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

[Barrel of Fun]

We definitely need to modernise our way of thinking when it comes to educating our children.

Sex changes happen nowadays thanks to modern science. Why brush it under the carpet?

Hell, I saw a big fat hairy man dressed as Widow Twanky many years ago.

I don't think one has to delve too deeply in to the anatomical aspects of changing gender. It is a real life issue.

Primary school children deal with the Holocaust and other atrocities and they are not viewed as having a damaging effect on them. Why does something as simple as someone changing genders suggest that they will have their innocent bliss ruined?

 

[dingodan]

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.

I agree with you about the music industry. Sex education in our schools is more about "how to have sex", in our desire not to make sex taboo, we almost promote it. That is what I find egregious. In fact really our response to music videos and things like that should be to deal with the music industry, rather than make the overt sexual content easier to "understand" for children.

On religion, to be honest I agree. I think questions of morality/spirituality are just as complex as questions of sexuality, and as we see children have to develop psychologically before they are able to deal with these in a meaningful way too. In truth though I think sex education is the responsibility of parents and same goes for moral/religious questions too.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is a direct quote. "Nathan Upton is entitled to his gender reassignment surgery, but he isn’t entitled to project his personal problems on to impressionable young children." That statement is clearly transphobic. He is describing someones gender identity as a "personal problem."

what is it then if not a personal problem? ah, maybe you'd like some more flowery langauge, a "personal issue" maybe? because it certainly is personal and it clearly was a problem for the person in question, hence why they felt they had to change.

the wider public will always find trans-gender changes uncomfortable because its unnatural. there i said it. i dont really give a fig about it (until they start wanting it both way), but it is unnatural and one has to accept that as a fact and accept people will be very disturbed by it. calling people transphobic, like a stick to beat them with is not going to change this. most people are quite accepting of most things when confronted with them personally, realising they arent so much of a big deal after all. but going through surgery to change one of the most fundemental parts of a person and their identity, will alway draw mistrust, confusion and fear. phobia of course, literally. seems we have a new one, phobiaphobic. there's no sensible way to explain to to kids, because it doesnt really make a lot of sence.

 

[spring hall convert]

what is it then if not a personal problem? ah, maybe you'd like some more flowery langauge, a "personal issue" maybe? because it certainly is personal and it clearly was a problem for the person in question, hence why they felt they had to change.

the wider public will always find trans-gender changes uncomfortable because its unnatural. there i said it. i dont really give a fig about it (until they start wanting it both way), but it is unnatural and one has to accept that as a fact and accept people will be very disturbed by it. calling people transphobic, like a stick to beat them with is not going to change this. most people are quite accepting of most things when confronted with them personally, realising they arent so much of a big deal after all. but going through surgery to change one of the most fundemental parts of a person and their identity, will alway draw mistrust, confusion and fear. phobia of course, literally. seems we have a new one, phobiaphobic. there's no sensible way to explain to to kids, because it doesnt really make a lot of sence.

I'm not being deliberately confrontational but isn't "it's not natural" the bigots calling card? For years being gay was "not natural" despite there being evidence in nature to the contrary. I'm sure to some 22 grown men kicking an inflated sphere around isn't natural. "Natural" in this context is only relevant to the experience of the person using the term.

There are always things in life that will make us feel uncomfortable. Guess what, before life experience brought me into contact with the trans community I found the issue uncomfortable and sought to avoid or denegrate it. That's what people do when they don't understand something, it's the easy way out. And guess what I discovered, they are normal people living normal lives with most of the same strengths and weaknesses of character as all of us. What gives anyone the right to discriminate against them on the basis of an experience that noone in their right mind would go through as a lifestyle choice?

At the risk of sounding like some kind of hippy, the sooner people realise that we are all born even as human beings and that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual identity or class is just wrong the better. Isn't this what we should be teaching our kids?

 

[Winker]

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.

Do you honestly believe that Peter Hitchins for example has no views or opinions and just writes to scare middle England? I believe his writing is very sharp and exposes angles that I hadn't seen before. Given that he was once a Trotskyist and now writes for the Mail should tell you that his audience is far from lacking imagination.

 

[spring hall convert]

Do you honestly believe that Peter Hitchins for example has no views or opinions and just writes to scare middle England? I believe his writing is very sharp and exposes angles that I hadn't seen before. Given that he was once a Trotskyist and now writes for the Mail should tell you that his audience is far from lacking imagination.

Do you know what, I secretly like Peter Hitchins. Don't tell anyone though, it might blow my cover.

 

[Winker]

Do you know what, I secretly like Peter Hitchins. Don't tell anyone though, it might blow my cover.

Don't keep it in the closet

 

[spring hall convert]

Don't keep it in the closet

I feel much better now I've said it.

He's never anything less than erudite and thoughtful. He's not afraid to say something controversial but crucially I don't feel that he does it for the sole purpose of being controversial. There's always an exception to every rule.

I do understand though why some people can't stand him. Personally I'd have him over the Clarkson's & Littlejohn's of this world anyday.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not being deliberately confrontational but isn't "it's not natural" the bigots calling card?

here its a fact. or can you explain how one can change gender, be transgendered, naturally? in your attempt to be ultra-inclusive you ignore the simple practicalities and facts of the matter. frankly "sexual identity" is something we should be teaching primary school children at all.

 

[spring hall convert]

here its a fact. or can you explain how one can change gender, be transgendered, naturally? in your attempt to be ultra-inclusive you ignore the simple practicalities and facts of the matter. frankly "sexual identity" is something we should be teaching primary school children at all.

You miss my point. The term is frankly meaningless, I'm certain people think it is a synonym of normal. It serves only to highlight the life experience of the person using it. Reading your post, we're basically making the same point.

To answer your direct question, the focus is too heavily weighted on the biological aspect here. An individual suffering from gender identity disorder is "natural," if I understand your meaning of the word. It exists in nature.

What about gender identity disorder in children? Should that just be swept under the carpet?

 

[beorhthelm]

To answer your direct question, the focus is too heavily weighted on the biological aspect here. An individual suffering from gender identity disorder is "natural," if I understand your meaning of the word. It exists in nature.

acknowledgment of the facts of the matter. it is precisely the biological ascpet that is the issue, people having a gender identity disorder is no ones business but their own, and bother no one. until they make a point of imposing upon the rest of the world with biological changes.

 

[BadFish]

This is a direct quote. "Nathan Upton is entitled to his gender reassignment surgery, but he isn’t entitled to project his personal problems on to impressionable young children." That statement is clearly transphobic. He is describing someones gender identity as a "personal problem." I'd rather have Miss Meadows teach my kids than Richard Littlejohn, that's for sure.

I think if you are born into the wrong gender that could be considered a problem and as it is no-one else's business it is certainly personal. Not sure what your issue is with this description to be honest.

As for the rest of it I am not sure that Littlejohn is in the wrong here. Surely it would be better all round for him to recommence work elsewhere as Miss Meadows.

I wouldn't particularly have a problem having the necessary discussion with my kids but I am sure their are many parents out there who would rather not.

 

[BadFish]

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.

very good point made here, you are quite right. I think there are possibly many of these adults in the community which could cause many problems for everyone involved.

 

[Danny-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,...

I didn't grimace when (say) Kruschev used to kiss visitors to the USSR. I did feel ill when C4 did a show on TV called "Clapham Junction" a few years ago which went a lot further.

 

[spring hall convert]

acknowledgment of the facts of the matter. it is precisely the biological ascpet that is the issue, people having a gender identity disorder is no ones business but their own, and bother no one. until they make a point of imposing upon the rest of the world with biological changes.

I'm lost. I really don't understand your point. I don't understand how the biological changes are "imposing on the rest of the world." Surely that's more the change of visual identity?

 

[clapham_gull]

...until they make a point of imposing upon the rest of the world with biological changes.

Jesus, you've shown your true colours there. I've never felt someone having a sex change is for my benefit. Fancy rephrasing that.

Perhaps they should lock themselves in doors or at least ring you up when they are planing a visit to the shops.

Chilling.

This isn't a new issue. My dad was taught by someone in the 40s who soon after moved to America to have surgery to become a woman. My first girlfriends father was a world renowned expert on such matters in children in Communist Poland !

Not very common but has always been there. I find your views similar to ones that used to persist around mental illness and disability. Lock them up in a home and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Sussex on Leith]

Really interesting thread with some fair points on both sides, even if I don't agree with all of them.

I'm definitely not in the Mail or Littlejohn camp, but won't be signing the petition either. Having read the original article before it was taken down, it was remarkably measured by Littlejohn standards, certainly more balanced than the selective quoting in the Guardian suggests. But as others have pointed out, it's the fact of naming the individual that's the odious thing, not the views expressed, much as I disagree with them. But the naming of people when there's no public interest justification to do so is accepted practice in parts of the press, and last week's deal on Leveson won't be enough to stop it. The Mail sacking Littlejohn would change nothing, not that I'd shed any tears personally.

But explaining to kids that gender issues aren't always as simple as "mummy + daddy = baby" isn't difficult, nor is it exposing children to anything they ought to be protected from. You tell a child that someone was born a man but felt more like a woman and made the choice to live as one. The child looks vaguely surprised and probably asks a few more questions, very possibly anatomical, that you answer in perfectly honest terms without having to be too graphic or descriptive. The child says "oh, OK" and goes away with a more educated, sophisticated and tolerant view of the world, which for me is pretty much what raising a child is about.

 

[Baron Pepperpot]

I didn't grimace when (say) Kruschev used to kiss visitors to the USSR. I did feel ill when C4 did a show on TV called "Clapham Junction" a few years ago which went a lot further.

my Civil Partnership was more St Pancras than Clapham Junction.

The C4 show was designed to shock, although Paul Nicholls is rather cute....

 

[spring hall convert]

I think if you are born into the wrong gender that could be considered a problem and as it is no-one else's business it is certainly personal. Not sure what your issue is with this description to be honest.

As for the rest of it I am not sure that Littlejohn is in the wrong here. Surely it would be better all round for him to recommence work elsewhere as Miss Meadows.

I wouldn't particularly have a problem having the necessary discussion with my kids but I am sure their are many parents out there who would rather not.

I think if you are born into the wrong gender that could be considered a problem and as it is no-one else's business it is certainly personal. Not sure what your issue is with this description to be honest.

As for the rest of it I am not sure that Littlejohn is in the wrong here. Surely it would be better all round for him to recommence work elsewhere as Miss Meadows.

I wouldn't particularly have a problem having the necessary discussion with my kids but I am sure their are many parents out there who would rather not.

Do you not get the feeling that it is serving to deliberately belittle the magnitude of the issue? Why refer to it in that way, I thought it was at best patronizing. Other things that gave off a whiff of transphobia - constant references to "he", the headline which I felt insinuated that Littlejohn felt she shouldn't be teaching, that somehow the decision to have gender reassignment surgery is incongruous to caring about the development of her pupils. Why did the Mail remove the article then?

I'm not really that interested in giving Littlejohn the benefit of the doubt given his track record on LGBT issues in the past. He's too clever to openly say it but this scenario suited his own agenda, he played it & it backfired.

 

[Acker79]

Surely if the teacher is now a woman, the issue has been dealt with so it is no longer a problem for her, personal or otherwise.