experiance pre-coming out, does NOT diminish after transitioning, they remain unhappy and their suicide rate remains high.

    2, A huge number of people - like myself - de-transition. This rarely ever gets reported on, but there are significant communities of us online who have been through parts of the process and end up reverting back. It is not at all the case that promoting a child who expresses their gender in a certain way to move away from the gender that correlates with their sex, will always end up in a positive life change.

    My objection is this - Given the number of people who de-transition, and the lack of evidence showing how transitioning actually helps individuals mental states, What you risk by promoting gender non-conformity in young kids is a generation of children who have a 'transgender phase' or a 'genderqueer phase'. The problem with this is its not at all the same as a phase of experimenting with your sexuality, as many kids try. This is because some of the options with transgender treatment are irreversible. Hormone treatment before puberty creates irreversible effects.

    There is a system in place to process these kids though - I know this because I have been through it. I have been sent to the NHS gender clinics.. to the specialist psychologists and counselors and to the doctors. NEVER ONCE were my experiences or perception questioned. I was listened to, and my young naive thoughts were taken as truth. At every stage I met other transgender individuals who worked for the NHS clinics, telling me how much better I would feel, and how much progress I could make - I had a path mapped out by doctors for the next few years that included hormone treatment, and multiple surgeries..

    As a young person, especially a child identity is not something you can fully understand yet, and kids are very easily led. Its hard for a child to question the direction they are being taken in by doctors, and its very very hard to differentiate between a child who would truly benefit from a severe life-change, and one who is just experimenting and going through a phase.

    My expectation is that as we see the number of transgender treatments rise year after year at a huge rate (as they are right now) you will see more and more unhappy individuals with a lot of regret. A small minority will have received the treatment they desperately needed, but a larger group will be left confused and hurt by a process that cannot yet fully differentiate whether they need treatment or not based anything imperial, only the words and understanding of a child.


    Specific replies:



    Spoiler:
    Show


    No child from good parents has free-will. They are not yet able to make their own decisions, so parents have to make decisions for them. Arguing that they are entitled to choose what they wear is as futile as arguing that they are able to choose what they eat, where they go or any of the other myriad of decisions that could affect their life but they do not have control over. Until they are in their late teens, the free-will argument is not valid in my eyes.

    As for allowing boys to be feminine. We already promote the heavy feminisiation of young boys. Our entire school system is built around a more female orientated learning style, and the last bastions of promotion for young boys are fading with campaigns against 'boys will be boys' etc.

    The outcomes and statistics for young boys and men are dire at the moment, they are under performing at all levels of education, and the mental health statistics and suicide rates are damming. You may relate this to boys just needing to be more in touch with their emotion - but I would suggest that this is a historically illiterate viewpoint. Boys historically have performed very well, and gone on to become men who built large parts of the modern world. They did not require being able to cry or being more feminine to do this, they require the specific benefits that come from more male personality traits. A lack of agreeableness, a generally high level of competitiveness, a willingness to fight for and defend what seems right. We do not need a generation of boys with normalized feminine behavior - we need to develop a system of education that helps promote the positive strengths of male behavior within boys.






    Spoiler:
    Show


    'There is no similar backlash against promoting traditional masculine feminine roles' - well actually their is a huge movement against it, and its been going on for the last half a century. Its a shame though, whole civilizations have been built on and thrived under more traditional gender patterns - as did our society. The modern world we all live in was forged at a time when boys/girls were not the same. If you live in the UK, then the wealth you sit on today was created by a highly successful period when values were more traditional.

    'Why can't we just promote the idea that all lifestyles.... are of equal value' - because they are categorically not. To argue that every single lifestyle taken by parents is of equal flies in the face of everything we know about society and parenting. Its a claim that can be broken in seconds just by looking at parenting styles in our country and which one brings up the best, most productive, and happiest children. A good test of any claim like yours is to push it to the extreme and see what happens. If all lifestyles are equal, is a family lifestyle of abuse equal to one of love? No. So there is a spectrum there from good to bad lifestyles - its not black and white.. there are some that are more positive then others.. then you just have to evaluate where each fits in.






    See my first spoilered reply





    See my first spoilered reply
    This is not about promoting one way or another. It is about accepting all individuals as equal and accepting them for who they are and how they wish to present themselves to society.

    Children present with all manner of gender, emotional and mental issues. Schools and organisations have a duty to accomodate all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    And how I see this fueling the rise in acceptance and specifically medical intervention in young kids:
    The big problem with what is happening now is that kids who are just playing and exploring are being seized by the child transgender industry and taken very quickly along the blind alley of a sex change process when, in time, they will grow out of it and turn out to be quite stereotypical people of their birth sex.

    The whole industry should be dismantled and all sex change procedures and preparations for minors banned, along with the counselling that tends towards such a change.

    I fully expect more people will be harmed by what is happening than will be helped.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Wouldn't breaking gender stereotypes decrease child/teen transitioning? Considering mainly gender roles and stereotypes embrace the idea that only girls can wear pink or boys can be sporty etc. Thus forcing kids/teens to become trans to pursue uncommon interests for their gender, e.g a boy transitioning in order to become a girl so he can play with dolls or wear pink clothing without facing stigma.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    General reply to all of you asking 'why?'

    my objections are to do with how this relates to transgender children. And how I see this fueling the rise in acceptance and specifically medical intervention in young kids:

    On average the suicide rate and the rate of depression that individuals with gender based dysphoria experiance pre-coming out, does NOT diminish after transitioning, they remain unhappy and their suicide rate remains high.

    My objection is this - Given the number of people who de-transition, and the lack of evidence showing how transitioning actually helps individuals mental states.
    This is frankly untrue. The body of evidence at present is that transitioning improves mental health and quality of life in transgender individuals:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...625.x/abstract
    http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/25690443
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nssexual_Women

    Don't conflate transitioning not being 100% effective in treating dysphoria with it not helping at all (as you are claiming), the latter is provably false. Transitioning at present is not perfect, no, but it does improve mental health and wellbeing.



    The outcomes and statistics for young boys and men are dire at the moment, they are under performing at all levels of education, and the mental health statistics and suicide rates are damming. You may relate this to boys just needing to be more in touch with their emotion - but I would suggest that this is a historically illiterate viewpoint. Boys historically have performed very well, and gone on to become men who built large parts of the modern world. They did not require being able to cry or being more feminine to do this, they require the specific benefits that come from more male personality traits. A lack of agreeableness, a generally high level of competitiveness, a willingness to fight for and defend what seems right. We do not need a generation of boys with normalized feminine behavior - we need to develop a system of education that helps promote the positive strengths of male behavior within boys.
    Again false. Promoting heavy, "traditional" masculinity is not conducive to reducing mental health issues and suicide rates. You talk historically as if it was fine until men were told they could be something else, but the gap in suicide rates between men and women have been seen back to the 19th century (If you can find a copy, look at Le Suicide by Emile Durkheim) - as far back as there is research, suicide has appeared to be a predominately male phenomenon; and that predates the move to modern acceptance of feminine behaviour in men.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It seems strange to me that a mental condition should be treated by making the condition come true.

    With any other condition (e.g. personality disorders, stress, ADHD, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder) the individual would be treated to remove the problem by counselling and treatment to ensure the feeling of not being right is accepted as just a feeling, with the aim of accepting the truth and removing the symptoms. With gender dysphoria the opposite seems to be the case - there is a rush (and it is a rush often) to change the gender - a change that is difficult and traumatic in itself, and difficult to reverse.

    This should not happen to children.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    This is frankly untrue. The body of evidence at present is that transitioning improves mental health and quality of life in transgender individuals:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...625.x/abstract
    http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/25690443
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nssexual_Women

    Don't conflate transitioning not being 100% effective in treating dysphoria with it not helping at all (as you are claiming), the latter is provably false. Transitioning at present is not perfect, no, but it does improve mental health and wellbeing.




    Again false. Promoting heavy, "traditional" masculinity is not conducive to reducing mental health issues and suicide rates. You talk historically as if it was fine until men were told they could be something else, but the gap in suicide rates between men and women have been seen back to the 19th century (If you can find a copy, look at Le Suicide by Emile Durkheim) - as far back as there is research, suicide has appeared to be a predominately male phenomenon; and that predates the move to modern acceptance of feminine behaviour in men.
    If you want a discussion grounded in evidence/sources/studies, then that's not something I can give you properly at the moment.

    I'm inbetween masters courses right now, so I don't have access to the full articles you mentioned, or to articles/evidence I would need to give you to justify my own positions. It would end up looking entirely one sided and be pretty pointless.

    I did initially try to do that though, and write out a long reply, but reading it back - I don't think it serves any purpose as without anything backing it, its unlikely to convince you, after you have already brought your own evidence to the debate.

    I would say though, that I do take some major issues with the studies you have posted above. Most notably that they are all severly out of date. Even the second one, whilst published recently only covers individuals who transitioned more then a decade ago.

    Given the rapid change in how our society deals with gender, and the currently ongoing and exponential increase in young people being provided with gender care, I do not think that focusing on those who transitioned more then a decade ago, when only the most extreme, able, and determined could get to the point of hormone therapy(who are exclusively who all of your studies focus on), is very useful for determining weather the much larger, wider, and more circumstantially and mentally diverse pool of under-18s today who are being sent in this direction will benefit from it.

    For reference of the expansion within under 18s - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-n...shire-35532491
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    If you want a discussion grounded in evidence/sources/studies, then that's not something I can give you properly at the moment.

    I'm inbetween masters courses right now, so I don't have access to the full articles you mentioned, or to articles/evidence I would need to give you to justify my own positions. It would end up looking entirely one sided and be pretty pointless.

    I did initially try to do that though, and write out a long reply, but reading it back - I don't think it serves any purpose as without anything backing it, its unlikely to convince you, after you have already brought your own evidence to the debate.

    I would say though, that I do take some major issues with the studies you have posted above. Most notably that they are all severly out of date. Even the second one, whilst published recently only covers individuals who transitioned more then a decade ago.

    Given the rapid change in how our society deals with gender, and the currently ongoing and exponential increase in young people being provided with gender care, I do not think that focusing on those who transitioned more then a decade ago, when only the most extreme, able, and determined could get to the point of hormone therapy(who are exclusively who all of your studies focus on), is very useful for determining weather the much larger, wider, and more circumstantially and mentally diverse pool of under-18s today who are being sent in this direction will benefit from it.

    For reference of the expansion within under 18s - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-n...shire-35532491
    An increase in referrals is not reason to suspect that treatment is no longer effective.
    Yes, long term studies will never be assessing the cutting edge of treatment at the time of publication, but the data they generate is no less valid for it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    An increase in referrals is not reason to suspect that treatment is no longer effective.
    Yes, long term studies will never be assessing the cutting edge of treatment at the time of publication, but the data they generate is no less valid for it.
    In most cases I would agree about your point regarding an increase.

    My hesitance in this case is because of how rapidly gender identity has changed. I mean, without full access to the studies I cant comment fully on the participants backgrounds, but I would assume them to be 18+ at the time of transitioning, and their transition was near complete around a decade ago.

    A decade ago the views of gender were very different - the narratives of it being a spectrum, of gender queer, non-binary, a myriad of pronouns, were certainly not wide spread at all, if they had even been conceived of. let alone the idea that there is no such thing as gender, even the idea that gender exists as purely a social construct was not widely accepted. 10 years ago, T wasn't even part of LGB...

    So its why I have a bit of a hard time accepting results from studies conducted on people who transitioned at a time when what gender meant to those transitioning was substantially different from what it is today. For example back then It was highly likely that it was a man or a women, who simply believed that they were in the wrong body, and that a change would solve it. Now you have 16 year olds going to doctors and claiming to have a gender that changes fluidly day by day, whilst they experience dyshporia and other mental conditions. I don't view the situations as the same.

    I think we can find common ground in agreeing that transgender treatment does help some individuals by reducing their experience of dyshporia. Where I think I will always branch off is that I believe transgender treatment to not be of universal assistance to trans individuals, and on average I do not think it has an overall positive impact, because for every case of an individual that is pushed in this direction that is helped, I see other cases of individuals who have deep deep regrets and pain caused by the treatment they were led to believe would help them. Therefor I make the claim as above that on average, transgender treatment does not help transgender individuals (defined as someone who suffers gender dyshporia), and should only be prescribed and promoted under the most careful and extreme of cases, and certianly not to anyone under 18 (or 16, I could see a case being made for girls especially here)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    It is brilliant that the Church is recognising that young children should be free to explore who they are without the constraints of gender stereotypes. I'm not entirely sure that it will help crackdown on bullying, as children can be incredibly mean, especially to people they see as being different from them, or those who enjoy different or unusual things.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This country's moral collapse continues.

    Great news for Islam though.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    In most cases I would agree about your point regarding an increase.

    My hesitance in this case is because of how rapidly gender identity has changed. I mean, without full access to the studies I cant comment fully on the participants backgrounds, but I would assume them to be 18+ at the time of transitioning, and their transition was near complete around a decade ago.

    A decade ago the views of gender were very different - the narratives of it being a spectrum, of gender queer, non-binary, a myriad of pronouns, were certainly not wide spread at all, if they had even been conceived of. let alone the idea that there is no such thing as gender, even the idea that gender exists as purely a social construct was not widely accepted. 10 years ago, T wasn't even part of LGB...

    So its why I have a bit of a hard time accepting results from studies conducted on people who transitioned at a time when what gender meant to those transitioning was substantially different from what it is today. For example back then It was highly likely that it was a man or a women, who simply believed that they were in the wrong body, and that a change would solve it. Now you have 16 year olds going to doctors and claiming to have a gender that changes fluidly day by day, whilst they experience dyshporia and other mental conditions. I don't view the situations as the same.
    Fair enough, I was expecting you to go down the typical argument about increased diagnosis of relatively modern phenomena (e.g. autism, ADHD) and the idea that the diagnosis is just being thrown around willy nilly, to which the counter response would be that diagnosis criteria (in terms of the DSM) have remained fairly static. As far as I'm aware typical treatment for non-binary identities though is not to fully transition, so you're on to a different question.

    I think we can find common ground in agreeing that transgender treatment does help some individuals by reducing their experience of dyshporia.
    We can, yes

    Where I think I will always branch off is that I believe transgender treatment to not be of universal assistance to trans individuals, and on average I do not think it has an overall positive impact, because for every case of an individual that is pushed in this direction that is helped, I see other cases of individuals who have deep deep regrets and pain caused by the treatment they were led to believe would help them. Therefor I make the claim as above that on average, transgender treatment does not help transgender individuals (defined as someone who suffers gender dyshporia), and should only be prescribed and promoted under the most careful and extreme of cases, and certianly not to anyone under 18 (or 16, I could see a case being made for girls especially here)
    And we disagree here - You are placing your experience front and centre, fair enough, but judging as a whole, the current body of research done on transitioning as a treatment shows it to be effective in helping individuals with gender dysphoria - I'd be reticent to then say it shouldn't be practised except in the most extreme of cases. Yes, it's not 100% effective (no treatment ever is), no, it's not without it's flaws and risks (again, no treatment is), but on the whole it currently stands as being overall beneficial. Until the body of evidence shifts against that, I won't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fallen_acorns)
    See my first spoilered reply
    I'll leave Stiff Little Fingers to deal with the scientific side, but even if we accept your claim as true, it's a non-sequitur - "Hormone therapy is too risky, therefore any kind of child breaking of traditional gender binaries is bad."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Fair enough, I was expecting you to go down the typical argument about increased diagnosis of relatively modern phenomena (e.g. autism, ADHD) and the idea that the diagnosis is just being thrown around willy nilly, to which the counter response would be that diagnosis criteria (in terms of the DSM) have remained fairly static. As far as I'm aware typical treatment for non-binary identities though is not to fully transition, so you're on to a different question.



    We can, yes



    And we disagree here - You are placing your experience front and centre, fair enough, but judging as a whole, the current body of research done on transitioning as a treatment shows it to be effective in helping individuals with gender dysphoria - I'd be reticent to then say it shouldn't be practised except in the most extreme of cases. Yes, it's not 100% effective (no treatment ever is), no, it's not without it's flaws and risks (again, no treatment is), but on the whole it currently stands as being overall beneficial. Until the body of evidence shifts against that, I won't.
    following your last sentence - as at the moment I am not in a position to use evidence to back up my position, probably best we leave it there!

    If the topic pops up again on TSR sometime in the new year, after I return to my studies, it may be interesting to go through properly, but until then if I can't access and analyse your evidence, or provide you with any counter - we will just be hitting my ideas against, as you view it, your proof.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'll leave Stiff Little Fingers to deal with the scientific side, but even if we accept your claim as true, it's a non-sequitur - "Hormone therapy is too risky, therefore any kind of child breaking of traditional gender binaries is bad."
    only if you remove the steps between... and if your not going to engage in the discussion properly enough to look at them, then your best off leaving the whole argument to Stiff Little Fingers, rather then just the science.

    to further break down how I view the situation:

    1, Gender - A spectrum of identity based on partially biological and partially sociological constructs

    2, Children fall somewhere within the two genders, but whilst they are still growing, experience the social side of gender in a more fluid manner then adults, going through phases that we perceive lean towards different genders.

    3, Spread of gender identity among children
    3.a. The vast majority of children happily align with the gender that matches their biological sex.
    3.b. A very small number of Children experience gender dyshporia, and extreme mental pain because they view their gender as not matching their biological sex
    3.c. A larger group of Children (but still a small minority) exist at positions that (whilst fluid in their expression) are not strongly within either side. They do not experience extreme dyshporia but they do share a number of traits with the opposite gender to their biological sex.

    My prediction - as its only just started happening - is that:
    Group 3.a. will be fine, as allways.
    Group 3.b. will be helped by ever increasing acceptance and promotion of the destruction of traditional genders
    Group 3.c. will be left confused and hurt as many of them are miss-identified as being part of group 3.b. and being young, they are to willing to accept the temptation of this new identity.

    ---

    For those in group 3.c. - in past generations they would have just been very feminine boys, or very butch girls. but now I am concerned they will be taken as one of the many new gender identities, or transgender itself.

    In my opinion this is not a good thing. I personally think the those in group 3.c. would lead happier, healthier and more stable lives as the gender that matches their biological sex.

    For the numbers, see the BBC Article I sent to the other poster - The number of under 18s being refered to gender specialists has increased 10x within less then a decade.

    lets look at the situation:

    10 years ago my summery would be:

    - It was very very hard to access any gender resources or services
    - It was almost unknown by most children,
    - very few understood what transgender meant or had encountered it
    - It was viewed much more harshly by society as a whole
    - Gender based medical services were much more limited and restricted as now.

    So picture which kids could have been able to manage to transition in this environment - only the toughest, luckiest, and most ardent in their views.. any others would have found the fight to much and decided that its a happier life just to play along.

    Now in my view we have:
    - A huge amount of awareness and acceptance within middle class societies
    - An increasing access to gender based medical services
    - Many more will have encountered transgender individuals before
    - A huge increase in online communities and agendas
    - An increasing desire of middle class families to diagnose and 'fix' their broken children

    Everything is now in place to facilitate pushing children who were at the mild end of unusual gender expression (group 3.c.) towards more radical positions.

    My position is that a child whose sex is male, but who experiences a small number of tendencies that would be associated with the female gender, and only a small amount of mental discomfort due to it, is now far far more likely - and ever more so as we see more changes that follow the nature of this thread - to assume a transgender identity, which would end up being a negative impact on their life, as they would experience all of the problems associated with being transgender, whilst receiving very little of the benefits/alliviation-of-mental-problems, that come with a 3.b. child who transitions due to extreme dyshporia.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think telling boys to be like the opposite gender and dress like drag queens will really help much with bullying. It could even make it worse, providing more opportunities for the bullies to pick on kids.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst it may sound like a good idea in theory I feel that this will likely just result in a lot more kids getting bullied
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This won’t affect kids but it’ll definitely be reassuring to fanatical libtard parents
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 20, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.