Alberta students to define their own gender

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Not the most important matter? Try telling that to a little boy who feels like a girl. It can be the key to their happiness in a lot of cases. And I'm pretty sure this isn't going to effect the vast majority of "normal" children. A boy who is born a boy, who identifies as a boy, who finds girls yucky and dresses ugly isn't going to be sat down and asked what gender he prefers. The confused ones, who raise questions naturally, act "different", who bring up feelings of not wanting to be a boy, that will be where the decisions are made.

Children are taught sex ed in the lowers grades, I think I watched a video of child birth in grade 5 at the age of 10. God lord. Speaking of creepy. We didn't need to see that.

They're not making any lasting permanent decisions here. No one chopping off a tiny penis and turning it into a vagina at these ages. Yes, the onslaught of puberty will happen at some point but even that can be delayed for several years when a child in 10-13 to further delay and major decision, allowing them to mature mentally.

You are trying to justify this from some kind of a protection from oppression perspective, which is similar to what the proponents of this protocol did. My view is that there was no oppression to begin with. Absolute majority of kids have pronounced gender identity. Those that are somewhat conflicted about it need time, experience and guidance. Two of our friends have boys that started identifying as gay by the time the were 20 even though we all suspected that they might be earlier. Both had girlfriends during school, played team sports and did not find girls "yucky". It does take time and maturity to make some of these decisions. Think of a bullied kid that may find it easier to declare a changed gender identity rather than having to deal with his bullies.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

While I think you make a good point about the GSA's and individual school boards failure in many schools, I still believe you are giving Peter a rough ride and should maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't profess to speak for him nor would I defend him if he starts going on about how sinful these little transgendered monsters are.

What I am reading from him, and Peter correct me if I am misinterpreting, is that the province is making this issue to be decided by the kids at a young age. While on the whole I have no problem with the policies designed to help prevent discrimination and exclusion of transgendered individuals, I think it is important to not force children to make decisions that may be beyond their scope of understanding.

On the other hand, I think it appears much of this document is meant for teachers, principals and admin staff and is meant to train the people in charge to remove many of their inherent biases towards grouping kids into their versions of boy/girl.

My point is that this is a cruel, unnecessarily ideological experiment that is intended to remove parents from their responsibility to raise their children, and instill their own values. It also politically radicalizes the sexuality of children.

The entire issue of transgenderism is not exactly illuminated with good, clear science at this point, and nor do I ever expect it to be given the vagaries of human sexuality across the board. However, this is a private matter, and the intervention of ideologically-motivated administrators and teachers often leads to further stigmatization, and isolation of these kids. I speak from family experience here.

It is important to realize that a) human sexuality is not set in stone, especially in prepubescent stages, b) that we have no real understanding as to how or why someone may be transgendered or choose to identify with a particular outlook, and c) top-down efforts to influence these matters often have either no effect or a negative effect.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You are trying to justify this from some kind of a protection from oppression perspective, which is similar to what the proponents of this protocol did. My view is that there was no oppression to begin with. Absolute majority of kids have pronounced gender identity. Those that are somewhat conflicted about it need time, experience and guidance. Two of our friends have boys that started identifying as gay by the time the were 20 even though we all suspected that they might be earlier. Both had girlfriends during school, played team sports and did not find girls "yucky". It does take time and maturity to make some of these decisions. Think of a bullied kid that may find it easier to declare a changed gender identity rather than having to deal with his bullies.

Originally Posted by peter12

My point is that it is a cruel, unnecessarily ideological experiment that is intended to remove parents from their responsibility to raise their children, and instill their own values, and that it radically politicizes the sexuality of children.

The entire issue of transgenderism is not exactly illuminated with good, clear science at this point, and nor do I ever expect it to be given the vagaries of human sexuality across the board. However, this is a private matter, and the intervention of ideologically-motivated administrators and teachers often leads to further stigmatization, and isolation of these kids. I speak from family experience here.

It is important to realize that a) human sexuality is not set in stone, especially in prepubescent stages, b) that we have no real understanding as to how someone may be transgenders or choose to identify with a particular outlook, and c) top-down efforts to influence these matters often have either no effect or a negative effect.

I can't believe it has to be said for the fourth time in this thread, but sexuality and gender aren't the same thing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure the whole concept of gender-fluidity is predicated on having the option of not making a permanent decision, regardless of your age.

But I'm sure the detractors here knew that, what with all of the experience they have interacting with the transgenedered/gender-fluid.

Please explain your politically motivated pontification, enlightened one.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I can't believe it has to be said for the fourth time in this thread, but sexuality and gender aren't the same thing.

Except that sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. As you can't say that one always follows the other, you also can't say that one never follows the other. This attempt to muddy the waters is so poor.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I can't believe it has to be said for the fourth time in this thread, but sexuality and gender aren't the same thing.

5 times now, see post above.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

Please explain your politically motivated pontification, enlightened one.

What is there to explain beyond what I (and others) have said?

You lot obviously view sexuality and gender as being intrinsically tied together, when they exist apart from each other. Changing the public discourse regarding transgendered/gender-fluid individuals is long-overdue.

You may take issue with not forcing gender roles on children, but it's something that has been happening for years. The difference being, some of these kids that do eventually figure out their transgenderism may be growing up in a world where they are not most likely to die before age 30 at their own hand.

Originally Posted by peter12

Except that sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. As you can't say that one always follows the other, you also can't say that one never follows the other. This attempt to muddy the waters is so poor.

Except they aren't. Who you want to #### and what gender you identify as are two wholly different concepts.

Who wants to #### you is another matter entirely however.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

What is there to explain beyond what I (and others) have said?

You lot obviously view sexuality and gender as being intrinsically tied together, when they exist apart from each other. Changing the public discourse regarding transgendered/gender-fluid individuals is long-overdue.

You may take issue with not forcing gender roles on children, but it's something that has been happening for years. The difference being, some of these kids that do eventually figure out their transgenderism may be growing up in a world where they are not most likely to die before age 30 at their own hand.

Of course they are intrinsically tied together, but in a way that is probably incomprehensible to all of us. To create some sort of third category is just as damaging as ideologically insisting that there have always been two - something that most people don't cling on to as religiously as you and others want the rest of us to believe.

I can't quote your statement below, but I will only say that it is crude. Of course, sexual preferences should follow social identification, and probably vice-versa. To act as though one is a mechanical performance, and the other is some sort of existential experience independent of everything else is so flimsy. Human lives are more complicated than you, and your fellows give credit, and your solutions are so crude, poorly-devised from a very outdated ideological perspective.

Are you somehow denying, for instance, that genes do not influence behaviour? Are you not aware of previous attempts to forcibly create a third gender on a child that wrought more pain than if the child had been allowed to explore his own identity within his own social circles?

You say that you want to create a new space for a new discussion, but I am anything but convinced that your motivations are not as suspect as the imagined closeted religious bigot who wants to forcibly imprint his child in a world of men and women, and would hate his child if they refused his dictatorial life plan. You are precisely the same, except more insidious.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

..Changing the public discourse regarding transgendered/gender-fluid individuals is long-overdue...

This is probably the least needed and least important debate the society needs.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is probably the least needed and least important debate the society needs.

Except there's really nothing to debate?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Except there's really nothing to debate?

Look, you may enjoy this game of pretending to know more than other people, but you really haven't said anything that a first-year gender studies student couldn't have summarized in the first 15 minutes of class.

Do you know about John Money? This whole issue of transgenderism is probably important - if only that certain kids aren't demeaned or humiliated past the point of norms and end up harming themselves. I don't deny that there are tragic aspects, but to act as if bureaucrats self-empowering themselves at the expense of dozens of social institutions without any real justification or evidence is a better thing just blows my mind.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Except there's really nothing to debate?

I view it as an attempt to shift society's attention from more important and more crucial debates that politicians have no guts or ability to conduct. Radicalization on both right and left ends of the political spectrum, steady claw-back of personal rights and freedoms, aggressive "leftification" of societal principles, failure of the multiculturalism policies – just to name a few good debate topics.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except that sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. As you can't say that one always follows the other, you also can't say that one never follows the other. This attempt to muddy the waters is so poor.

You're smart enough to know that the potential for two things to be linked or connected does not make them "the same thing." You KNOW that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You're smart enough to know that the potential for two things to be linked or connected does not make them "the same thing." You KNOW that.

I believe that I have used the word "intertwined" several times during this discussion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

I believe that I have used the word "intertwined" several times during this discussion.

Then when someone says it's not the same, don't say "sometimes it is"

It's never "the same".

I'm also curious regarding your reservations about the lack of evidence over the issues of gender and sexuality, yet your firm affirmation without evidence that measures like the ones taken have "ether no or a negative effect."

Do you have evidence? Or do you need evidence only to change your perspective, but none to confirm it? If you have it, link it. Show it. This impacts me and people I know greatly and quite frankly this move seems good to me, so I'd appreciate evidence that shows me it's nothing worth being excited about.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This is probably the least needed and least important debate the society needs.

I've always been fascinated by the process by which individual issues and incidents are plucked out of the thousands of things that cause harm and distress and make it to the public consciousness and political agenda. Even though I worked in the media, and saw it first-hand, the process remains opaque. What is clear is that utilitarianism plays no role. The number of people affected by an incident, injustice, or change has no bearing on its likelihood of becoming a public issue. Some types of issues (involving sex, or children) have a hot-button quality. Other types (involving old people, or the poor), are typically ignored.

So there's no real way to anticipate what will become a major societal issue in, say, 2025. No metrics or utilitarian considerations. Though if you had to put money on it, the safe bet would be something that is novel, involve sex and/or children, and not affect many people.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I've always been fascinated by the process by which individual issues and incidents are plucked out of the thousands of things that cause harm and distress and make it to the public consciousness and political agenda. Even though I worked in the media, and saw it first-hand, the process remains opaque. What is clear is that utilitarianism plays no role. The number of people affected by an incident, injustice, or change has no bearing on its likelihood of becoming a public issue. Some types of issues (involving sex, or children) have a hot-button quality. Other types (involving old people, or the poor), are typically ignored.

So there's no real way to anticipate what will become a major societal issue in, say, 2025. No metrics or utilitarian considerations. Though if you had to put money on it, the safe bet would be something that is novel, involve sex and/or children, and not affect many people.

Did the alberta legislature shut down or something? Is this the only thing on the docket right now?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

...
So there's no real way to anticipate what will become a major societal issue in, say, 2025. No metrics or utilitarian considerations. Though if you had to put money on it, the safe bet would be something that is novel, involve sex and/or children, and not affect many people.

Sweden is, probably, a good canary in a coal mine. By all indicators, Canada is moving the Swedish way, politically, on the issues of sexual education and policy towards gender identity. Swedish children are no longer indicated as boy, girl, he or she, but "hen" - "it". The words "father" and "mother" are no longer used in government documents. Cross-dressing is encouraged for all children regardless of their sexual identity. The idea is to raise the first generation of gender-neutral individuals.

As for safe betting on future: I am betting that in 2025 Canada, just like Sweden, will be way more left of centre, than it is today. It is inevitable.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then when someone says it's not the same, don't say "sometimes it is"

It's never "the same".

I'm also curious regarding your reservations about the lack of evidence over the issues of gender and sexuality, yet your firm affirmation without evidence that measures like the ones taken have "ether no or a negative effect."

Do you have evidence? Or do you need evidence only to change your perspective, but none to confirm it? If you have it, link it. Show it. This impacts me and people I know greatly and quite frankly this move seems good to me, so I'd appreciate evidence that shows me it's nothing worth being excited about.

I would start with a list of propositions that have been made in this thread that have little to no evidence to support them:

- the immutability of transgenderism
- the biological origins of transgenderism - this has grown acutely controversial when it is compared analogous to the biological origins of homosexuality.
- the effectiveness of surgery - longitudinal studies indicate that suicide rates remain inordinately high after surgery.
- whether or not gender dysphoia is permanent after childhood - recent studies have shown that the vast majority of children resolve gender identity issues on their own or with family members - what differentiates the remaining children is unclear at this point.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0016885

[PepsiFree]

No Peter, I'd like to know the evidence for your claims that these measures have no, or a negative effect. I feel too close to the issue, so this is the last post I'll make on it (as I can feel emotion taking over) but I'll check back to see if you present any evidence to support your claim.