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

[dingodan]

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?

Littlejohn did not say that this person should not teach. He said it would have been better to leave the school as a man and start teaching somewhere else as a woman. Not because the individual has done anything wrong. This is 1000% not the same as saying a black or gay man should not teach, stop trying to make this about bigotry and prejudice because it is not.

As for "why does it need to confuse children, if it is explained to them in a sensible, well reasoned way", - because they are children.

and "what's wrong with children that they lack the mental ability to understand it." - because they are children.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

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.

and is that not what Littlejohn is saying ? Good point BTW.

 

[pork pie]

That has ended up in a tragic suicide.

Daily Mail urged to fire Richard Littlejohn after death of Lucy Meadows | Media | guardian.co.uk

So do the right thing & sign this

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-daily-mail-fire-richard-littlejohn-for-victimizing-lucy-meadows-leading-to-her-possible-suicide

Why is it that Transphobia is becoming more prevalent in the press? Anything to do with the bigots not being able to pick on gays & blacks anymore?

I really cannot understand why anyone would post anything about this matter on an Internet Forum about Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club. Surely there is some Forum for people to post about such matters. What has it to do with football, let alone Brighton and Hove Albion FC?

No, there was no thread before you started one. Why would there be?

 

[spring hall convert]

Littlejohn did not say that this person should not teach. He said it would have been better to leave the school as a man and start teaching somewhere else as a woman. Not because the individual has done anything wrong. This is 1000% not the same as saying a black or gay man should not teach, stop trying to make this about bigotry and prejudice because it is not.

As for "why does it need to confuse children, if it is explained to them in a sensible, well reasoned way", - because they are children.

and "what's wrong with children that they lack the mental ability to understand it." - because they are children.

We fundamentally disagree then. My standpoint is you hide things from children if you think they are wrong or dangerous. A change of gender definition is neither of those things.

 

[spring hall convert]

I really cannot understand why anyone would post anything about this matter on an Internet Forum about Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club. Surely there is some Forum for people to post about such matters. What has it to do with football, let alone Brighton and Hove Albion FC?

No, there was no thread before you started one. Why would there be?

Such as this thread? Nick Clegg Looks to be Honourable!

 

[dingodan]

We fundamentally disagree then. My standpoint is you hide things from children if you think they are wrong or dangerous. A change of gender definition is neither of those things.

Extending that logic, do you expose children to anything you consider to be not wrong, or not dangerous?

Isn't it possible for something to be not wrong or dangerous, but at the same time, inappropriate for children?

 

[amexee]

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?

I wonder how many 4 year old kids ( who probably cannot even tie their own shoe laces) you are speaking about. As a parent I know that complex issues cannot be handle by little children, which is why most parents teach them a very simplified moral code which can be built upon as they age.

You start with:
never steal (ignoring all the differing definitions of ownership and the fact that stealing bread for a starving child is probably ok, for some peoples moral compass )

Also telling them that sex is to make babies(how many different arguments are ignored there?) Johnny is not allowed to play doctors and nurses or doctors and doctors or even pope does choirboy etc etc

It has to be kept simple, because even if you think you are being modern, I will wage that the kids really will not get it!

Kids should be treated as such, and I think a big part of being an adult is to allow them to remain as kids.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

"Whatever it is children can take it" and "sexualising children"? You seem to have heavily misinterpreted a few points here.

 

[Ernest]

There is a lot more to it than the right on chappies make it out to be, just another case of an opportunity to bash one of the finest newspaper column writers we have been lucky to have.

 

[spring hall convert]

Extending that logic, do you expose children to anything you consider to be not wrong, or not dangerous?

Isn't it possible for something to be not wrong or dangerous, but at the same time, inappropriate for children?

It really depends on your definitions doesn't it. Take the liberal Scandinavian attitude towards sex education. It would appall a lot of people in this country but guess what. Their teenage pregnancy stats make ours look like the embarrassment they are and from my (albeit limited) interactions with Scandinavian men & women they have an unbelievably enlightened, non self conscious views on sex in general. Does that make it right, I don't know but it's a different definition of what it is "right" to expose a child to.

 

[dingodan]

"Whatever it is children can take it" and "sexualising children"? You seem to have heavily misinterpreted a few points here.

"who is he to decide what children can or can't cope with?...Our society has moved on from his antiquated views...To brush it under the carpet because it might 'confuse' the children is to suggest that it is somehow 'wrong'."

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but it's what I took from the above.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

The article seems fair. No need to start a witch-hunt on the back of it.

 

[Winker]

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.

Or perhaps the Mail makes a shed load of cash because it reflects the opinions of a large section of British society. The venom spilled by many on here over the Mail and it's readers is as bigoted and narrow-minded as the views allegedly expressed on that paper's pages.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I can't see much wrong with Littlejohn's column. I just wish the Head Teacher had been stronger and persuaded Lucy Meadows that a fresh start at another school would have been the best thing.

I suspect fears of allegations of prejudice on the part of the Head and worries about getting another job elsewhere might have contributed to the person staying put.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I really cannot understand why anyone would post anything about this matter on an Internet Forum about Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club. Surely there is some Forum for people to post about such matters. What has it to do with football, let alone Brighton and Hove Albion FC?

No, there was no thread before you started one. Why would there be?

NSC has always been about more than football and BHA. If you haven't noticed this, I fear for you.

Some people think that there is more to life. Other issues are important. That's why people considered Paulo Di Canio' s politics relevant in that manager's thread, and why you thought a confirmed Fascist would be a welcome addition at our club.

As always, I think you're wrong.

 

[spring hall convert]

Or perhaps the Mail makes a shed load of cash because it reflects the opinions of a large section of British society. The venom spilled by many on here over the Mail and it's readers is as bigoted and narrow-minded as the views allegedly expressed on that paper's pages.

Nope, Guinness Boy is right. Take Samantha Brick for example, that was pure trolling. And what exceptional trolling it was.

The Mail has no views or opinions really, it exists to keep people in a constant state of fear. People who lack an active imagination need that to feel alive.

 

[dingodan]

It really depends on your definitions doesn't it. Take the liberal Scandinavian attitude towards sex education. It would appall a lot of people in this country but guess what. Their teenage pregnancy stats make ours look like the embarrassment they are and from my (albeit limited) interactions with Scandinavian men & women they have an unbelievably enlightened, non self conscious views on sex in general. Does that make it right, I don't know but it's a different definition of what it is "right" to expose a child to.

I don' know about Scandinavian sex education, but they have much better rates of teen pregnancy than we do in Holland, and their approach to sex education is to approach it teaching about relationships, rather than biology, which I think is a far better approach than we take here. And I am not against sex education, but I do think that the responsibility for these things should rest with parents.

And in this context we are talking about primary school children. At that age children should not have to deal with questions of sex and sexuality, no more than they should have to deal with questions of drug use or the safe use of an automobile.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

"who is he to decide what children can or can't cope with?...Our society has moved on from his antiquated views...To brush it under the carpet because it might 'confuse' the children is to suggest that it is somehow 'wrong'."

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but it's what I took from the above.

It was me that you misunderstood. I did not say that 'whatever it is children can take it, I suggested that if things are not considered to be wrong, then the issues can often be explained and accepted in a way that doesn't damage the children. Why should it damage children to see someone after gender reassignment? By that argument we should make it illegal.

And at no point did I suggest 'sexualising' children.

 

[spring hall convert]

I don' know about Scandinavian sex education, but they have much better rates of teen pregnancy than we do in Holland, and their approach to sex education is to approach it teaching about relationships, rather than biology, which I think is a far better approach than we take here. And I am not against sex education, but I do think that the responsibility for these things should rest with parents.

And in this context we are talking about primary school children. At that age children should not have to deal with questions of sex and sexuality, no more than they should have to deal with questions of drug use or the safe use of an automobile.

The sex education thing is so complex though, I for one absolutely abhor the sexualisation of so much that children are exposed to. Take music as one example, music that is specifically designed to appeal to children is routinely marketed in a sexualised way. Is it better to arm children with some of the tools to deal with the barrage of sexual images they are exposed to or should they learn about it from Simon Cowell? I really don't know the answers but I really feel as a society we don't ask the questions enough.

For instance Why is it appropriate to teach children about religion before teaching them about sex? If you espouse the argument that their brains aren't developed enough to deal with confusing issues then what the hell are we doing talking to them about a concept/concepts that confuse even the most educated Theologians in the world, which may or may not be true/relevant? Compared to that the teacher having a sex change is a walk in the bloomin' park.

 

[dingodan]

It was me that you misunderstood. I did not say that 'whatever it is children can take it, I suggested that if things are not considered to be wrong, then the issues can often be explained and accepted in a way that doesn't damage the children. Why should it damage children to see someone after gender reassignment? By that argument we should make it illegal.

And at no point did I suggest 'sexualising' children.

If just explaining things to children worked, they would not be children. Children don't work the way adults do. Whatever you think about a person having a sex change, you are an adult.

Your ability to consider the complex circumstances and implications of such a change, your ability to understand this person's decision in the greater context of society and sexual/reproductive science, your ability see from another persons perspective while it may differ from your own, your ability to do all of this, which has led you to hold the very views that you hold, is a result of your adulthood. A result of your having a fully developed mind/brain and adult psychological functioning.

I admire your attitude towards people who are different, and I share it. I just think that the expectation that a child will cope in the same way is unreasonable.