all 4 comments

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Disclaimer: I am not finished reading the article, but what I've read so far seemed great so I wanted to share.

Highlighting this passage that's very relevant to our aims:

Dr Cass’s interim report, published earlier this year, was already heartening. She rejected the ideological label of “trans children”, which suggests a well-defined category delineated by some objective characteristic, and wrote instead of “gender-distressed and gender-questioning children” – young people who may be going through a difficult developmental stage and are likely to be harmed if a potentially transient personal identification is treated as stable and permanent. She observed that “social transition” is not a neutral act but a major psychosocial intervention that may affect whether a child’s gender distress disappears or becomes long-lasting.

Twitter post sharing the article:

Supporting social transitioning in schools is incompatible with child safeguarding. Schools are not clinics, and teachers are not mental-health professionals: it is not appropriate for them to be overseeing a psychosocial intervention of such gravity.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

On the surface, this is a high quality article. I’m curious who wrote it. As I understand it, this is the website of the organization founded by Maya Forstater, who is not a lawyer, and this article appears to have been written by a lawyer.

I’m not as familiar with UK law but similar ideologically-motivated misconstructions of the law have happened in the U.S. For example, the Bostock SCOTUS opinion did not recognize “gender identity” as a protected category under Title VIi. Rather, it recognized that employment discrimination based on one’s “transgender status” is inherently discrimination based on one’s sex. The opinion seems to have deliberately avoided use of the words “gender identity” and did not define “transgender status” but emphasized the transition steps undertaken by plaintiff trans woman Aimee Stephens.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For example, the Bostock SCOTUS opinion did not recognize “gender identity” as a protected category under Title VIi. Rather, it recognized that employment discrimination based on one’s “transgender status” is inherently discrimination based on one’s sex. The opinion seems to have deliberately avoided use of the words “gender identity” and did not define “transgender status” but emphasized the transition steps undertaken by plaintiff trans woman Aimee Stephens.

Oh wow, I did not realize that. I could've sworn I'd read people claiming that it protected gender identity! Guess it might've just been some people reporting what they wanted the ruling to be...

[–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

RIP Snappy, I AM THE NEW GOD!

Click below to view and/or archive snapshots:

If this comment is being added for sites which cannot be usefully archived - for example, video hosts or an existing archive site - please let the Moderators know by sending ModMail. REPLIES TO THIS COMMENT ARE NOT SEEN BY MODS

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.