Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
bimble said:
The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.
Click to expand...
Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead. If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”.

It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender. I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years. At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.
 
Last edited:
bimble said:
The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.
Click to expand...
yeh. afaik almost all charity funding comes from taxpayers, and all i could find from a quick search was a reported £35k from the department for education.

e2a: if used critically the spectrum chart could be a useful talking point or basis for discussion. if used critically...
 
Last edited:
bimble said:
The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure to what degree the spectrum even works for them. There is the conflation of body and gender, which fits the ideology, but people tend not to have 'spectrum bodies', so it doesn't seem likely a full transition (or no transition) would fit most of the time.
 
I truly do not know how I would approach this as a parent (I do know a couple of parents who are, though). My instinct would be to offer unconditional emotional support as children grope towards feeling secure both within themselves and also within the wider communuty, while withholding permission to start with hormone treatment...and I suspect I would be removing my child from class if such regressive shite as promoted by Mermaids was on offer). Our children are more vulnerable than ever to bullying, ostracisation, depression, unhappiness...and seek a range of solutions...from drug use through to eating disorders and self-harm. I am deeply uncomfortable with the emphasis on personal dysfunction, whilst erasing systemic oppression...although for parents with children undergoing turbulent transitions from childhood to adult independence, it is scant comfort to hold out for social reform (well, revolution, really) whilst they are trapped in a personal nightmare.
 
kabbes said:
Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead. If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”.

It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender. I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years. At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.
Click to expand...

I wasn't very good at "being a boy", and I'm not sure how I would have reacted to this as a child.
 
kabbes said:
Yes, it portrays a totally one-dimensional way to do gender, which means that people not at either end of the line are by definition somewhere in the middle instead. If the identities at each end are axiomatically given the position of “Barbie” and “GI Joe” it means by definition you aren’t being fully male-gender or female-gender if you are not “Barbie” or “GI Joe”.

It’s horribly retrograde to suggest that these are the “full, complete” versions of each gender. I am about as appalled by it as I have been by anything I’ve seen in recent years. At least the shit that appears in the Mail, for example, is just the rantings of lunatics rather than state-sponsored messaging to our children.
Click to expand...

Also at least 'the shit that appears in the Mail' is not seen as the forefront of left wing thinking.
 
bimble said:
Also at least 'the shit that appears in the Mail' is not seen as the forefront of left wing thinking.
Click to expand...

But apparently it is the forefront of feminist thinking. If we're to believe the self-identified* radical feminists that is.

*irony
 
Why not put e.g. Hannah Fry at none end and Simon Amstel at the other? (Just to pick two names that spring to mind because I was listening to them both on separate podcasts yesterday). Nicola Adams and Tom Daley. Are they not properly woman and man? Or, if it has to be kids characters, why not some equivalently scientific female and sensitive male figures? Clothing or fighting ffs.
 
There is a fair bit of this about, including an organisation called Gender Spectrum, who define a new term to me: gender expansive, for 'individuals that broaden their own culture's commonly held definitions of gender'. There is an unspoken assumption here of an uncontested set of 'definitions' (better to say 'rules' or 'expectations', I would have thought), rather than seeing gender itself as a dynamic, constantly contested and changing entity, which it surely is.
 
kabbes said:
Yeah, me too. And, I wonder, probably most kids actually. It’s horendous.
Click to expand...

It didn't seem like that at the time to me (they all seemed much better at it).
But yeah, my issues were of a totally different kind to what might have been 'diagnosed' and while standard gender socialisation is damaging, I don't think this is helpful.

I expect in most open classroom sessions that most kids would enforce gender among themselves and end up towards the poles. I think that would have happened among the boys in my cohort, anyway. Not sure what the girls would have done.
 
kabbes said:
Yeah, me too. And, I wonder, probably most kids actually. It’s horendous.
Click to expand...
I would have thought so. I remember the kids at school who seemed to be best adjusted to this kind of thing. Thinking back to them now, they're the people I would least like to see again, tbh, and even with them, I was probably wrong about thinking they were all aok.
 
bimble said:
The Mermaids spectrum thing the more you think about it the more insane it is. If you're a little girl who does not love barbie / prefers 'boy things' and you saw that powerpoint you'd basically be getting the message that you have the wrong body. And they are taxpayer funded and (according to the website) won 'Charity of the Year in the Children and Young Peoples Awards' in November last year.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that tbh. Children's minds (say from 3 upwards) are like sponges, they're constantly soaking up new information and experiences and, as such, their learning and social processes are constantly in states of flux. Thus, playing with 'either' boys or girls toys has more to do with a simple curiosity than a definitive pointer as to their determined gender or sexuality. It may have some small bearing, perhaps, but not as pronounced as some may believe. For instance, when my older brother was a small child, he liked to play with my (older) sister's dolls far more than his Lego Construction Set. He grew up to be straight, married with children. Me, I loved playing with toy cars and toy swords and the like and I turned out gay. OK, that's a personal/random example, I know, but I think it illustrates that gender or sexual identity is an evolving process and though formative influences in childhood (ie before the ages of 5) has some bearing, it's not until slightly later (maybe after 7 or 8) does it become more evident and identifiable. At that stage I think most parents would or should let their kids play (and express themselves) with whatever toys or games they like. Likewise, I would hope nurseries, Primary Schools etc would do the same. If not, well shame on them.
 
kabbes said:
Do you think the Daily Mail is more attuned to the Mermaid view of gender spectrum or the TERF view of gender as being a socially imposed system of oppression?
Click to expand...

Socially imposed system of oppression, only they leave out the bit where they pretend to think it's a bad thing.
 
kabbes said:
Do you think the Daily Mail is more attuned to the Mermaid view of gender spectrum or the TERF view of gender as being a socially imposed system of oppression?
Click to expand...
That's one of the contradictions here, no? The Mermaid view of the world fits very well in some respects with that of conservative critics of trans rights.
 
RainbowTown said:
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that tbh. Children's minds (say from 3 upwards) are like sponges, they're constantly soaking up new information and experiences and, as such, their learning and social processes are constantly in states of flux. Thus, playing with 'either' boys or girls toys has more to do with a simple curiosity than a definitive pointer as to their determined gender or sexuality. It may have some small bearing, perhaps, but not as pronounced as some may believe. For instance, when my older brother was a small child, he liked to play with my (older) sister's dolls far more than his Lego Construction Set. He grew up to be straight, married with children. Me, I loved playing with toy cars and toy swords and the like and I turned out gay. OK, that's a personal/random example, I know, but I think it illustrates that gender or sexual identity is an evolving process and though formative influences in childhood (ie before the ages of 5) has some bearing, it's not until slightly later (maybe after 7 or 8) does it become more evident and identifiable. At that stage I think most parents would or should let their kids play (and express themselves) with whatever toys or games they like. Likewise, I'd would hope nurseries etc would do the same. If not, well shame on them.
Click to expand...
yeh i'd broadly agree with you but i feel the figures on the spectrum are, er, somewhat problematic, associating certain body shapes with masculine and feminine.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's one of the contradictions here, no? The Mermaid view of the world fits very well in some respects with that of conservative critics of trans rights.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That’s why attitudes like Nigel’s are so massively unhelpful, where any criticism of the approach taken by trans activists has to be shouted down as bigotry as a matter of principle. Needing to have the right to exist and thrive in a society not currently built for you is important, but it doesn’t give you carte blanche to peddle any old reactionary shite in the name of that need.
 
It's all fucking doomed and going to shit isn't it....which is why we see enraged working class men infuriated at being lectured on the (personal) male privilege...and worse, getting shitty hashtags ('NotAllMen') quoted back at them. Leaves them nowhere to go except facing the scorn of the middle classes. Obviously, when we seek to define personal identity down to every last detail (Like the different sorts of trans people?)...then it is so very easy to quote some liberal claptrap as we slip between a collective identification (class)...for it all to fall apart when people refuse to accept some overweening principle (privilege) which they know does not apply to themselves. Yes, even less contested issues regarding race and racism....where do those of us without black skin but with epicanthic folds sit? It is a recipe for eternal argument, debate, name-calling and hate...and as such, beloved of power mongers who fear the wrath of the undifferentiated mob above all else.

Thank fuckity fuck the season is turning and it will be nicer to be outside, fiddling with seedlings, rather than sitting bored and hateful over a keyboard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
JimW
Jon Benjamin's time is up
Replies
6
Views
525
Chz
Chz
L
“Be Lazy. Just Vote”
Replies
3
Views
2K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
W
Maybe Your Time Is Up
2 3 4 5
Replies
141
Views
6K
cupid_stunt
cupid_stunt
P
Is the Tory Era Over? Farage Predicts Massive Shift to Reform
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
7K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
Back
Top Bottom