Life of a Transexual Chess Player Pt. II: Competition

It's about setting a precedent, so that once this is accepted as the 'new normal', the next 'evolution' cannot be stopped because to do so would be to deny the logic of the first step.

You cannot insist male children who identify as female, are allowed to used female toilets - and at the same time, deny they use female changing or showering facilities.

Your lack of knowledge about such incidents, or the logical probability that current trends will lead to such incidents, is not an argument. it is simply a statement of your own lack of knowledge.

But to humour you:

=======================

1 - Feds Order High School To Allow Boys Who Dress As Girls To Use Girls’ Shower, Locker Room - http://bit.ly/1Hpolmd

2 - Obama DOE: Schools Must Offer Mixed Sex Showers -http://bit.ly/1YRqOiD

3 - Children Speak out About Feds Insanely Forcing More Schools to Establish Mixed Gender Showers and Restrooms - http://bit.ly/1Tu6a6C

4 - Article outlining transgender as legal umbrella term including subsets like 'gender fluid' - http://bit.ly/1MVaZXt

5 - It’s dangerous and wrong to tell all children they’re ‘gender fluid’ - http://bit.ly/1UsyYvI

6 - Children as young as FOUR being given transgender lessons which encourage them to explore their 'gender identities' -http://bit.ly/1MVcpkP

7 - Parents pull children out of primary school in outrage at planned 'transgender day' for children as young as FOUR - http://dailym.ai/1R3cxe3

This is just a sampling from Google, nearly all links are from the last few months alone. The point is this is all moving very fast, with no public consultation as to the wisdom or longterm detrimental effects. These things are very quickly being enacting into LAW, and then forced into the education system and beyond.

========================

"Teachers don't turn children gay or transexual." - no, but they can certainly do a lot of damage by causing confusion, encouraging immature delusions, and sexualising the education of minors.  Why would you encourage children to explore things they are far too immature to explore, when known rates of suicide amongst transgender are as high as 50%? http://bit.ly/1uUk2MJ. Even famous Feminists are objecting to this 'transgender mania' and the huge spike in transgender number in children in the last few years - http://bit.ly/1pAJMOr

As for "Calm down and don't hyperventilate about something you're afraid of." - this is called a straw man argument. You are creating a 'fake' person, by imagining I am hyperventilating / afraid / need to calm down - when you cannot possibly know this.  You then attack that straw man, rather than give a valid argument back.

My life's work is the protection and safety of children who are vulnerable. Do not mistake my concern and passion (as professional counsellor / social worker / parent) - as some form of irrationality or hysteria.

Try again.

"transgenderism doesn't work like this, nobody identifies as female on Wednesdays and male the rest of the week." - how dare you, you transphobic bigot. What right do you have to judge someones identity issues. You are simply an uneducated bigot. End of argument (see how that works?)

In all seriousness, you are aware that Transgender is an umbrella term and within this are numerous subsets. If you accept Transgender you MUST accept what comes with it. 'Gender fluid' is when someone sometimes identifies as a man, sometimes as a women (or that is what they say or imagine to be 'their truth'). Yes i was joking about the day.

 But lets say there is a pervert who is abusing this legislation and lives as a man all weak.  But at university, Wednesday is sports day, and he identifies as Jane and insists that people take his identity seriously, and allow him to shower with the girls.

You tell ME: if we have accepted the principle that we MUST accept what these people say as the truth, and to deny them their 'gender identity' is now hateful and bigotted - WHO WILL ARGUE WITH THIS MAN? There is NO PROOF that he is lying or telling the truth, because the entire thing is based on his self-identification. DON'T. YOU. GET. IT.

"And I know of no school, anywhere, that would sanction this anyway." - again, like i said in the reply above - YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. It is simply you revealing your own lack of knowledge. Check out those links. This is happening, its spiralling rapidly, and neither your ignorance nor my concern is going to alter the reality. Since you are unwilling to follow links I set forth many posts ago, or even to use Google for yourself, I will make it easier for you.  Here are all the Transgender articles from Breitbart:

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/transgender/

Within that you will find that you are behind the times.  Yes it is a right-wing publication. But it is covering stories and the related issues arising, that the predominantly Left-wing mainstream media and TV is glossing over.

"Q2: transgenderism doesn't work like this. The boy doesn't ask "What am I?" but rather declares "Dad, I'm a girl!" "

Utterly pathetic. You simply refuse to follow links and see what is happening, then claim an alternate (idealised) view and claim that THAT is the sole truth of the matter. Reality doesn't work like that. I'll not repeat myself - just check out the links above and see for yourself what is hapening in reality, ot in your imagination of how it 'should work'. Bear in mind I am working in the system and have SEEN FOR MYSELF the reality.

"And your response is what? To beat the child senseless, no doubt. People like you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children, let alone ones with gender difficulties." - straw man argument. This is really bizarre and simply shows you up to be far below my intellectual level. You are telling me that 'without doubt' you think I beat children. 

People like me shouldn;t be let near children? now your just trolling. I have counselled and helped HUNDREDS of children in abusive situations and broken families. What the f have you done lately, chum? 

I am very clear if a child comes to me with gender dysphoria, I will help them all I can. EVERY ONE of them has been through traumatic experiences, and in my own experience - EVERY ONE has been abused by a male figure in their childhood (father, mums new boyfriend, uncle etc). Unlike the new directives - which says to encourage their new gender dysphoria (when they are still sexually / emotionally / mentally / physically IMMATURE) - I work with them on a ROOT CAUSE level, trying to help them get over their life experiences and to frame and understand them so that they OWN their experiences, rather than their experiences OWN THEM.

GET IT?

As a sidenote: Several children who experienced gender dysphoria, became adults and changed back to their birth gender or after a few years of confusion, settled on their birth gender. I know one who I still see occasionally through a charity we both volunteer for (advocacy for children leaving care). He was considering being a SHE but I tried to put him off making major decisions until he was an adult.  He is happy with his  new identity: he realised that he was actually gay, all along, and was confused about identity, sexuality, and working through abuse trauma.  I could not be happier for him.  He went through a LOT, it caused masses of confusion and personal trauma, and thanfully he put off any major decision.  He is now in a relationship with a great guy and seems very well rounded. And you know what? if he had, at 22, decided to go through with surgery - I WOULD EQUALLY BE HAPPY FOR HIM. Because he would have thought it through long enough, been sure, and MATURE ENOUGH to make that decision.  And no, i never beat him or any other kids in my care.

In today's Brave New World, he would already have been through hormone treatment and possibly even surgery, while he was still working through issues.

So you think I am ignorant and uneducated, you have absolutely ZERO CLUE of reality. 

Thanks for the reply.  At least YOU do not create a fictitious straw man to attack, or personally insult me. That's all I ask, civil discussion, so thank you for that basic respect.

Yes these example questions are hypothetical and emotive, and exaggerated to make the point. What would be the point of backing up an argument, with a non-controversial question?  

I am trying to shock the reader into thinking beyond the 'politically correct' mainstream narrative, into actually questioning the repercussions IN REALITY. The mainstream media always make it seem black and white and simplistic (like talking about transgender without revealing the pangender, gender fluid, gender non-binary and the rest).

So please excuse me, look beyond the hyperbole and understand that it was for effect.

"A scenario where a child is inappropriately questioned is inappropriate, and a reasonable parent would be upset." - yes completely agree.  I think its inappropriate for teachers to get involved in gender identity of children, period. I think its the role of parents.  The only caveat to that is if the child approaches the teacher with such an issue, and they have a counsellor or someone suitably trained to deal with it.  

Even then, I think the parent should be contacted first before the school engages in non-education activities. But this is not what is happening - its po-actively approaching and exploring with very young children, their gender identities. This is provable in the links above.

The Leftists are trying to create the precedent that 'the state is parent'. Here's an example:

Your son living as a girl at school? Not the business of parents to know - http://bit.ly/1VzpEdJ

As you will see by the links in posts above - despite you thinking I am 'lacking in credibility' - show that not only are these thing actually going on today, but that it is being LEGISLATED FOR - to MAKE schools carry out such exercises.  If you don't believe me, seriously, read the links you will see for yourself.  Every Western nation is now busily engaging in the same process - getting the education system to explore gender identity with children right down to primary school age, allowing kids of different genders to shower / change / toilet together.  

Again, it is NOT a passive thing, where teachers and schools only get involved if the child first brings it up (as a previous poster seems to suggest). It is an ACTIVE approach where they make these changes and carry out these agendas, without parental discussion or even against their will, because it is legally mandated by the State.

I made the questions examples a bit OTT to MAKE A POINT. I could have made the same point less emotively, but its still the SAME POINT.

Male and female children (birth gender) are going to use the toilets, changing rooms and showers together - whether you like it or not - because this is the way things are heading.  In the name of tolerance of a group of people who comprise AT MOST of 0.3% of the population - potential risks / trauma are being created for all. No, not from kids who have genuine gender dysphoria, but from others who would abuse it, the trauma forcing young girls to shower / change with boys, the general confusion and stress created by engaging with immature minds, what should only be the mental territory of teenagers / adults.

Male and female children (birth gender) are being asked, at ages as young as 4, by teachers about their gender identity.  Special training, 'gender identity school toolkits', group exercises, handouts / booklets / DVDs for children, and even 'transgender child days' are being set up RIGHT NOW.

That's fact, its evidenced in the links I have provided above.  

Again, you may be happy with this, but the MAJORITY of parents are NOT happy with this at all, and believe it is not the place of educators to be doing these things in school.

tl;dr

@MoMA:

You're quite right to point out that transgenderism is an umbrella term, I didn't know that and I stand corrected. 

I'm highly sceptical about many of your claims though. To put it bluntly, you seem wholly unsuitable to be working with young people who are trying to cope with gender issues for the simple reason that you're clearly infuriated by this topic - it screams out from every sentence. 

"Yes these example questions are hypothetical and emotive, and exaggerated to make the point."

Right, so you freely admit that you are not only sensationalising a subject which is already fairly controversial anyway, but you are even trivialising it by posing exaggerated scenarios which are deliberately designed to shock. 

Do you think this is helpful? If your aim is to promote a calm, measured, civil discussion over these questions why are you deliberately trying to whip up hysteria?

"I'm highly sceptical about many of your claims though." - don't be. Just take the effort to explore the dozens of links I have provided. 

"To put it bluntly, you seem wholly unsuitable to be working with young people who are trying to cope with gender issues." - look. I don't know how clear I can be. I am concerned about the deliberate pushing of gender identity issues on children. I am concerned about pre-adult hormone treatments, surgery etc. I am concerned about a lot of the Gov Guidance to teachers, many of whom are not remotely skilled enough (nor should they have the role) - of exploring gender identity issues with children.  

If a child is convinced they are transgender or one of the 58 (!) subset gender identities - which all must be given credence and equal respect - then I am not going to 'beat' them, nor am I going to argue against their perceived gender identity, that's not what counselling is about.  

I will CERTAINLY discourage any decisions that will have lifelong impact, until they are mature enough to make them. I do not dislike or judge the individuals who have gender dysphoria - I am concerned and exasperated by the people who are PUSHING this into the school, the law, via the media - some of whom have ulterior motives. Don't you get that many of the people pushing it are hardcore Cultural Marxists who see it as a means of civilisational collapse?

“…to organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.” - Willi Munzenberg

“I want a culture of pessimism … a world abandoned by God” - Georg Lukacs

More about that on my blog https://redgreenalliance.com/2016/02/11/political-correctness-the-postmodern-cult/

The problem with such issues is there are people who are genuinely having stressful times with gender identity issues, then there are the well-meaning majority who actively support them, or the public who (wanting to be nice / tolerant / open / accepting) - support, enable and encourage them.

But there are also many people who do not have good intentions.  Either hardcore Leftists who see this as a means societal collapse and 'cultural pessimism' (see the works of Georg Lukacs, and Herbert Marcuse especially his seminal work "Eros and Civilisation"). Or actual perverts and deviants who would abuse the goodwill and tolerance of others, as 'soft cover' for their own agenda.  This is already happening thanks to the 'transgender bathroom campaigning': http://bit.ly/1UaeQ4f (24 stories of men abusing the trans-friendly bathroom laws to commit crimes and put women and children at risk).

The rest of your post does not make sense to me. I have already explained myself. If you disagree, or it offends you, I can live with that. The links I have provided PROVE that what I am saying is not at all outlandish.  I am unsure how i can be both sensationalising, then trivialising, then whiping up hysteria.  I think you are perhaps taking it personally, or allowing your OWN emotions to cloud your judgement.

The issue IS sensational and controversial.  There already IS massive hyseria from the general public.   http://bit.ly/1VPXifs - the Target superstore story, created so much furore and concern from mothers, that 670,000 people signed a petition against their bathroom policy within a week.

Regardless. Why obsess on how I phrased my two questions, which you already answered and I already responded to, but you do not discuss any of the CONTENT of the other posts. Lets as you say, engage further. 

Let's start with this

"I'm highly sceptical about many of your claims though."

I am offering opinions and (many) external links to back them up. I am not claiming to be the font of all knowledge, I am open to being corrected or even having my mind changed.

What specifically are you 'highly sceptial' about? have you checked all my links? it might be that you are disagreeing or are sceptical about known facts. If not, please let me know what you object to, and I will be happy to clarify further. If you still disagree, that's fine, I am happy to agree to disagree.  We live in a society and an age where that concept seems to have been lost - particularly with the Left, who want to shut down free speech and even criminalise people who do not share their views.

Finally - I have a problem with your repeated insistence about my suitability to work with children, the fact you said you think people like me beat kids, or that I shouldn't be anywhere near children. Do you want to take that back, given everything I have said above?

For you, clearly. Like anyone cares less what you read, or what you don't. Your last five replies on this thread have been one-sentence barbs, so I guess 'short and sweet' is how you like to play it. Good for you!

@MoMA:

It's strikingly noticeable that your sources are selective, lifted exclusively either from right-wing blogs or from the lay, conservative press, none of which are subject to peer-review.  This material is not reliable, far more concrete is the medical and scientific literature; not only must this material undergo peer-review prior to publication, it is also based not on subjective judgements but rather on case-studies, thousands of them. This is a fairly obvious point really, but it's one that appears to have escaped you completely.

You are confused on the subject of proof. Concrete proofs don't exist outside of mathematics - the material you have presented here in this thread doesn't actually 'prove' anything, what it demonstrates though is that you're a right-wing conspiracy theorist. 

And not a very clever one, frankly. Your persona is a bit of a give-away: "Mustafa Shiite"? Of "Islam-a-bad, really, really bad"? Subtlety isn't your strong point is it friend, and you're trying to convince everyone in here that you're an experienced care professional? I don't think so.

...........

Are you familiar with something called Occam's Razor? Simply put, it's a principle in philosophy which states that, given two or more explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest one is probably the right one.

a) 'Transgenderism' is a nebulous construct which has been somehow imposed on society by a narrow clique of so-called 'Cultural Marxists', left-leaning intellectuals and academics and the entire health, psychiatric and care professions, via a process which as yet remains unexplained and with the broad support of a liberal-communist media whose aim is to overthrow and destroy western civilisation. 

b) 'Transgenderism' describes a range of conditions which, increasingly, are now being formally recognised by the health professions.

WOLFBIRD:

"I don't take you seriously. You're hysterical about a hypothetical. I don't talk to hysterical people. Take a step back and worry about real things like pedophiles and hard drugs in schools, around your imaginary children.

Like I've said before: It's an election year and the crazies (you) are out in force."

Yes, i get it. No intelligent debate, just more insults. Fine with me.

For what its worth, its becaue paedophiles can abuse these new transgender rules, that me and many other people like me - have a problem. Your badly-worded reply to me just outlined your own logical fallacy.  You are unable to conect the dots, so let me do it for you.

The problem isn't the transgendered per se. Its that it is ALREADY being abused by the near 1 MILLION registered sex offenders in the USA, and similarly in the UK.

You clearly cannot put two and two together (trans-friendly laws and regulations opening the door to abuse by sex offenders)... so instead of using your brain, you label ME the crazy one.  One day you might have children and have a different opinion when you are a man at a shopping centre, with a daughter, and worry about sending your daughter to the loo, because you just seen a 6'2" man dressed as a women walk in before you. What if she goes with her friends? what if she wants to go to the public swimming pools?  but yeah... you clearly do not have to think of such things, so you will not worry.

While you are at it - why don't you label these 712,000 normal mothers and fathers as 'crazies' as well.

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign-the-boycott-target-pledge/

"You're hysterical about a hypothetical. I don't talk to hysterical people."

How is it a hypothetical if all the examples and links I am giving, are backing up the points I am making? did you miss the link about 25 cases where perverts abused 'trans-friendly' changing / toilet rules. Not hypothetical, actual events where crimes were committed, women and children victimised, in order to placate a PC agenda affecting at most, 0.3% of the popualtion? Yeah, don't talk to me, I am hysterical. Let me gues - no kids?

here's the link, you clearly didn't click it before - http://bit.ly/1UaeQ4f

"It's an election year and the crazies (you) are out in force."

Its not election year in the UK. Stating this merely makes you look foolish, ad hominem attacks always look weak, but yours are just... lazy.

Whatever. Froth all you want.

I do worry. That's why i think it is incredibly foolish to make it easier for them to carry out sick crimes:

http://bit.ly/1UaeQ4f

I am not alone, which is why other people worry about it, and petition get signed with 713,000 people in around a week.

http://bit.ly/1qImPJO

Seriously, are you actually reading my posts, or just replying on a cursory look without checking the links or even thinking about what I am saying?

And what's with the cut-and-paste statistics? what is the point you are making by putting them up?

You serious?

Why not present your own actual views on the matter, then a hyperlink to wherever you copy-pasted this from?

Oh i get it. You are just trolling me. Nice one.

We had a man in the office whose name was Bob. Bob decided to turn up one day in a dress and a wig & insisted on being called Barbara. Bob/Babs then started hormonal treatment. But insisted that he/she was now eligible to use the ladies toilets. 

The women were all in an uproar. A man in a dress in the ladies toilets. The men didn't mind so much as they were glad that Bob/Babs was out of their viewing - as he/she had been turning up in a dress at the urinals and looking over at the men while raising his dress. 

The women tolerated for a few months and then they protested so much that Bob/Babs was again back in the male toilets, Which she/he complained about all the time. So much drama. Then the men were up in arms, as many of them were saying that Babs/Bob was spying on them. 

In the end Bob/Babs had their own private toilet which was supposed to be the managers bathroom. 

An awful lot of people got inconvienced for just one person. Six months later - Bob/Babs was sacked much to the relief of everyone at the office. 52 people inconvienced because of one person? Doesn't make much sense does it? 

What about the rights of the 52 people?