Puja wrote:
I don't see what the problem is here. Teachers encouraged not to tell children, "No you're not, don't be so fucking stupid," if they say they're not a girl/boy/whatever this week? The world is surely ending.
Don't even get me started on the requisite quote from a transphobe about "children now being encouraged on a medical pathway" - it's just calling a kid by the name they want to be called by. If something comes of it later and the child turns out to have been trans, you've done a good deed by not traumatising the poor little sod. If the kid's just experimenting and turns out to be cis as the day is long, you've done a good deed by allowing them to do so and encouraging that the grownups will support them in what they want to do. Either way, what's the harm?
Puja
This is pretty enlightened, as is the creation of more gender-neutral uniforms. The only issues for me are:
1) The theoretical risk of (for example) boys using these rules to gain access to girls' changing rooms etc. However, assuming boys can't just come in one day and say 'I'm a girl, let me into the girls' showers', ie there would be a process, counselling, etc before the change is made (and similarly before a reverse change), then this would be fine.
2) Safety and competitive issues over kids who are physically male competing with females, which are slightly difficult. Pre-puberty, not a problem, post- it's tricky but that's not news to anyone - IMO for contact sports and competitions, physical males should be segregated from physical females.
I'd generally agree on that, with the caveat that "physical male" for sporting competition isn't defined just by the presence of a penis - someone on hormones and actively transitioning is very different to someone who is just socially transitioning.
Mind, saw this picture the other day which is a valuable reminder that there's a looooot of variation between cis rugby players of the same gender, probably more than between the average male and average female.
They're both international rugby players!
Puja
Yeah, true, I'm just talking about social transitioning as per the article. It's all messy, of course - see the silver medalist is the women's 100m.
That variation's okay as long as they're not both in the front row.
Puja wrote:
I don't see what the problem is here. Teachers encouraged not to tell children, "No you're not, don't be so fucking stupid," if they say they're not a girl/boy/whatever this week? The world is surely ending.
Don't even get me started on the requisite quote from a transphobe about "children now being encouraged on a medical pathway" - it's just calling a kid by the name they want to be called by. If something comes of it later and the child turns out to have been trans, you've done a good deed by not traumatising the poor little sod. If the kid's just experimenting and turns out to be cis as the day is long, you've done a good deed by allowing them to do so and encouraging that the grownups will support them in what they want to do. Either way, what's the harm?
Puja
This is pretty enlightened, as is the creation of more gender-neutral uniforms. The only issues for me are:
1) The theoretical risk of (for example) boys using these rules to gain access to girls' changing rooms etc. However, assuming boys can't just come in one day and say 'I'm a girl, let me into the girls' showers', ie there would be a process, counselling, etc before the change is made (and similarly before a reverse change), then this would be fine.
2) Safety and competitive issues over kids who are physically male competing with females, which are slightly difficult. Pre-puberty, not a problem, post- it's tricky but that's not news to anyone - IMO for contact sports and competitions, physical males should be segregated from physical females.
I'd generally agree on that, with the caveat that "physical male" for sporting competition isn't defined just by the presence of a penis - someone on hormones and actively transitioning is very different to someone who is just socially transitioning.
Mind, saw this picture the other day which is a valuable reminder that there's a looooot of variation between cis rugby players of the same gender, probably more than between the average male and average female.
Capture.PNG
They're both international rugby players!
Puja
Whatever you think about him, Peterson was spot on with there's more difference between the extremes in one sex than there are between the sexes.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
This is pretty enlightened, as is the creation of more gender-neutral uniforms. The only issues for me are:
1) The theoretical risk of (for example) boys using these rules to gain access to girls' changing rooms etc. However, assuming boys can't just come in one day and say 'I'm a girl, let me into the girls' showers', ie there would be a process, counselling, etc before the change is made (and similarly before a reverse change), then this would be fine.
2) Safety and competitive issues over kids who are physically male competing with females, which are slightly difficult. Pre-puberty, not a problem, post- it's tricky but that's not news to anyone - IMO for contact sports and competitions, physical males should be segregated from physical females.
I'd generally agree on that, with the caveat that "physical male" for sporting competition isn't defined just by the presence of a penis - someone on hormones and actively transitioning is very different to someone who is just socially transitioning.
Mind, saw this picture the other day which is a valuable reminder that there's a looooot of variation between cis rugby players of the same gender, probably more than between the average male and average female.
Capture.PNG
They're both international rugby players!
Puja
Whatever you think about him, Peterson was spot on with there's more difference between the extremes in one sex than there are between the sexes.
Peterson is a bullshitter but that doesn't mean every single thing he says is untrue (just every novel claim I've heard him say). In this case I agree, the difference in size between the largest and smallest woman is indeed greater than the difference between the average man and woman.
Puja wrote:
I'd generally agree on that, with the caveat that "physical male" for sporting competition isn't defined just by the presence of a penis - someone on hormones and actively transitioning is very different to someone who is just socially transitioning.
Mind, saw this picture the other day which is a valuable reminder that there's a looooot of variation between cis rugby players of the same gender, probably more than between the average male and average female.
Capture.PNG
They're both international rugby players!
Puja
Whatever you think about him, Peterson was spot on with there's more difference between the extremes in one sex than there are between the sexes.
Peterson is a bullshitter but that doesn't mean every single thing he says is untrue (just every novel claim I've heard him say). In this case I agree, the difference in size between the largest and smallest woman is indeed greater than the difference between the average man and woman.
When he stuck to his actual area of expertise, he said a lot of interesting things. Just since then, he's said a lot of bull.
Coming on the back of the report by Sports Councils Equality Group here's something of a summary from Prof Ross Tucker who's sat in on some of the rugby discussions when it comes to trans inclusion
I was going to link to the report by SCEG too, but there's something up with their website and whilst it's probably nothing its showing as an unsafe site to visit so I'll leave that. Plenty of coverage of course in the wider media on the report SCEG put out
