Current Affairs The WOKE

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't really care about the bigger discussion here but this comment is a microcosm of the whole lack of debate people have on the subject and it is mainly part of the problem to it all. Not everyone agrees with this and there is no actual science to back the point up other than hand selected science that proves the person's point. Whether or not there is science is a talking point but to this day there isn't irrefutable evidence that it is correct and most of the argument for is based on people's feelings which is by no means a credible standpoint.

So my question to you is why are certain people on the right side of the argument and the majority aren't given that part of the against are biological women who do not feel their biological identity can be so easily adopted by simply announcing it?

If there is a right or wrong answer to this then why is the people making the argument right but those who are already in that 'identity' wrong in saying it? To use a real life example , why is lia Thomas the swimmer right in saying that they are a woman but the other female swimmers wrong in saying Lia isn't?
Forget science. It's nothing to do with science. If you don't get that transgender rights and people's free choice is social progression , just as the abolishment of slavery and de-criminalisng of being gay in 1st world countries was, because of your own naivety or intolerance, then that's on you and not for me to educate you.

And you are certainly not in the majority, by the way. You are just hearing people shout louder and are clearly too narrow in your information gathering.

My point was that human civilization progresses, despite people wishing it not to. Using the two examples in my first paragraph, do you believe that is a good or bad thing?
 
I don't really care about the bigger discussion here but this comment is a microcosm of the whole lack of debate people have on the subject and it is mainly part of the problem to it all. Not everyone agrees with this and there is no actual science to back the point up other than hand selected science that proves the person's point. Whether or not there is science is a talking point but to this day there isn't irrefutable evidence that it is correct and most of the argument for is based on people's feelings which is by no means a credible standpoint.

So my question to you is why are certain people on the right side of the argument and the majority aren't given that part of the against are biological women who do not feel their biological identity can be so easily adopted by simply announcing it?

If there is a right or wrong answer to this then why is the people making the argument right but those who are already in that 'identity' wrong in saying it? To use a real life example , why is lia Thomas the swimmer right in saying that they are a woman but the other female swimmers wrong in saying Lia isn't?
Who invited ‘kin Matt Walsh to GoT?
 
If what you're saying is true, that there are more than 2 genders. Then there must have been more than 2 genders 100 years ago and at any other time in history. Funny how we don't have any record of that. Where were they all hiding?

I had quite disruptive classes in school, but I never witnessed any child miaowing in class.

2 genders has worked fine for 2000 years of human civilization and while kids are in the school system they should be protected from the insanity of the outside world. When they leave school they can become weird whatever and that's there choice.
I agree entirely, which is why you should stay a solid 2 miles away from any children.
 
Jo1f.gif

Gremlins 2, 1990

That's still my favourite scene from any movie ever made.
 

‘They meow rather than answer a question’: The school children now identifying as animals

An extraordinary report from a Sussex school has shed light on the growing trend of pupils insisting on being addressed as animals


1687189877302.jpg


Difficult as it may be to believe, children at a school in East Sussex were reprimanded last week for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat.

The Year 8 pupils were told they would be reported to a senior leader after their teacher said they had “really upset” the fellow pupil by telling them: “You’re a girl.”

The incident at Rye College, first reported by The Daily Telegraph yesterday, was not a one-off. Inquiries by this newspaper have established that other children at other schools are also identifying as animals, and the responses of parents suggest that the schools in question are hopelessly out of their depth on the question of how to handle the pupils’ behaviour.

The Telegraph has discovered that a pupil at a secondary school in the South West is insisting on being addressed as a dinosaur. At another secondary school in England, a pupil insists on identifying as a horse. Another wears a cape and wants to be acknowledged as a moon.

Stories about children self-identifying as animals – sometimes referred to as “furries” – have been circulating for some time. Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.

‘One student wears a cape and wants to be acknowledged as a moon’

But it is not difficult to find genuine examples of children in UK schools insisting on being addressed as animals, raising two important questions: why is it happening, and how should teachers respond?

Perhaps tellingly, the incident at Rye College – a Church of England school – happened at the end of a class on “life education” in which children were told by their teacher that there were lots of genders, including “agender – people who don’t believe that they have a gender at all”.

An argument ensued in which two pupils disagreed with the teacher, saying there was no such thing as agender, because “if you have a vagina, you’re a girl and if you have a penis, you’re a boy – that’s it”.

When the pupils told their classmate: “How can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?” the teacher reprimanded them for “questioning [the child’s] identity”.

In this instance, the teacher in charge of the class appears to have bracketed a child’s desire to be treated as a cat with other children’s desire to be treated as another gender, or genderless.

The school, which does not dispute that the incident happened, said it was committed to inclusive education, but would be “reviewing our processes to ensure such events do not take place in the future”.

The school, then, seems to have accepted that the teacher in question was wrong, but it is hardly surprising if teachers find themselves struggling to make sense of the fast-paced societal changes in which pupils can not only decide to change their preferred pronouns overnight but also their preferred species.

Schools have established protocols when it comes to transgender pupils, but the issue of “furries” is more complex.

Is it simply a spillover from early childhood imaginative play, or the growing phenomenon of cosplay – in which participants dress up as superheroes, aliens, animals or whatever else they choose – being brought into the classroom, where children should be politely told to leave their fantasies at the gates?

Is it a mental health issue, used as a coping mechanism by children who have autism or other difficulties, and who should be treated sympathetically in the same way as other pupils with special needs?

Or does it conceal something much darker going on in the child’s life?

Tracy Shaw, of the grassroots Safe Schools Alliance, said children coming to school and insisting on being addressed as an animal should sound loud alarm bells, and teachers already have all the tools they need to deal with the issue, if they would stop conflating it with gender diversity.

‘Teachers have a blind spot where anything involving identity comes in’

“Teachers should be dealing with this under existing safeguarding frameworks,” she says. “If a child is coming to school identifying as a cat or a horse, that should immediately raise red flags.

“The teacher should be asking themselves, what are these children looking at online? What forums are they on? What is going on in the home? What is happening in that child’s life and who else is involved?

“The problem is that teachers have a blind spot where anything involving identity comes in, because they are frightened of doing the wrong thing. They think they are being kind by affirming these behaviours, but they are not being kind, because they are likely to be missing all sorts of things that are going on in that child’s life.”

The teachers are also letting down other pupils whose education is being disrupted by the affirming of children with abnormal behaviour.

One pupil at a state secondary school in Wales told The Telegraph of a fellow pupil who “feels very discriminated against if you do not refer to them as ‘catself’”. She added: “When they answer questions, they meow rather than answer a question in English. And the teachers are not allowed to get annoyed about this because it’s seen as discriminating.”

The student in question is in Year 11, but began using the pronoun “catself” in Year 9 “when the whole thing with neo pronouns started”, the pupil said.

She described how lessons could be completely derailed if a teacher attempted to get the child to reply to a question in English rather than meowing.

“It’s affecting other people and their education and everybody in their lessons. It’s distracting to sit in a lesson and have someone meow to a teacher rather than answer in English, especially at secondary school age.

“That’s going to take a lot out of a lesson because people are going to spend the entire lesson talking about whoever it is over there meowing to the teacher.

“It’s a big ask to sit there and listen to someone answer like that and not have that be the main talk of the classroom rather than the lesson going on.”

‘They meow rather than answer a question in English. It’s distracting [us] in the lesson’

The pupil blamed social media, saying students were being influenced by accounts run by people who identify as trees and animals. It started “around Covid”, she says.

“When it first started, it didn’t really go out into real life that much. It stayed confined to social media, but then as it got more popular and more people were finding out about it, people then started bringing it into real life situations.”

The Telegraph also spoke to a pupil at a school where one student, who identifies as “moonself”, wears a cloak to school, described by a fellow pupil as “like a Harry Potter wizard cape”.

The child in question did not identify as the Moon, but as a moon, and said they could put curses on people.

But while other pupils would be pulled up for wearing non-uniform items, such as facial piercings or dyed hair, children who identified as cats or moons would be allowed to wear cat ears or cloaks to express their “true self”, breeding resentment among other pupils.

Teachers are not helped by the fact that respected organisations to which they might turn for guidance can themselves be caught up in the confusion between cosplay and self-identity.

The Safer Schools organisation (not to be confused with the Safer Schools Alliance), which claims to be a “multi-award-winning safeguarding ecosystem” has issued guidance to parents and teachers in which it says: “The furry community itself is a complex one, made up of many different identities and definitions of what it means to be a ‘furry’.”

It also advises parents and teachers to “engage in conversation about what it means to be a furry and the benefits of the furry community”.

It hardly constitutes clear instructions on how to react to a child who insists on being recognised as a cat or a dog, and does not mention the fact that children identifying as an animal may be highly vulnerable and in need of help.

If teachers – or parents – hope that the Government will clear up the whole mess when it issues its new guidance on self-identity this week, then they will be sorely disappointed.

The Department for Education said the issue of children identifying as animals will not be addressed in the guidance, with a spokesman saying that the department trusted teachers to apply “common sense” in each individual case.

Unfortunately, as parents up and down the country are finding, the problem with common sense is that it is not so common.
i-q5G4hvB.gif
 
Of the Torygraph no less lol

Most interesting thing about that article is how a once reasonably respected, albeit right-leaning newspaper has fell to the point of doing “tHe kIdS aRe nOw cAtS” articles.
Maybe the kids are actually cats self-identifying as humans after plastic surgery. I sense another headline...
 
Forget science. It's nothing to do with science. If you don't get that transgender rights and people's free choice is social progression , just as the abolishment of slavery and de-criminalisng of being gay in 1st world countries was, because of your own naivety or intolerance, then that's on you and not for me to educate you.

And you are certainly not in the majority, by the way. You are just hearing people shout louder and are clearly too narrow in your information gathering.

My point was that human civilization progresses, despite people wishing it not to. Using the two examples in my first paragraph, do you believe that is a good or bad thing?
To answer your question , it entirely depends on whether it impacts anyone or not because the minute it impacts someone else based on the former persons free choice then it is no longer fair or equal in society and therefore should then be called into question as whether it is even right.

To use free choice as a reasoning holds no actual merit so perhaps you mean that in a different way. Free choice applies to everything so who is right to determine what is fine and not fine especially when it impacts others and let us be honest that is a bottomless pit of examples of free choice. In my former post I said I had no interest in discussing the topic in great length and I noticed in your reply you assume a couple of things about me in regards to information gathering and my intolerance. This again I feel is very much part of the problem as this thread in itself represents an echo chamber of sorts in which even a post as such as mine is treated with caution rather than openly discussed as a conversation.

So free choice only applies if it does not affect anyone else, the minute it does, that free choice is not a social progression as many things have been over the decades , the examples you gave being great ones on that front , but instead it is forced onto others based on social judicial system, very much a new phenomenon in the last 20 years with the rise of the internet and overload of celebrity news that really isn't worth time reading.

If someone wants to transition, call themselves a different name , dress differently and anything in between it matters little to me as it has no impact on my life so as it has been the case for decades, people should be allowed to live their lives as they feel happy. The reason I asked you this earlier today was that the encroachment onto others and someone's personal preference in identity are two completely different talking points. I feel this may spiral into a discussion typical of this thread following this post so I don't want to discuss further as I have no interest in putting anything further across on the matter.
 
I don't really care about the bigger discussion here but this comment is a microcosm of the whole lack of debate people have on the subject and it is mainly part of the problem to it all. Not everyone agrees with this and there is no actual science to back the point up other than hand selected science that proves the person's point. Whether or not there is science is a talking point but to this day there isn't irrefutable evidence that it is correct and most of the argument for is based on people's feelings which is by no means a credible standpoint.

So my question to you is why are certain people on the right side of the argument and the majority aren't given that part of the against are biological women who do not feel their biological identity can be so easily adopted by simply announcing it?

If there is a right or wrong answer to this then why is the people making the argument right but those who are already in that 'identity' wrong in saying it? To use a real life example , why is lia Thomas the swimmer right in saying that they are a woman but the other female swimmers wrong in saying Lia isn't?
You do have a valid point, but if you read through this thread, you will probably notice that those who argue against woke tend to use extreme arguments, while those in favour of woke tend to have a wider range of opinions on the matter, which admittedly does include some at the opposite extreme.

I would much prefer to have a discussion with someone that has opposing views to me without them resorting to extreme examples to make their point, I think it would make for a much better conversation. Pete blue in the EU thread is one example - he fervently believes leaving the EU was the right decision, he is in an extreme minority in that thread but continues to put his point across in a mature and measured manner, no matter what is thrown at him

But this thread doesn't have the Pete blues though, it has the toffee loaf and forever blue that just shout "I don't like it" without any rational explanation as to why.

So when those that join the thread and jump straight to extreme (and in some cases completely made) arguments to justify their position, then it is no wonder that many just resort to name calling and ridicule in response.

As for your Lia Thomas example, that is a very difficult scenario for the sports bodies to get right, I think they will most likely get it wrong a few times before they can finally come up with a solution which is equitable for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top