Why Not Just Cancel Females Altogether? (Part Ii - The Truth)

[sp1814]

Earlier this week someone reacted to the news that the term 'Head Girl' was not going to be used any more at St Paul's Girls school.

If anyone felt that the school was wrong, the truth is now out.

https://twitter.com/danbarker/status/1407385210661003272?s=21

1. Head of School was the original title. They're reverting back to it.
2. The 17 and 18 year olds wanted a title that was more age-appropriate. They were polled on this.

Should we be concerned that newspapers are now frequently writing stories to fit a narrative...to rile up their readers?

[naomi24]

Indeed, Prudie. What Silly Billies we are.

[pixie374]

Naomi, only because it was hidden for so long. Now, more and more people are seeing it. Have faith...!

[naomi24]

I don’t think it’s been hidden. I think this is penchant for sidelining females in favour of minorities is relatively new - and growing.

[pixie374]

Well, it's been over 15 years. But only now, being publicised and protested against. I don't call that new.

[pixie374]

21 years...https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/commercial-awareness/legal-spotlight/the-history-of-transgender-rights-in-the-uk-

[naomi24]

I said relatively new - and growing - which it is.

[pixie374]

Ok. You may have been well aware if all this for the last 20 years. In which case, you will have noticed that ABers seem to find it new and surprising, from the threads over the last few years. The publicity is only just beginning to increase, and the majority of women, once they know... Will not just hand over their hard-won rights to any man who wants them. Education is only just starting here.

[sp1814]

pixie374

Surely if the students have been consulted and prefer to be known as Head of School, rather than Head Girl there shouldn't be a problem?

I wonder whose rights have been sidelined here - apart from those who choose to live their lives in a state of perpetual outrage?

[pixie374]

Nobody's that I can see, sp. That's why I said I understood naomi's point, but it wasn't a great example.

[andres]

Apparently the term'Head of School' will bring relief to the seven non-binary pupils at the school. Just in case they should be elected. If it's an all girls school why are they there in the first place.
Head of School sounds like as though it is the Headmaster or Headmistress.

[Zacs-Master]

Maybe we should be concerned that members are writing headlines to rile up other members?

[naomi24]

There’s that word again. ‘Outrage’ is all the rage it seems despite it being somewhat far fetched.

The point is SP, women are being sidelined in favour of minorities.

[jim360]

The point is that (a) no they aren't, and (b) the suggestion that they are works far more in favour of people who are keen to suppress both. It's also from the same school of thought that seems to hold that ensuring equality for any minority groups hurts the majority. It does not. It helps the minority.

Setting trans rights against women's rights is from the classic "divide and conquer" playbook, and will end up hurting both. That's not to say that there are no difficult conversations, or that the change towards acceptance will be easy, but it's still important to reject the narrative that advocating trans rights is necessarily damaging to the rest of society.

[pixie374]

Unfortunately, Jim. That doesn't seem to be acceptable or possible. As you know, I have always wanted a "compromise" of some sort. But- it seems that by using "she" for a man and suggesting "a transwoman is a woman"... one lie leads to another- to the point we have problems in all areas, from safe spaces to sports.
This really does seem to be an all or nothing issue. People are either "anti-trans" or "anti-women". And the way it is now, I can't see the equality or fairness. Any ideas?

[naomi24]

Jim, bit it’s not the minorities who have to do the accepting is it. Ordinary women have to do that.

[pixie374]

They shouldn't, naomi. It's men who need to accept each other.

[naomi24]

Tell that to Stonewall who want to replace the word ‘mother’ with something like ‘person who has given birth’. I think one maternity hospital has actually done it.

[pixie374]

They have been told. It's more the public, that need to know now.

[New Judge]

The issue with "mother" does rile me. The term "mother" is something of which most women are particularly proud. To relegate that term to "person who gave birth" is not only insulting, it's simply daft.

Similarly with "chest feeding". Women have breasts; they use them to feed their children; ergo, the children are breast-fed. Men do not have breasts and cannot feed a child. Women who call themselves men might be able to do that but that's not the same thing at all (and why, since they'd chosen to adopt the persona of a man, they'd want to feed a child from their breasts would be puzzling). Such people need to sort themselves out or, if they can't, they should not expect everybody else to subscribe to such utter nonsense.

[Mozz71]

Honestly Judge, both those terms are for other people to use whose jobs may depend on it. I perdonally don't care if they make it a federal offense, "mother" and "breast feeding" stay in my vocabulary, and I dare say it will for most normally minded folk.