Is there really no thread on Littlejohn's latest bullying outrage?

[abc]

What is also at issue here is the notion that somehow kids can't take in stuff 'out of the ordinary'.

I have been in a civil partnership for 6 years, it is our anniversary today. There were a number of youngsters at our ceremony, whom the parents chose to bring along.

None of those youngsters were alarmed or shocked when the two grooms kissed. This is simply because they are not taught prejudice.

Kids find it easier to take on diversity issues than most Daily Mail readers,...

Presumably if the kids believed that their teacher making this change was just a normal thing in life that happens from time to time then they wouldn't be anything that could disturb them. It's only if an adult suggests there is something 'wrong' when their sense of stability in threatened. Therefore handled correctly (which probably means just being really low key but answering the kids' questions IF they ask them) there would be no concern. Therefore it is the adults that have the problem themselves that would have caused the problem for the kids.

Littlejohn would be such an adult along with the Mail readers who obviously enjoy his column and the generally unpleasant bigotry spread throughout the paper they buy.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Probably the only time i have ever agreed with a Littlejohn column. As he said, the teachers sex reassignment must have been very confusing for a bunch of 4 - 11 year old kids. He did not condemn the act, just suggested that it would be easier all round if they were unaware of it.

Of course he condemned the act - in as subliminal way as he could get away with. He didn't have to bring the case to national prominence, who is he to decide what children can or can't cope with?

Our society has moved on from his antiquated views, and is now far more tolerant and accepting of people of all persuasions. We should be teaching our children that there are differences in people that are acceptable; and that gender reassignment, though rare, is now an acceptable part of this more caring society. To brush it under the carpet because it might 'confuse' the children is to suggest that it is somehow 'wrong'.

You'd be amazed at what Primary age children can accept, with more sympathy and generosity of spirit than many adults. I am a Primary School teacher, and even though I have no desire to go through gender reassignment I would defend the right of someone with that need to the hilt. And schools are full of the sort of people who can deal with potentially 'difficult' issues with care and empathy.

 

[dingodan]

Of course he condemned the act - in as subliminal way as he could get away with. He didn't have to bring the case to national prominence, who is he to decide what children can or can't cope with?

Our society has moved on from his antiquated views, and is now far more tolerant and accepting of people of all persuasions. We should be teaching our children that there are differences in people that are acceptable; and that gender reassignment, though rare, is now an acceptable part of this more caring society. To brush it under the carpet because it might 'confuse' the children is to suggest that it is somehow 'wrong'.

You'd be amazed at what Primary age children can accept, with more sympathy and generosity of spirit than many adults. I am a Primary School teacher, and even though I have no desire to go through gender reassignment I would defend the right of someone with that need to the hilt. And schools are full of the sort of people who can deal with potentially 'difficult' issues with care and empathy.

By this logic we should be happy to expose Children to adults having sex and using drugs too.

You are correct about one thing, Primary aged children will accept almost anything put in front of them. But that does not mean we should put everything in front of them.

I can totally appreciate that you are advocating promoting tolerance, and this is very decent and well meaning, but the fact is children are not adults. Children learn from adults, and it does matter what we expose them to.

 

[spring hall convert]

Whilst I think Littlejohn is a moron and the Daily Mail is a farcical paper I do think this is a bit of witch hunt mentality where people try and find xenophobia anywhere they can.

I don't think you can disagree that having gender identity issues as Lucy Meadows did is a personal problem can you? It's an exceptionally confusing and difficult thing to come to terms with and probably took years for her to understand before she realised. An issue like that is surely a personal problem!

I don't think that Littlejohn is outwardly against transexuals but is simply commenting (albeit it in an awful manner) that it can be hard for children to deal with or expose them to a complicated life situation which they may not understand. I'm not a child psychologist - perhaps it is better they learn about that earlier in life, but either way I understand his point.

I just think we need to stop just going round calling for people to be sacked and vilifying people for speaking their mind, be they right or wrong. There will have been plenty of people out there who agreed with his opinion and wanted to read it. If they're stupid enough to waste their money on the Mail every day then so be it, we can't just stop them from reading what they want to anymore that they can stop others from writing about issues they disagree with.

I think you make a well reasoned and sensible argument but I do feel I have to disagree. In effect, you advocate giving Littlejohn the benefit of the doubt, fair enough. I personally feel the piece was written from a transphobic standpoint, merely stating that you feel someone is entitled to gender re-alignment surgery doesn't make it ok to question someone's ability to conduct their job on the basis of their gender identity. This piece could have been written about gays and blacks in times's gone by but the focus shifts to the trans community. Why? Because the agenda is and has always been anti-equality. The bigots need something to pick on.

At the very least, should this have been a suicide, Littlejohn & the Mail should express some degree of remorse for their influence over a highly regrettable situation. They won't because they don't care.

 

[e77]

I think it somewhat unnecessary to name a non public figure in a national newspaper, but that is as much the fault as the editor as Richard Littlejohn (indeed her name might have been mentioned elsewhere in the press which somewhat changes things if her name was already in the public domain). Whatever the reason it is still a tragedy.

Still don't understand why there isn't more of a campaign to get justice for the victims of the Stafford Hospital Scandal, where people not doing their job properly DID lead to people dying.

 

[Guinness Boy]

What is also at issue here is the notion that somehow kids can't take in stuff 'out of the ordinary'.

I have been in a civil partnership for 6 years, it is our anniversary today. There were a number of youngsters at our ceremony, whom the parents chose to bring along.

None of those youngsters were alarmed or shocked when the two grooms kissed. This is simply because they are not taught prejudice.

Kids find it easier to take on diversity issues than most Daily Mail readers,...

This. Most Primary age kids couldn't give a google. It's only after we've spent years reading Littlejohn columns, listening to the pub bore and joining Facebook campaigns we understand about 1% of that our prejudices become fully developed. And that goes for both sides. The way the trans-gender lobby treated Suzanne Moore was nothing short of disgraceful.

 

[spring hall convert]

I just feel that if this column was in the guardian it would have been dismissed as nothing! It will proberbly lead on the BBC now that it involves the daily mail!.....on a different note the oh so right on guardian media group hides its tax liabilities abroad.!

Not at all, did you miss the furore over Julie Birchill's transphobic rant in the Observer? It won't lead on the BBC because no one really cares and most secretly agree with it, that's the thing about bigotry, whilst the silent majority agree with you, you can fairly easily get away with discrimination.

I wouldn't worry too much about where the Guardian is hiding it's money, unless something pretty drastic occurs I suspect they'll be out of business in 10 years time.

 

[dingodan]

I personally feel the piece was written from a transphobic standpoint, merely stating that you feel someone is entitled to gender re-alignment surgery doesn't make it ok to question someone's ability to conduct their job on the basis of their gender identity. This piece could have been written about gays and blacks in times's gone by but the focus shifts to the trans community. Why? Because the agenda is and has always been anti-equality. The bigots need something to pick on.

To say that a teacher who goes away as a man, and returns as a woman would confuse young children, is not the same as saying that a black man or a gay man should not teach children.

To suggest that these things are the same is disingenuous.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What is also at issue here is the notion that somehow kids can't take in stuff 'out of the ordinary'.

I have been in a civil partnership for 6 years, it is our anniversary today. There were a number of youngsters at our ceremony, whom the parents chose to bring along.

None of those youngsters were alarmed or shocked when the two grooms kissed. This is simply because they are not taught prejudice.

Kids find it easier to take on diversity issues than most Daily Mail readers,...

Very much this.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

This. Most Primary age kids couldn't give a google. It's only after we've spent years reading Littlejohn columns, listening to the pub bore and joining Facebook campaigns we understand about 1% of that our prejudices become fully developed. And that goes for both sides. The way the trans-gender lobby treated Suzanne Moore was nothing short of disgraceful.

Agreed, the militants on both 'sides' are often as bad as each other. I have often been at odds with some fellow equality campaigners over their attitude towards religious groups.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course he condemned the act - in as subliminal way as he could get away with. He didn't have to bring the case to national prominence, who is he to decide what children can or can't cope with?

Our society has moved on from his antiquated views, and is now far more tolerant and accepting of people of all persuasions. We should be teaching our children that there are differences in people that are acceptable; and that gender reassignment, though rare, is now an acceptable part of this more caring society. To brush it under the carpet because it might 'confuse' the children is to suggest that it is somehow 'wrong'.

You'd be amazed at what Primary age children can accept, with more sympathy and generosity of spirit than many adults. I am a Primary School teacher, and even though I have no desire to go through gender reassignment I would defend the right of someone with that need to the hilt. And schools are full of the sort of people who can deal with potentially 'difficult' issues with care and empathy.

And this.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not at all, did you miss the furore over Julie Birchill's transphobic rant in the Observer? It won't lead on the BBC because no one really cares and most secretly agree with it, that's the thing about bigotry, whilst the silent majority agree with you, you can fairly easily get away with discrimination.

I wouldn't worry too much about where the Guardian is hiding it's money, unless something pretty drastic occurs I suspect they'll be out of business in 10 years time.

And the really disgraceful thing is the Mail makes an absolute shed load of cash out of these sorts of columns. The Guardian media group are indeed making losses that cannot be sustained long term but thst's mainly because they only have Burchill turning out controversy. The Mail's Team Troll has consisted of Richard Littledick, Jan Moir, Samantha Brick, Rick "The Racist" Dewsbury, Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips just off the top of my head. Every time outraged liberal Britain clicks on a link their cash register goes kerching! It's a marvellously successful and ironic business model for a company whose print paper is so unimaginably boring.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

By this logic we should be happy to expose Children to adults having sex and using drugs too.

You are correct about one thing, Primary aged children will accept almost anything put in front of them. But that does not mean we should put everything in front of them.

I can totally appreciate that you are advocating promoting tolerance, and this is very decent and well meaning, but the fact is children are not adults. Children learn from adults, and it does matter what we expose them to.

I wouldn't want children exposed to the actual act of adults having sex, or taking drugs, and don't think that my argument would suggest that I would.

But children shouldn't, as they previously have been, be 'protected' from knowing about these things. Sex and drugs education are two more areas that used to be taboo. By educating children about what actually happens in the world, we allow them to approach important issues in a more calm and informed way, and avoid the sort of knee jerk reactions that lead to high rates of teenage pregnancy and drug dependency.

To 'expose' children to someone who has undergone gender reassignment will not, in my view, damage those children in any way.

 

[East Preston Gull]

And the really disgraceful thing is the Mail makes an absolute shed load of cash out of these sorts of columns. The Gusrdian media group are indeed making losses that cannot be sustained long term but thst's mainly because they only have Burchill turning out controversy. The Mail's Team Troll has consisted of Richard Littledick, Jan Moir, Samantha Brick, Rick "The Racist" Dewsbury, Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips just off the top of my head. Every time outraged liberal Britain clicks on a link their cash register goes kerching! It's a marvellously successful and ironic business model for a company whose print paper is so unimaginably boring.

The sport section is pretty good though!

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I'm with you, I'd much prefer a press that's free to hack dead girl's voicemail messages. Keep sticking it to the man brother.

but that's not all they are free to do, is it?

 

[dingodan]

I wouldn't want children exposed to the actual act of adults having sex, or taking drugs, and don't think that my argument would suggest that I would.

But children shouldn't, as they previously have been, be 'protected' from knowing about these things. Sex and drugs education are two more areas that used to be taboo. By educating children about what actually happens in the world, we allow them to approach important issues in a more calm and informed way, and avoid the sort of knee jerk reactions that lead to high rates of teenage pregnancy and drug dependency.

To 'expose' children to someone who has undergone gender reassignment will not, in my view, damage those children in any way.

And today we are promoting ever more aggressive sex education for primary school children. Clearly some people think that is healthy. I think it's absolute madness.

Your point was, whatever it is, children can take it.

In our society we are extremely tolerant, and that is a wonderful thing. But we seem to be confused about Children and their development, a child does not have the logical or emotional apparatus to deal with complex moral and sexual questions. We want to live in as tolerant a world as possible, we want to see nobody suffer discrimination or prejudice, I am as much for these ideals as anyone. But if you think sexualizing children and forcing complex (adult) questions on them is somehow going to further this aim, I think you are wrong. And I think we will damage (and in many ways already are damaging) our kids.

 

[spring hall convert]

To say that a teacher who goes away as a man, and returns as a woman would confuse young children, is not the same as saying that a black man or a gay man should not teach children.

To suggest that these things are the same is disingenuous.

Why does it need to confuse children, if it is explained to them in a sensible, well reasoned way? When would you say is the right time to explain to a child that this is a real thing that real people do? Or do we just let the likes of Littlejohn make their minds up for them? I'm not sure I see what is wrong with gender re-assignment or what's wrong with children that they lack the mental ability to understand it.

The only thing that should have mattered here is her ability as a teacher and her right as an individual to be treated fairly. She's not broken any laws so why should she be subjected to a media witchhunt? Littlejohn knew exactly the prejudices he was awaking in people in the writing of this article and in that way it is similar to times when we would have had the same attitude to a black man, a gay man or even a woman teaching children. Doesn't the struggle that those 3 groups have been through in the last 100 years to attain something close to equal rights give you some form of sympathy to the trans community?

 

[East Preston Gull]

With only a handful of politicians charged with expenses theft, no top level banker in prison, secret courts for secret justice, BBC and police colluding with peadophiles, the european union stealing peoples savings to prop up a failed project. This is what I care about. And the only people who expose this is the free media! The facebook frenzy lovers should be kicking off about this!

 

[spring hall convert]

By this logic we should be happy to expose Children to adults having sex and using drugs too.

You are correct about one thing, Primary aged children will accept almost anything put in front of them. But that does not mean we should put everything in front of them.

I can totally appreciate that you are advocating promoting tolerance, and this is very decent and well meaning, but the fact is children are not adults. Children learn from adults, and it does matter what we expose them to.

Well it's debateable, what I would say is that what we do currently means that we have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the developed world & approximately half the total of drug related deaths in the entire EU. But it's a debate we'll never have.

 

[The Optimist]

Regardless of that, to effectively name and shame someone is the issue here. And the c**t knew he was doing that.

Surely this is the point. An individual with no public profile was going through what was probably quite a tricky time in their life and a national newspaper chose to write about it and pass judgement. Is this right?