Boys can have periods too! 6 replies

Please wait...

Digz Game Admin

33,359 XP

2nd May 2016

27 Uploads

2,918 Posts

25 Threads

#1 4 months ago

We can we can says Brighton and Hove council, the below is an excerpt from the latter end of the article you can find here. Now I'm personally all for gender equality and making sure women are paid the same as men which in my department I ensure that is the case as why shouldn't they be? But this is starting to take the proverbial biscuit here. Men who identify themselves as women/trans being invited to have a cervix exam when they do not have a cervix, boys who have not officially declared they are boys are being told they can have periods even without them having female reproductive organs, when will this madness end? 

Earlier this year, The Mail on Sunday revealed how an NHS guidebook stated that males living as women were being invited for tests to check for cervical cancer – even though they do not have a cervix.

Brighton & Hove City Council said last night: ‘By encouraging effective education on menstruation and puberty, we hope to reduce stigma and ensure no child or young person feels shame in asking for period products inside or outside of school if they need them.

‘We believe that it’s important for all genders to be able to learn and talk about menstruation together… Our approach recognises the fact that some people who have periods are trans or non-binary.’

It'd be interesting to hear anyone elses views especially if they support the councils position, maybe I just have a lack of understanding here as I identify myself as a heterosexual man? 




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

566,087 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,159 Posts

1,334 Threads

#2 4 months ago

We are reaching levels of stupidity that 20 years ago were not thought possible to reach.




If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Zipacna VIP Member

Re-heally?

44,194 XP

11th January 2008

0 Uploads

4,271 Posts

57 Threads

#3 4 months ago

Isn't it fascinating that all the "transgender 12-year-olds" who just have to go on hormone therapy, thereby chemically sterilising themselves, right now... always have such "progressive" parents as well...


There is no sense to be had in this entire discussion. People institute something - anything - constantly to make themselves look "progressive" (a term raped beyond recognition in the last 30 to 40 years anyway). If you're asking whether that makes any sense whatsoever or whether that might even be harmful to children (gods beware you have proof!), you're just a nazi who hates trans people. This is the state this "discussion" has largely come to in the anglosphere.

It is very much like Stalinist Russia (and no, I'm not saying the UK is a Stalinist country, thank you) in that something can be wrong / nonsensical / dangerous, that everybody knows it to be so, but everybody still goes along with it because to question it is considered to question the new social hierarchy, thereby society in its entirety, thereby the right of that society and the people discussed to exist, and boom, you're a nazi.

I can tell you right now: The people who do this don't mean evil or anything, they just want to keep their job (and if you've heard that sort of thing before, you probably read Hannah Arendt or the protocols of several trials we won't mention here). They don't know what they're doing and they just give in to people who know equally little what they're doing but who have a specific political agenda that they believe is destined to be the "end of history" (stop me if my allusions to the politology of the last two centuries are becoming too intransparent). These people know nothing about children's mental development and the teachers who do don't get a say in the matter. Some may belong to both groups and give their politics higher importance than their job, and they end up planting ideas in the children's heads that the children don't grasp. And they end up confused and, in a typical pre-pubescent or pubescent manner, they deal with all of it very poorly. Some especially younger children can take away that something's wrong with them and they typically don't talk about it with anyone.


Long story short: All of this is generally driven by the need of people who rely on public support to keep their job trying to look good (or, if you like that buzzword, to "virtue-signal") and by activists who have no idea how to deal with children, trying to force in their agenda, and it ends up leaving the children no bit educated on anything in the best, utterly confused and self-loathing in the worst case. Feel free to disagree.


sigpic191442_14.gif



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,655 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,168 Posts

6 Threads

#4 4 months ago

Well, ya' know. Difference between council officers and politicians... ¬_¬ In an ideal world a council as such wouldn't say anything that wasn't a professional opinion on a factual matter and we'd have a clear separation of the functions.


I digress.


So, the situation that 'the council' appears to be referring to concerns people who haven't yet transitioned having periods - and they're calling these pre-op people by various terms that don't match their physical genitalia. More or less, you can be a man in a woman's body and have periods.

-sigh-

I kinda understand the angle. I could imagine it not feeling great if you think that you're a male - leaving aside the argument of whether or not someone is for a moment - and here's this property that typically only refers to the gender of which you don't believe yourself to be a part. Stating that the property only applies to the gender of which you don't believe yourself to be a part, when it applies to you, is tantamount to saying that you're not what you believe that you are.

That said, understanding isn't agreement. The problem seems to arise from the fact that we use male and female to mean both physical sex and to refer to aspects of gender identity. When you're talking about a biological process, by reasonable context, the relevant sense of the terms is one's physical sex.

One doesn't necessarily expect children to understand reasonable context however. Heck, many adults don't.  One would think that the ideal way to resolve that would be use more precise terms or to clarify the context intended at the start of the discussion. One could have a discussion that goes something to the effect of 'If vagina then menstruation' without making reference to gender at all. 

But... sanity has long-since fled these shores and this sort of hurried ideological stupidity is what we're left with in its place.




Lindale Forum Mod

Mister Angry Rules Guy

242,240 XP

1st February 2010

0 Uploads

23,521 Posts

4 Threads

#5 4 months ago

The simple fact is that they have no idea how DNA works.


filesnation_by_lindale_ff-da1kplo.png



Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,803 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,761 Posts

1,754 Threads

#6 4 months ago

So far, no one to my knowledge has figured out a way to make the male physiology and uterine system mesh and vice versa. As such, the current overall effect is more psychological and related to being comfortable with the outside of your body, but there are those who are still eagerly waiting for such a procedure.  However, until it arrives, it is very odd indeed, then, to test for illnesses related to organs one does not possess.  Now I don't like to be cynical, but this is hardly the first time people have jumped on the civil rights bandwagon with false problems as a convenient way of causing a stir while appearing to be progressive.



"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,655 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,168 Posts

6 Threads

#7 4 months ago

It won't cause much of a stir, this is more in the realm of entertainment news as far as UK stuff goes. If you were to talk about it at work, like as not no-one would have any idea what you were yammering on about.




Last edited by Nemmerle 4 months ago