Yes, of course

Primary school boys should be allowed to wear tutus and high heels if they want to, the Church of England has said in its first guidance for teachers on transgender issues.

Children should not be restricted by their gender when dressing up, and girls should be able to wear a tool belt and fireman’s helmet if they choose, the document says.

The guidance for teachers in Church of England schools, endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, says that children “should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision”.

It’s the next bit which doesn’t convince

Under-18s who say they have been born in a body which does not match their gender are not offered surgery, but are sometimes given hormones which suppress puberty. Figures released to the Mail on Sunday earlier this year suggest that more than 800 children are receiving this treatment.

Paying dress up and gender reassignment do sound like rather different things really.

47 comments on “Yes, of course

  1. Small boys in tutus and high heels?

    I can’t help noticing that much of the tranny nonsense put about these days sounds as if it was designed for the benefit of nonces.

  2. The CoE is also long overdue for a purge of leftist infiltrators and a brand overhaul.

    The AoC –for endorsing the shite–and all involved in writing, presenting and promoting it need to be de-frocked and literally dragged out of the pulpit by heavies in the midst of their next sermon.

    Given the Church/State connection then I think T&S’s may be of some use on this battlefield also.

    We need to draft lots of emergency Vicars from the ranks of non-leftscum believers financed by liquidating some of the Church’s abundant assets.

    We also need to re-vitalise belief. My thought would be the founding of several military orders (yes it was orig a Catholic idea but so what) in the form at first of a UK Shaolin Temple but teaching Western martial arts and strategy. This would attract those with both spiritual and martial intent. And indeed serve also as schools of true science and engineering free from the leftist taint of state-run shitholes such as Unis, etc.

    And of course such orders have history of opposition towards certain other cults with an animosity to Western values and civilisation.

  3. The same people who think putting hormones into beef cattle is the work of satan think it’s fine to pump little children full of hormones to make them develop other than naturally. It’s almost like they hate humanity.

  4. Mr Ecks, so are you saying men who encourage small boys to dress in women’s clothes should be de-frocked? I’ll get my (gender neutral) coat.

  5. Can’t wait for 10-20 years when the media is full of stories of people in their mid 20’s to mid 30’s who go on the TV talking about how back in the 2010’s there was enormous pressure put on kids to screw their lives up with hormones and surgery.

    I’ve said it before, but up to a certain age we don’t even let kids choose their subjects at school, and yet we’re strongly encouraging them to take hormones and have surgery?

  6. @abacab, good point.

    My youngest is impatient to have breasts like her big sister. I’m thinking of getting her hormones prescribed so her wish can be fulfilled. Waiting for things is psychologically damaging, after all.

  7. Does anyone actually believe that there’s a genuine demand from small boys to be allowed to wear frocks and high heels? This is an agenda being pushed by adult activists.

  8. “This is an agenda being pushed by adult activists.”

    Who might cynically be presumed to *want* to see little boys in frocks and high-heels…..

  9. “Who might cynically be presumed to *want* to see little boys in frocks and high-heels…..”

    🙂

    The priesthood will be giving their view tomorrow…

  10. I think the latest score is you aren’t criminally responsible for your own behaviour until you are aged 25, but you are capable of understanding gender reassignment at age 6.

    I think that’s the latest Progressive position.

  11. “should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision”.

    Kids explore… yes . out of curiosity and sense of fun.. but they explore boundaries, they interact with others to echo-locate where those boundaries are. They’ll be ones who aren’t as quick on the uptake as others and this sounds like you’re going to remove a key source of information for them.

  12. I know the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but how long before it becomes compulsory so that those who do try it don’t feel out of place or so that those too timid to try or afraid of the patriarchy get to explore their inner feelings?

  13. The parents of any boy turning up to school in a tutu should be sterilised by the state so they do not produce any more children.

  14. “Teachers in Church of England schools should “avoid labels and assumptions which deem children’s behaviour irregular, abnormal or problematic just because it does not conform to gender stereotypes or today’s play preferences,” it adds. “

    If I’m reading this right, doesn’t that scupper the ‘No playing with pretend guns!’ line…?

  15. Primary school boys should be allowed to wear tutus and high heels if they want to

    Are primary school girls allowed to come to school in tutus and high heels?

  16. If children should be allowed to dress as they wish in line with their feelings, then it is high time that they are no longer compelled by law to be indoctrinated with ludicrous ideas of a god. Except, of course, it is high time whatever the dress code.

  17. When I was young, what they now call “exploring” was called playing. Innocent care free youth seems to have passed us by! I blame Esther.

  18. Meissen Bison, I was about to say the same thing. I addition, as I recall, having once been a kid, adults spent their entire time trying to prevent children “exploring boundaries” by putting rules in place.

  19. “Primary school boys should be allowed to wear tutus and high heels if they want”: and clogs. Let ’em wear clogs!

  20. “I think the latest score is you aren’t criminally responsible for your own behaviour until you are aged 25, but you are capable of understanding gender reassignment at age 6.”

    Not forgetting that they aren’t considered old enough to send a picture of their genitalia (as born with or indeed reassigned) to their legal age lover until 18 either.

    Its got to the point where a 15 yo is considered too immature to decide whether to have sex (rightly IMO) but is considered mature enough to decide whether to change which sex they’d like to be, and take decisions that will have far more long term consequences on their mental wellbeing, and physical health than whether to shag that fit girl or boy they’ve been fancying………….

  21. MC says I can’t help noticing that much of the tranny nonsense put about these days sounds as if it was designed for the benefit of nonces.

    Well, actually…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073601/Transgender-lessons-2-year-olds.html

    Transgender lessons for two-year-olds: Drag queens drafted into nursery schools to teach children about sexual diversity

    Drag queens are being brought into taxpayer-funded nursery schools so that children as young as two can learn about transgender issues.

    They want to target two and three-year-olds to influence them early, as they say at this age children have not yet developed any discriminatory ‘isms’.

    The ‘performances’ are the brainchild of Thomas Canham, a Bristol University law graduate and part-time cross-dresser who dismisses traditional notions of masculinity as ‘meaningless’.

    […]

    ‘The parents love it, and the children love it too – especially when you’ve got a six-year-old boy there in a princess dress which he isn’t allowed to wear at home because his dad doesn’t like it.’

  22. As Tim Newman alludes to sharia is looking increasingly attractive, if only they could be persuaded to relax the rules on alcohol a little they’d be onto a winner.

  23. Its truly wonderful that we are now so socially liberal that we can have such guidance from the COE.

    Its fucking terrifying that normal clinical practice and ethics have been overridden by political orthodoxy, particularly in the case of minors unable to give informed consent. I’m guessing there will be a horrific price to pay for this in the future, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up being viewed retrospectively as another medical malpractice catastrophe with its attendant compensation.

  24. @Steve – in a better and brighter world, that story would have run thusly:

    “Pervert hanged; children saved”

  25. “share my delusion and make sure you use the right pronouns!”

    Can we get “fuck off” classified as a pronoun?

  26. My kids Church in Wales primary school has a strict uniform policy so tiaras and tutus are banned for all kids. Seems rather unfair to single out the transgender ones with their own uniforms.

  27. ffs.

    Individuals having two X chromosomes (XX) are female; individuals having one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY) are male.

    Apart from a very few unfortunates who are misinterpreted at birth, that’s it. End of.

    Why ever are we turning the world upside down to accommodate some mentally ill people and a whole load of attention-seekers? How did this happen?

  28. PMF: Good question. Any normal land-owning male (i.e. person who could reasonably be given the franchise) can see that these things are insane.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that there is a group of people who benefit from destroying society by confusing young men and women about their second most fundamental innate identity. It just so happens that it’s the same folks who say that “without that transformation [replacement by North Africans and Arabs], Europe will not survive”.

  29. “Individuals having two X chromosomes (XX) are female; individuals having one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY) are male.”

    Unless of course you have a Y chromosome with a broken SRY gene on it so you don’t develop testes or produce testosterone

    What if you have XX chromosomes but congenital adrenal hyperplasia caused by 21-hydroxylase deficiency, which leaves excess amounts of the sex hormone 17α-hydroxypregnenolone, which in turn is is diverted to synthesis of DHEA, androstenedione, and testosterone? Such people tend to develop male-pattern external genitals, despite having XX chromosomes. She’s got a dick, but according to you she’s still a girl?

    How about the Guevedoce, who have a broken gene causing 5α-Reductase deficiency, whose external genitals change from female to male when they hit puberty? They’re born without a dick, but you reckon they’re still a boy, nevertheless?

    How about androgen insensitivity syndrome, where a person produces testosterone but none of the other cells can react to it because they lack the androgen receptor sites? They look and act totally like a girl, but you say they’re a boy because they have a Y chromosome, even if they’re non-functional?

    And what if you have a damaged copy of the androgen receptor gene (NR3C4), which responds normally in some cells but not in others, such as those triggering male versus female fetal brain development?

    Real life is complicated.

  30. Who (chiz, chiz) mentioned chrosmosome – it was bound to conjour forth NiV who is unfathomably tedious on the subject.

  31. Niv

    PMF said: Apart from a very few unfortunates who are misinterpreted at birth, that’s it. End of.

    So he knows about intersex.

    But transgender are not, as far as we know so far intersex. Now this may change, but at the moment transgender is about how people feel and transgender ideology: this is not a good thing. it isn’t clear that hormone therapy or surgery were ever reasonable treatments but given that interventions would only be countenanced if the clinical assessment was that the disorder could not be resolved through psychological therapy they were a minority case anyway. But now that we are in the realm of affirming gender and have thrown the precautionary principle and medical ethics out of the window, plus the increased publicity and explosion of transgender ideology on social media and we have an explosion in cases where there is little pause for thought, instead minor’s new gender is affirmed, on puberty blockers until hormone therapy proper can commence at 16. And where have all the young butches gone? they’re now male trans. This is a tragedy and we need to talk about it as much as possible.

    for the record, if an adult whats to undergo these treatments with full knowledge of the risks and limitations and is prepared to pony up themselves, then that’s all fine and dandy.

  32. NiV,

    What is the incidence of those conditions? 1 in 1000, 1 in 10000, 1 in 100 000?

    It strikes me that some people are only too happy to parade the inflicted about like some Victorian freak show. For what purpose, I have no idea but personally less of a shit I could not give.

  33. “But transgender are not, as far as we know so far intersex.”

    So far as we know, they are. That’s where the current evidence points, anyway.

    “What is the incidence of those conditions? 1 in 1000, 1 in 10000, 1 in 100 000?”

    About 1 in 100, for transgenderism.

    But other sex-linked anatomical differences have cross-over rates as high as 1 in 10, and with 20-30 identified sex-linked brain features that brain scans can pick up, it’s pretty much certain that everyone has at least one of them.

    So the correct answer to your question is about 1 in 1.

    “It strikes me that some people are only too happy to parade the inflicted about like some Victorian freak show.”

    I think you mean “afflicted”.

    And no, the idea is to treat them like anyone else (which is what they are). It’s only the ignorant who describe them as “freaks”.

    We should offer medical treatment to the afflicted, to relieve their affliction. We shouldn’t persecute the afflicted as “freaks” until they commit suicide. That’s not nice.

    ” For what purpose, I have no idea but personally less of a shit I could not give.”

    Be assured, when the SJWs persecute you as a freak in the same way, nobody else will give a shit about you, in the same way you didn’t give a shit about them. You remember what Niemoller said.

    Either liberty is a general principle, in which case it applies to everyone, even people you don’t like or don’t agree with, or it can’t really be said to apply to anyone. Because when you say it applies to you but not to the “freaks”, everyone else does the same and says it applies to them but not to the “bigots”. Nobody has any defence – it’s just a matter of which side is in control at any one time, and that changes with depressing regularity.

    Most people in Britain now say that prejudice against TGs is “always wrong”, and the balance is shifting further in that direction as time passes. Only 4% now say it is “rarely” or “never” wrong. The writing’s on the wall, if you can read it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.