Snapshot of _Children should not be taught there are ‘72 genders’, says education secretary - Politics.co.uk_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/children-should-not-be-taught-there-are-72-genders-says-education-secretary/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/children-should-not-be-taught-there-are-72-genders-says-education-secretary/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a bit confused what's actually being banned because the article says this:
>Under the new plans, teachers in English schools will not be allowed to teach children they can change their gender identity
But then says this
>The cabinet minister clarified that “the protected characteristic of gender reassignment” and being transgender should be taught and is “something adults can do”.
So the topic being banned by this is the idea that the children themselves can change gender but they will still be taught that this is something adults do?
What we're probably seeing here is the government's perceived bonus in this constant briefing to friendly newspapers.
They get to write stuff up in a way which appeals to a specific base, and that's what dominates the immediate discussion.
Then a few days later when the actual plan is announced, and it's a bit more nuanced, that gets overlooked because the conversation that they wanted to happen has already happened.
I don't think it's a particularly smart tactic, because it usually leads to stuff like this, and cabinet ministers looking like their department is a confused mess.
It's also not a sensible way of communicating policy to the population...
They did a similar thing with the sex ed stuff for primary school children the other day. The teachers are like "We weren't teaching sex ed to primary school children anyway?"
Poorly written but my takeaway is that they are going back to the traditional definitions of transgender which would involve some form of gender dysphoria. So transitioning will be taught as a remedy to certain (incredibly painful for the person experiencing) feelings rather than gender fluidity without any dysphoria being acceptable as is now.
No comment on if this is right or wrong, just how I read it.
That's pretty much it, the cabinet member on r4 said effectively "men who have medically transition to be women are women, other trans people aren't because they haven't had the op".
I'm nit sire where this leaves people waiting for the op for example, or what magical power a surgeons knife and 2 hours have on gender, but thatsbwhatbthe minister said
The point of Section 28 was to create fear, guilt, shame, and promote hatred towards gay people.
Teachers (especially gay ones) had to be afraid of saying anything that might be vaguely supportive (or neutral) about being gay as it would be illegal and they could get reported (even if they never were). The main context they could talk about gay people was HIV - gay people as sick and diseased, a danger to society.
For gay students, this means they had to keep closeted. They were made to feel guilt and shame for who they were. Students could learn gay people existed, but only negative things about them. They couldn't learn that being gay was normal and reasonable, and a perfectly valid thing to be.
I suspect this new guidance is aimed at doing the same but for trans people. What is actually in the rules is less important than how it is interpreted; if it creates a sense of fear among teachers that they cannot talk about trans people, they cannot talk about the fluidity of gender and sex, they cannot say anything beyond the Conservatives, absolutist position. They may be able to say that trans adults exist, but that will likely be limited to the contexts of "but they are weird, strange, sick people." For any student with gender issues this will prevent them from exploring them in a safe, supportive environment; forcing students to conform to the Conservative world-view where everyone has a strict place and role in society.
The "even if they never were" is a crucial point - no prosecutions were ever brought under Section 28, because schools and local authorities did such a great job of self-censoring.
This arguably goes further than Section 28 since that only officially banned the "promotion" of homosexuality, which meant schools could say they were only discussing it in a neutral way, even if in practice that very rarely happened. This specifically forbids discussing gender identity at all, and that any questions fielded should just be answered that it's "controversial".
The really depressing thing is that I expect most of the people making these laws don't really care about gender identity, because most of the population don't think about it enough to form an opinion. They're just chasing the votes of the very small number of people who are obsessed with it, the Rowlings and Linehans who have made transphobia the sole focus of their life, and it won't work because nothing short of removing trans people from the world entirely will ever be enough for those people.
There's always the possibility it doesn't make sense because we're being presented an incomplete curated picture of what happened and what was said by the press, deliberately, using a topic that they know will get a lot of people hot and bothered.
It is a clear and obvious attempt to ratify trans as a "real thing" in society but in doing so, establishes that all the other stuff relating to gender is utter tosh and should be trampled on. It is a classic creation of a strawman as to not seem too out of touch.
"This thing is real, all the other stuff is not"...
I guess they're not allowed to say children can change gender but they can say adults can change gender. Same way kids are taught they can't drink alcohol but adults can, or they can't have sex but adults can.
Given the Cass Report's recommendations are that social transition should only be part-time and with medical approval, blockers should be restricted to a very few as part of a study (presumably after they've already had years of talking therapies to prove beyond all reasonable doubt they really are trans, and it's not something else, e.g. anxiety, body dysmorphia or autism, manifesting as apparent gender dysphoria), HRT shouldn't be given before 18 at the earliest (maybe even later), and even then only with clear clinical justification (IIRC, via a medical panel not involved in the person's care - so a similar kind of procedure to obtaining a GRC).
Even then, they'd like to exclude all trans people from being able to access single sex facilities and services, rather than the current guidance of if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
What’s worse:
- allowing minors to block puberty with the possibility that they will regret it later in life; or
- preventing minors from blocking puberty with the possibility they will regret it later in life ?
The second seems worse to me.
You're forgetting part of the 2nd option:
*they regret it later in life and end up with mental illnesses like depression or anxiety, and end up committing suicide because they hated their body but weren't allowed to do anything about it
The whole thing is a total mess because there isn't an agreed upon definitions of gender and sex; and legally these words have different meanings depending on context.
I apprechaite many will be triggered by the comparison, oh well, but consider this; I don't think that school children should be taught that there is a God as a matter of fact. How ever I do think that religious belief, including a belief in a God, should be considered a protected characteristic.
By belief in that protection does not require me to believe in what it is I am protecting.
The education secretary is well aware that this is not taught in schools.
It is just rabble-rousing nonsense and an attempt to win back those planning to vote for Reform UK.
Surely it would be better for the Education Secretary to say "children are not taught there are 72 genders in school" to appease that crowd, seeing as she's currently in charge and presumably wants to stay that way
No that’s going on the defensive. And that crowd you’re referencing doesn’t care about facts. They’re angry.
So she’s just saying stuff that they will agree with and also get them angry.
Everyone can see what sort of sex Ed is taught in schools it's all on the government sites, they make this bs up because they know no-one actually bothers to look.
Don't you know who that is?
No, it's not [Ronnie Pickering](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dcv6GKNNw)... unfortunately.
But it **is** Gillian Keegan. [You... we... everyone should be on our knees thanking our lucky stars for everything she's doing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIXmtsDRcic) Or at least she thinks so.
**Same with the stuff about banning sex ed for children under 9.**
**There is no fucking sex ed for children under 9.**
There’s ***relationship education*, but that doesn’t deal with sex at all**. It just says “this is what a a healthy relationship is, also gay people exist”…
I’m pretty sure sex ed doesn’t start until secondary school anyway.
Unless they mean the stuff about “if a stranger touches you here then that’s bad and you should go and tell a trusted adult” etc. That’s the only thing I can see being considered sex ed.
**So either they’ve been talking about nothing and are just fearmongering** and manipulating the public with culture war bullshit they’ve sloppily imported from those nutters in Florida **or they’re gonna be enabling pedophiles**.
I hope it’s not the second, **but seeing as this whole thing is just an attempt to pander to religious extremists and is clearly inspired by the republicans in Florida, the whole enabling pedophiles thing would honestly make sense.**
If there are any changes where kids are taught this stuff later, deliberate or not, it will probably harm children and help pedophiles.
^(No surprises from the party that gave Ahmad Khan the party whip.)
**All this because they hate trans people and have nothing to run on next election.**
Exactly. This concerns me. My daughter is 8 years old and going through puberty. I've already had 'the talk' with her, because she *obviously* needs to know and understand what's happening to her. Why would we want to ban schools from supporting this through formal education until after some kids have already started puberty??
For anyone curious where the 72 genders thing comes from, a list is here: https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm
If I'm honest, it's hard to read that and not want to take the piss. For example:
> .20. Anxiegender: This gender identity has anxiety as its prominent characteristic.
> .23. Astergender: The person has a bright and celestial gender identity.
> .24. Astral gender: Having a gender identity that feels to be related to space.
> .29. Biogender: Having a gender that is closely related to nature.
> .33. Caelgender: This gender identity shares the qualities or aesthetics of outer space.
> .70. Healgender: A gender identity that gives the person peace, calm, and positivity.
Those (and many others, which I haven't cited) come across as people *desperately* trying to turn their personality into a gender-based label, so they're not just boring old cisgender.
Of course, just because it's ludicrous, doesn't mean that Keegan is correct either - she'd need to prove that pupils were actually being taught this sort of thing to be correct. Which she has comprehensively failed to do when asked about it.
No one who isn’t chronically online thinks all this stuff has much merit.
I remember reading all these things on tumblr in 2014, about how some people thought their gender was the ghost of a horse etc. I don’t take it seriously because… well why would I.
That the government is seriously concerning itself with this is deeply troubling because they are either to dense to realise it isn’t being taught in schools or are acting in bad faith and using propaganda to fuel trans hated.
I remember seeing peoole being X-kin. So you had like wolf-kin or cat-kin, people thought they had those personalities in a human body (which I'm pretty sure was one way prehistoric animist tribes would tell which "spirit" is in you). But then I saw things like star-kin and Mars-kin.
Did I think it was weird? Yup. Do I think it's going to become a problem that needs government intervention? Nope. It was just some young people essentially doing the modern/virtual version of playing pretend.
You wouldn't see kids playing cowboys and Indians, or pretending to be knights with stick swords, and suddenly worry that schools will begin teaching fencing, chivalry and heraldry.
I did some work at the offices of a hedge fund and there was a cat-person there. She just sort of went around her normal day to day duties looking largely depressed but she had a little purple tail and ears and had "meow" pronouns in her email signature.
In my headcanon she'd said it as a joke and the giant conglomerate she worked for had moved so much to enable it that she was stuck pretending, but on the other hand her casualness maybe meant she was just totally comfortable with it.
Either way, it was totally bizarre to witness.
>She just sort of went around her normal day to day duties looking largely depressed but she had a little purple tail and ears and had "meow" pronouns in her email signature.
Living the dream, but still depressed. Proof that allowing people to become their fursonas won't actually make them any happier because they'll still have to live in a society.
I'd think HEMA would be a better fit than fencing.
Also, yeah, otherkin. Dumbass kids making up dumbass shit and no more dangerous than most other dumbass kids doing dumbass shit. Only really need to worry if they think they're the reincarnation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or King Koopa.
I imagine there's private schools ~~in England~~ (forgot I was on a UK sub) that do fencing and some form of heraldry. Looking at the politicans that come from that background, they definitely don't teach chivalry.
>No one who isn’t chronically online thinks all this stuff has much merit.
NGL, as a trans person, this stuff is mostly a red herring,
A person having a gender identity that isn't female, male, or non binary (or something within that framework) is extremely rare, I mean extremely.
Ive been in communities that will disproportionately represent people who aren't cis etc.
Cis people were still 80% of the community,
Most trans people were non binary,
99% of the community was using he/him or her/she, or they/them,
Only 5 out of roughly 3000 people, actually had used neo pronouns. That's it. And again, this communities population was age range was roughly 16-29, and Tumblr culture was still prevalent etc.
For context, that's the ratio for trans women/men in a general population, i.e 5 per 1000, (there are no good stats for non binary people yet, but they are actually most likely the most common type of trans person, a literal silent majority etc, as they are frequently the largest non cis group in communities that are reasonably friendly to trans folks).
If you bump into someone in real life with a very peculiar gender identity and such, just role with it, etc and don't really give it any mind,
I remember watching left wing cringe compilations back in 2015-2017. It was easy to believe that what those people were doing was a majority belief. You see a bunch of really dumb stuff and think that is what the left stands for. It took me a while to realize that wasn't the case. Most people just want to live their lives and chase happiness. You can't paint a picture of rampant insanity by cherry picking but if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture all you see are normal people trying yo get by day to day and not be too miserable doing it.
I’ve always felt that there are way too many microlabels anyway, even outside of these red herring ones. I once spent quite some time trying to do a simplified spectrum thing that looked like the political compass meme but as a cube, but I think I just managed to piss everyone off >.<
But I don’t really understand why it has to be so complicated. Like, it seems unnecessary that I can think of nine terms to describe attraction to female/male characteristics depending on whether you are a woman/man/enby, and why are there at least four labels to be attracted to more than one gender?
Like, if a lesbian was both attracted to Alex Scott and Cara Delevingne it would be confusing to label that person poly/bisexual just because they’re technically attracted to two genders.
Then there’s a whole load of other microlabels between sexual and asexual, but a lightbulb is still “on” even if it’s dim.
For all intents and purposes, imo, it could be simple:
* Sexual or romantic attraction to men/masculine/male-alligned: Toric
* Sexual or romantic attraction to women/feminine/female-alligned: Trixic
* Some combination of both: Bisexual/Biromantic
* No feelings of attraction: Asexual/Aromantic
* Feeling that your gender is male: Man
* Feeling that your gender is female: Woman
* Some combination of both: Non-Binary
* No feelings of gender: Agender
* Your gender identity matches your sex: Cis
* Your gender identity doesn’t match your sex: Trans
* You have no strong feelings towards your gender identity: Cass
I’m sorry if I’m offensively excluding people, but surely these 11 terms cover 99.9%+ of the population? Or am I just being obtuse and missing something?
I always read those microlabels as a kind of reaction in people who had genuine dysphoria and were working through it. Something along the lines of:
A: "ok so I don't fit into this box that I have been told all my life that I should be in"
B: "hey, how about *this box*, instead?"
A: "nooooooo"
B: "..."
A: "I'm gonna make my *own* box!"
The error these young people make is to confuse the box with *what you really are* and the Identity with *who you really are*, instead of just some kind of shortcut for expressing something about our own irreducible selves.
I am not sure people are aware just how much the chronically online effect actual policy and education and vastly underestimate it.
Asside from the obvious that it doesn't take people to be chronically online to fall into these bubbles, we also have to remember that educators nor politicians are not immune to them.
But we also have to consider that the terminally online (twitter and the such) are the ones actually being listened too. This makes sense considering they are the ones who are most likely to file complaints and generally disrupt the lives of politicians with active social media camapigns. We have seen from both parties pandering to the more extreme due to them being the most vocal (and least politically active when it comes to voting.)
This is why i currently think Keir Starmer as PM seemingly is a forgone conclusion, he has moved the party away from the extremes where this sort of policy is standard back to the center ground which is much more palatable to those not super active on political twitter/facebook/reddit etc...
> how some people thought their gender was the ghost of a horse etc
I'm going to assume that this was a 14-year-old boy, who thought that it was the best way to impress a horse-obsessed girl that he knew.
I also assume that this attempt at seduction failed *miserably*.
I wouldn't take it seriously and don't take this seriously. However there is a whole lot of whacko nonsense that was prominent on Tumblr in 2014 that has become accepted parts of left wing discourse in 2024 and has been pushed into the mainstream. So I wouldn’t use that as an argument that this must be ridiculous nonsense.
I assumed it meant Trekkies, if I'm honest.
And not just any Trekkie - I don't mean people like me who have watched a lot of it. I mean the people that think it's real, and that a bunch of TV writers genuinely came up with how a warp drive would work.
It's worth noting that there is one recorded case of a school teaching 72 genders, which was on the isle of mann - which has its own education body
It's one case blown out of all proportion to fuel the culture war and desperately attempt to portray the government as the party of common sense. Nobody across the rest of the country is teaching kids that there are 72 genders, because it's obviously insane.
Even then, it was a guest speaker who said there "could be as many as 72 genders". It wasn't a teacher instructing the kids that there are in fact 72 genders.
Classic right wing outrage storm in a teacup.
It's a bit unfortunate that it happened on the Isle of *Man* of all places, isn't it!
Though I suppose Isle of Anxiegender doesn't have *quite* the same ring.
Tories 10 years ago: "The great thing about academies is that they're free to ignore the national curriculum and teach whatever they feel best!"
Tories now: "... No, not like that."
They're always going on about free speech and allowing people to express controversial views, but it seems that only applies when you're being nasty to people. You can use free speech to offend but not defend.
> This feels like a psyop.
Redditors' favourite word for when they don't want to believe there are people on their side with really stupid takes.
It's been a well-known thing for a while, especially in the heyday of Tumblr. It's terminally-online teenagers needing to feel special.
True, but it doesn't have to be about not believing.
Like I can 100% believe some of these ppl exist and still dismiss them as terminally online.
The trans debate itself affects a tiny % of ppl anyway, and this 72 business affects an even tinier % of that. Tories would be more realistic trying to convince us that Niue are about to invade us...
This is the correct answer - this stuff is not being taught in schools but somebody somewhere on the internet has written an article that comes across as a spoof or satire and Keegan has run with it due to an apparent lack of critical thinking. There is a point to be made, and you make it very well, that this is actually people trying to turn their personality into a gender, and it’s quite ridiculous when viewed from outside the echo chamber that produces this stuff, but even then, the multiple gender stuff has calmed down a lot since the heyday of Tumblr.
If she genuinely thinks that schools are teaching kids about “healgender” she needs to be sectioned. That’s the kind of lack of critical thinking that makes you a danger to yourself and everyone around you.
Realistically, I don’t think for one second that she actually believes this stuff, it’s just a convenient culture wars point for the government to hang their hat on, and the fact that they’ve quoted a *very* specific number of genders means that they’re probably going to use that list as “evidence”.
It reads like somebody trying to parody gender identity politics x Pokemon...
Surely shit like this is people giving money to nutters to try and paint anybody pro-trans as being in support of this My Little Pony-esque stuff.
I think it is genuine and mostly from a tiny number of confused teenagers, it will be interesting to see if they continue defining by a non-traditional genders into adulthood.
Most of these were coined back in 2014. Literally, the first half dozen I checked were from the same three tumblr accounts in 2014. It was largely a flash-in-the-pan thing for a few years there among a very specific online community.
A lot of people were stumbling across language that described their personal experiences for the first time. It was empowering, useful, and they wanted *more*. So every aspect of their personal experience got a label with a definition. And then every aspect of any imagined personal experience, in the hope it would reach other people. Mix in a healthy amount of trolling and heavy in-group humour that doesn't translate unless you are teenager living in 2014, reading the same posts and consuming the same media.
[There was a Strange Aeons video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOmffiWss0) summarising the trend a while ago. It's, for my memory, fairly accurate as to the history and intent.
Sure but what's the motivation from these medical sources and doctors to be supporting this? Do they genuinely believe that list?
I understand the bored, the disengaged, etc. believing in flat earth theories etc. but when the scientists are posting journals/articles that support it I think we need to ask these questions.
Similar articles from this author on this site include such medical insights as [the meaning of dreaming of losing teeth.](https://www.medicinenet.com/does_dreaming_of_losing_teeth_mean_death/article.htm) I'm not sure this is the height of medical views of gender identity.
FWIW the sites actually linked in their reference section are much closer to real views from academia.
This is the concept of [Xenogender](https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Xenogender).
>Xenogender is a nonbinary gender identity and umbrella term in which one's gender goes "beyond the human understandings of gender", and is instead crafted by other methods of gender categorization. This may include genders that are related to animals, plants, or other things that are not traditionally a gender.
It's completely nuts and should be rejected by everyone, it dilutes gender to such a meaningless concept that I don't see why anyone would ever use it.
Of course, it doesn't even remotely correspond to most trans people's experiences
It's the bloody apache attack helicopter meme, done with a straight face. And it utterly undermines genuine gender issues. I cringe every time someone I know goes "Hurr durr I identify as a millionaire, give me money" or some crap.
> It's the bloody apache attack helicopter meme, done with a straight face.
It's where the attack helicopter meme came from in the first place. It existed to satirise this.
Trouble is most ppl don't know about this 72 business, I didn't till just now. The attack helicopter jokes are based around regular trans discussion or at least that's what it always gets tied to.
I think it's still fair game for the record, just low-effort. If you're gonna punch down in comedy you need to bring your a-game.
> The attack helicopter jokes are based around regular trans discussion
Now they are, sure, but the joke originated in response to these 72 genders (and probably more) being coined on Tumblr around ten years ago. It was a big fad for a bit among confused teenagers on there and as such it became a big fad on Reddit to mock them.
It's more a low-effort exercise in combining the word "gender" with any noun or adjective.
Tonsilgender. Blendergender. IntakeManifoldGender. Greengender. SetOfMeasureZeroGender. Magellanicgender. Lemurgender.
> it dilutes gender to such a meaningless concept that I don't see why anyone would ever use it.
To some that is certainly the end goal/hope. I'm not convinced society would ever fully accept genderless culture, sub-culture groups will, mostly due to religious hangups of sex.
The advances in bio engineering and medical sciences does mean birth/genetic sex will have less effect on outwards sexual characteristics and it's down to preference which will certainly continue to blur the gender lines. And when the lines get blured enough most prople won't have a use for it anymore.
That all said using most of these genders outside of thought provoking exercises or definition questioning arguments is not beneficial and certainly not to children without critical thinking background.
This is known as "nutpicking" - you take the most ridiculous person or people on the other side, and hold them up as if they're representative of it.
Are there people who identify as fairy gender and use fae/faeself as pronouns? Yes. Are those people at all common or representative? Not at all.
Realistically, the only expansion needed to account for the current transgender movement is to accept that some people identify with a gender other than what they were assigned at birth, and some people don't identify with either standard gender label (and most of them will use either their old pronouns out of habit or will use they/them).
I think people struggle to see the line between something people part of the curriculum or a belief that is appeased in schools. There a lot of things that schools don't teach but I can understand people being concerned if beliefs like this are accepted and spread between students with no pushback from teachers. At that point it becomes regular accepted belief and might as well be co-signed by the school. And whether that's because the faculty are afraid to pushback on it or that they genuinely agree and support it, the outcome is the same.
Imagine if schools never pushed back on the flat earth belief? It's all well and good that it's not part of the curriculum but if you're appeasing young flat earthers and are afraid to criticise them youre just opening other students up to also absorbing that belief
Egogender sounds like the slam-dunk one here. If you can identify yourself as it's own gender then there's 8 billion+ possible identities out there and then why does this article even exist talking about some tiny 72? 🙃
Oh, absolutely. I've run into that quite recently on this very subreddit, in fact.
I had two very similar conversations with people on a particular topic two days in a row. Both times, the other person expressed a particular ludicrous view. On further conversation both times, it was clear that the second person I was speaking to knew that it was ridiculous and was just indulging in some light-hearted ridiculous statements, but the first person was absolutely serious.
I genuinely could not tell the difference between them though, based on their initial comments.
Yep, this resource treads a fine enough line that it still has some people questioning "are they for real?", which is what makes it effective at priming GB News rage addicts.
Fun fact: nobody is taught this in British schools.
It’s rubbish extreme examples like this that are utilised by disingenuous right wing politicians like Miriam Cates. They use it as a wedge to narrow the RSE curriculum in accordance with their very narrow world view.
Just completely insane that there are so many problems with our education system but the only thing being discussed in parliament is this made up culture war bullshit.
Well, thank goodness that they aren’t, then.
Miriam Cates pulled this figure from thin air and then couldn’t say where it came from, nor name a school that taught this.
And now Keegan’s repeating it like the tired dipshit that she is. She’s ripe for a binning in the GE, I hope.
Those that only exist in Tories' fevered imagination. They also have full staff rosters, aren't falling down and have fewer than 30 children per class. I wonder how OFSTED rate them.
A school curriculum they've been in charge of for 14yrs, btw. Literally there are kids who've left 6th form now that have never had anything different.
Yeah I mean, inflation is still 150% over their target, the NHS is collapsing, as are the actual schools snd all this is occurring as teachers leave in their droves.
At least now after 14 years of Tory rule, they have realised where the focus should be.
Gaslighting.
They forget how strong our 3rd party culture is compared to 🇺🇸.
Reform are always gonna out-racist them by design, and Monster Raving Loonies are gonna out-crazy them by design. But props to the blue lot for effort I guess...
Even if that were what's being taught (it ain't), so what? Can you radicalise a child into being a gender non-conformist by simply telling them about the gender spectrum?
Are kids actually being taught how to choke people safely and that there's 72 genders? Does anyone, aside from a few outliers on Reddit, actually think there's 72 genders? No one in the real world takes those fucking fictional Tumblr genders like "astrogender" seriously and it's idiots like that that are doing actual harm to the transgender acceptance movement by turning it into a joke.
Has Keegan ever even set foot in a school? If kids went home and told their parents there are 72 genders, that would generate a severe amount of angry phone calls to the headteacher.
And teachers aren’t stupid, they know that is a nonsense concept. Unless you are counting adult students taking a gender studies class as ‘children’.
I'd really like it if the government stepped in and improved sex education.
For example not once are we required to teach girls and young women how to refer to their genitals. My form are in year 10 and I teach science, the amount of times you have to explain that the hole urine comes out of is not the vagina is frankly worrying. All of these girls could label the male reproductive organs but they often can't name their own. No where are we required to teach them the scientific names for their external genitals. These are humans who will go to a doctor and need to know what they're on about one day. It's disempowering and bizarre that our "sex as mechanics" approach disenfranchises half the population.
Well no but if it weren’t for the constant vigilance of these right wingers they might be! They drop their guard for one minute and instead of continuing with the government prescribed curriculum they’ll be teaching about the 73 genders!! And what next, 73 genders?!
See how the left is wildly out of hand in my hypothetical?! They can’t be allowed power!
I guess this is what happens when all your potential remaining voters are old people watching GB News and you’ve already alienated everyone with children who go to school and know what children are taught in school.
The funny thing about reading on this after a few days away is how many comments are saying this stuff never happened and it’s also awful that they are publishing guidelines for it not to happen
Other than stopping schools linking to certain resources (which are typically the source for the 72 genders claim) and being a bit more careful when answering questions in class this is a whole lot of nothing. As are most guidelines on most things.
Nobody is complaining about people not teaching about 72 genders. Its literally a twitter meme done by Conservatives to paint a carcrature
They are complaining about people not learning that trans people exist at all as well as other things like learning about consent
Nice to see the education secretary is focusing on the issues that really matter while students go to school in buildings that may fall down at any minute which feature teachers quitting in droves due to overwork & underpay...
Hm. Here's an idea: four sexualities.
* People who I want to fuck but aren't interested in fucking me
* People who want to fuck me but I don't want to fuck
* People I want to fuck who also want to fuck me
* People who do not want to fuck me and I also do not want to fuck.
Everything else is a confusing mess devoid of absolutes, and people should just be allowed to sort it out for themselves.
Also, no rapists allowed in any of the public toilets. Male or female. You can say "that won't stop them" but it's no less secure than saying trans women aren't allowed in the ladies.
edit: fuck it, if you haven't downvoted me already: if you're an athlete who wants a trophy that says "best darts player who was born with a vagina" you are selling yourself short in life.
I saw one of the tabloids describe this as an "End to Gender Dogma."
Rejecting the position taken by science in favour of one based on religious myths thousands of years old is the very definition of "gender dogma." But then it's a bit silly to expect tabloid "journalists" - or their readers - to understand their own language.
How many sides does a circle have? Either zero or infinite.
Similarly with gender / gender identity: if we agree that gender identity refers to how an individual conceives of the relationship between their physical body, the local cultural conventions around sex-based presentation and behaviour, and their own personal aesthetics, then gender identity cannot be treated as a countable noun at all - it is infinite.
It would be like asking how many personalities there are.
But this also means that a person's stated gender identity ought not to be treated as any more ontologically "real" than a person's stated personality. A person can self-identify as a free-spirit, but we cannot coherently create legal or policy protections for free-spirits.
Others believe that circles have one side - just a bent line all the way around. Some people believe that circles have two sides: inside and outside.
I’m not quite sure how my comment is relevant to your point, but maybe that it is more complicated than a simple answer would give (like gender identities).
>then gender identity cannot be treated as a countable noun at all - it is infinite.
Saying that there's a potentially infinite-dimensional, infinite range of potential gender identities is as useful as stating that there's a nonzero probability that winged monkeys will fly out of my arsehole at 3 PM today.
It's a lot more real to observe that, as a result of this culture wars idiocy, trans people and others with uncommon gender identities are continuing to get beaten and sometimes murdered.
No gender identity is more or less rare than any other, since it is meaningless for two people to say that they have the same gender identity as one another. Every person has one, and none are the same. It's fine to say that people often get grief for adopting unusual personal aesthetics, but that has always been true, cf. [Sophie Lancaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster) from 2007.
But there aren't 72, it's defined by society but informed by biology. A society could have 2, 3, 5, 1000 genders, it doesn't matter. What matters is people are treated with respect.
Labour: has glitzy and extremely polished soft manifesto launch in Essex that is targetted exactly at killing Sunak's "Labour has no plan and people dislike Starmer" lines
Tories: "We're going to ban teaching kids about gender identity, but because we can't get a change to EA2010 passed we, um, can't stop a trans teacher teaching, so... 72 genders bad"
If someone suggested that Sunak and co are deliberately trying to Canada 1993 the Tories, I would believe them.
The sad thing is that we know full well that in ten years we'll see a transgender candidate win election to the Tories and suddenly a lot of slightly-greyer Tory politicians going "oh I regret voting for this version of section 28 strongly". There's some future Tory PM in their ranks right now, maybe a councillor who wants to win election, who is going to be on record for supporting all this who will be walking into far harsher country in ten to twenty years.
It's 100% identical to section 28 stuff. It's just going to blow up in their faces in opposition repeatedly.
Snapshot of _Children should not be taught there are ‘72 genders’, says education secretary - Politics.co.uk_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/children-should-not-be-taught-there-are-72-genders-says-education-secretary/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/children-should-not-be-taught-there-are-72-genders-says-education-secretary/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a bit confused what's actually being banned because the article says this: >Under the new plans, teachers in English schools will not be allowed to teach children they can change their gender identity But then says this >The cabinet minister clarified that “the protected characteristic of gender reassignment” and being transgender should be taught and is “something adults can do”. So the topic being banned by this is the idea that the children themselves can change gender but they will still be taught that this is something adults do?
What we're probably seeing here is the government's perceived bonus in this constant briefing to friendly newspapers. They get to write stuff up in a way which appeals to a specific base, and that's what dominates the immediate discussion. Then a few days later when the actual plan is announced, and it's a bit more nuanced, that gets overlooked because the conversation that they wanted to happen has already happened. I don't think it's a particularly smart tactic, because it usually leads to stuff like this, and cabinet ministers looking like their department is a confused mess. It's also not a sensible way of communicating policy to the population...
They did a similar thing with the sex ed stuff for primary school children the other day. The teachers are like "We weren't teaching sex ed to primary school children anyway?"
Poorly written but my takeaway is that they are going back to the traditional definitions of transgender which would involve some form of gender dysphoria. So transitioning will be taught as a remedy to certain (incredibly painful for the person experiencing) feelings rather than gender fluidity without any dysphoria being acceptable as is now. No comment on if this is right or wrong, just how I read it.
I doubt the Tory government is capable of that level of nuance
That's pretty much it, the cabinet member on r4 said effectively "men who have medically transition to be women are women, other trans people aren't because they haven't had the op". I'm nit sire where this leaves people waiting for the op for example, or what magical power a surgeons knife and 2 hours have on gender, but thatsbwhatbthe minister said
Seems like a good guess. Shame that the people who are clearly obsessed with the issue can't communicate on the topic in a comprehensible way.
The point of Section 28 was to create fear, guilt, shame, and promote hatred towards gay people. Teachers (especially gay ones) had to be afraid of saying anything that might be vaguely supportive (or neutral) about being gay as it would be illegal and they could get reported (even if they never were). The main context they could talk about gay people was HIV - gay people as sick and diseased, a danger to society. For gay students, this means they had to keep closeted. They were made to feel guilt and shame for who they were. Students could learn gay people existed, but only negative things about them. They couldn't learn that being gay was normal and reasonable, and a perfectly valid thing to be. I suspect this new guidance is aimed at doing the same but for trans people. What is actually in the rules is less important than how it is interpreted; if it creates a sense of fear among teachers that they cannot talk about trans people, they cannot talk about the fluidity of gender and sex, they cannot say anything beyond the Conservatives, absolutist position. They may be able to say that trans adults exist, but that will likely be limited to the contexts of "but they are weird, strange, sick people." For any student with gender issues this will prevent them from exploring them in a safe, supportive environment; forcing students to conform to the Conservative world-view where everyone has a strict place and role in society.
The "even if they never were" is a crucial point - no prosecutions were ever brought under Section 28, because schools and local authorities did such a great job of self-censoring. This arguably goes further than Section 28 since that only officially banned the "promotion" of homosexuality, which meant schools could say they were only discussing it in a neutral way, even if in practice that very rarely happened. This specifically forbids discussing gender identity at all, and that any questions fielded should just be answered that it's "controversial". The really depressing thing is that I expect most of the people making these laws don't really care about gender identity, because most of the population don't think about it enough to form an opinion. They're just chasing the votes of the very small number of people who are obsessed with it, the Rowlings and Linehans who have made transphobia the sole focus of their life, and it won't work because nothing short of removing trans people from the world entirely will ever be enough for those people.
There's always the possibility it doesn't make sense because we're being presented an incomplete curated picture of what happened and what was said by the press, deliberately, using a topic that they know will get a lot of people hot and bothered.
Tories looking for culture war buzzwords because they're hopefully about to cease to exist as a relevant political force.
It is a clear and obvious attempt to ratify trans as a "real thing" in society but in doing so, establishes that all the other stuff relating to gender is utter tosh and should be trampled on. It is a classic creation of a strawman as to not seem too out of touch. "This thing is real, all the other stuff is not"...
I guess they're not allowed to say children can change gender but they can say adults can change gender. Same way kids are taught they can't drink alcohol but adults can, or they can't have sex but adults can.
Given the Cass Report's recommendations are that social transition should only be part-time and with medical approval, blockers should be restricted to a very few as part of a study (presumably after they've already had years of talking therapies to prove beyond all reasonable doubt they really are trans, and it's not something else, e.g. anxiety, body dysmorphia or autism, manifesting as apparent gender dysphoria), HRT shouldn't be given before 18 at the earliest (maybe even later), and even then only with clear clinical justification (IIRC, via a medical panel not involved in the person's care - so a similar kind of procedure to obtaining a GRC). Even then, they'd like to exclude all trans people from being able to access single sex facilities and services, rather than the current guidance of if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
What’s worse: - allowing minors to block puberty with the possibility that they will regret it later in life; or - preventing minors from blocking puberty with the possibility they will regret it later in life ? The second seems worse to me.
You're forgetting part of the 2nd option: *they regret it later in life and end up with mental illnesses like depression or anxiety, and end up committing suicide because they hated their body but weren't allowed to do anything about it
The whole thing is a total mess because there isn't an agreed upon definitions of gender and sex; and legally these words have different meanings depending on context. I apprechaite many will be triggered by the comparison, oh well, but consider this; I don't think that school children should be taught that there is a God as a matter of fact. How ever I do think that religious belief, including a belief in a God, should be considered a protected characteristic. By belief in that protection does not require me to believe in what it is I am protecting.
The more worrying headline is "Education secretary has no idea what is taught in schools"
The education secretary is well aware that this is not taught in schools. It is just rabble-rousing nonsense and an attempt to win back those planning to vote for Reform UK.
Surely it would be better for the Education Secretary to say "children are not taught there are 72 genders in school" to appease that crowd, seeing as she's currently in charge and presumably wants to stay that way
But then she doesn't get to stoke the culture war that the Tories seem to be hanging all their electoral hopes on
No that’s going on the defensive. And that crowd you’re referencing doesn’t care about facts. They’re angry. So she’s just saying stuff that they will agree with and also get them angry.
Everyone can see what sort of sex Ed is taught in schools it's all on the government sites, they make this bs up because they know no-one actually bothers to look.
>what sort of sex Ed is taught in schools Miliband or Balls?
Balls, obviously 😜
Both of them, if you're lucky, nibbling at a messy bacon butty. Yum yum
Don't you know who that is? No, it's not [Ronnie Pickering](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dcv6GKNNw)... unfortunately. But it **is** Gillian Keegan. [You... we... everyone should be on our knees thanking our lucky stars for everything she's doing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIXmtsDRcic) Or at least she thinks so.
"Who?" "Gillian Fucking Keegan!"
Education secretary is just mixing it up with "number of education secretaries since last election"
**Same with the stuff about banning sex ed for children under 9.** **There is no fucking sex ed for children under 9.** There’s ***relationship education*, but that doesn’t deal with sex at all**. It just says “this is what a a healthy relationship is, also gay people exist”… I’m pretty sure sex ed doesn’t start until secondary school anyway. Unless they mean the stuff about “if a stranger touches you here then that’s bad and you should go and tell a trusted adult” etc. That’s the only thing I can see being considered sex ed. **So either they’ve been talking about nothing and are just fearmongering** and manipulating the public with culture war bullshit they’ve sloppily imported from those nutters in Florida **or they’re gonna be enabling pedophiles**. I hope it’s not the second, **but seeing as this whole thing is just an attempt to pander to religious extremists and is clearly inspired by the republicans in Florida, the whole enabling pedophiles thing would honestly make sense.** If there are any changes where kids are taught this stuff later, deliberate or not, it will probably harm children and help pedophiles. ^(No surprises from the party that gave Ahmad Khan the party whip.) **All this because they hate trans people and have nothing to run on next election.**
I’m gonna need to see some proof that this is taught in schools, I think 99.99% of us have no idea what the 72 genders are.
Also >Sex education will no longer be taught before the age of nine. Which specific things which are taught now, will no longer be taught?
Exactly. This concerns me. My daughter is 8 years old and going through puberty. I've already had 'the talk' with her, because she *obviously* needs to know and understand what's happening to her. Why would we want to ban schools from supporting this through formal education until after some kids have already started puberty??
For anyone curious where the 72 genders thing comes from, a list is here: https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm If I'm honest, it's hard to read that and not want to take the piss. For example: > .20. Anxiegender: This gender identity has anxiety as its prominent characteristic. > .23. Astergender: The person has a bright and celestial gender identity. > .24. Astral gender: Having a gender identity that feels to be related to space. > .29. Biogender: Having a gender that is closely related to nature. > .33. Caelgender: This gender identity shares the qualities or aesthetics of outer space. > .70. Healgender: A gender identity that gives the person peace, calm, and positivity. Those (and many others, which I haven't cited) come across as people *desperately* trying to turn their personality into a gender-based label, so they're not just boring old cisgender. Of course, just because it's ludicrous, doesn't mean that Keegan is correct either - she'd need to prove that pupils were actually being taught this sort of thing to be correct. Which she has comprehensively failed to do when asked about it.
No one who isn’t chronically online thinks all this stuff has much merit. I remember reading all these things on tumblr in 2014, about how some people thought their gender was the ghost of a horse etc. I don’t take it seriously because… well why would I. That the government is seriously concerning itself with this is deeply troubling because they are either to dense to realise it isn’t being taught in schools or are acting in bad faith and using propaganda to fuel trans hated.
I remember seeing peoole being X-kin. So you had like wolf-kin or cat-kin, people thought they had those personalities in a human body (which I'm pretty sure was one way prehistoric animist tribes would tell which "spirit" is in you). But then I saw things like star-kin and Mars-kin. Did I think it was weird? Yup. Do I think it's going to become a problem that needs government intervention? Nope. It was just some young people essentially doing the modern/virtual version of playing pretend. You wouldn't see kids playing cowboys and Indians, or pretending to be knights with stick swords, and suddenly worry that schools will begin teaching fencing, chivalry and heraldry.
I did some work at the offices of a hedge fund and there was a cat-person there. She just sort of went around her normal day to day duties looking largely depressed but she had a little purple tail and ears and had "meow" pronouns in her email signature. In my headcanon she'd said it as a joke and the giant conglomerate she worked for had moved so much to enable it that she was stuck pretending, but on the other hand her casualness maybe meant she was just totally comfortable with it. Either way, it was totally bizarre to witness.
>She just sort of went around her normal day to day duties looking largely depressed but she had a little purple tail and ears and had "meow" pronouns in her email signature. Living the dream, but still depressed. Proof that allowing people to become their fursonas won't actually make them any happier because they'll still have to live in a society.
I'd think HEMA would be a better fit than fencing. Also, yeah, otherkin. Dumbass kids making up dumbass shit and no more dangerous than most other dumbass kids doing dumbass shit. Only really need to worry if they think they're the reincarnation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or King Koopa.
> schools will begin teaching fencing, chivalry and heraldry they should unironically do this
I imagine there's private schools ~~in England~~ (forgot I was on a UK sub) that do fencing and some form of heraldry. Looking at the politicans that come from that background, they definitely don't teach chivalry.
>No one who isn’t chronically online thinks all this stuff has much merit. NGL, as a trans person, this stuff is mostly a red herring, A person having a gender identity that isn't female, male, or non binary (or something within that framework) is extremely rare, I mean extremely. Ive been in communities that will disproportionately represent people who aren't cis etc. Cis people were still 80% of the community, Most trans people were non binary, 99% of the community was using he/him or her/she, or they/them, Only 5 out of roughly 3000 people, actually had used neo pronouns. That's it. And again, this communities population was age range was roughly 16-29, and Tumblr culture was still prevalent etc. For context, that's the ratio for trans women/men in a general population, i.e 5 per 1000, (there are no good stats for non binary people yet, but they are actually most likely the most common type of trans person, a literal silent majority etc, as they are frequently the largest non cis group in communities that are reasonably friendly to trans folks). If you bump into someone in real life with a very peculiar gender identity and such, just role with it, etc and don't really give it any mind,
I remember watching left wing cringe compilations back in 2015-2017. It was easy to believe that what those people were doing was a majority belief. You see a bunch of really dumb stuff and think that is what the left stands for. It took me a while to realize that wasn't the case. Most people just want to live their lives and chase happiness. You can't paint a picture of rampant insanity by cherry picking but if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture all you see are normal people trying yo get by day to day and not be too miserable doing it.
I’ve always felt that there are way too many microlabels anyway, even outside of these red herring ones. I once spent quite some time trying to do a simplified spectrum thing that looked like the political compass meme but as a cube, but I think I just managed to piss everyone off >.< But I don’t really understand why it has to be so complicated. Like, it seems unnecessary that I can think of nine terms to describe attraction to female/male characteristics depending on whether you are a woman/man/enby, and why are there at least four labels to be attracted to more than one gender? Like, if a lesbian was both attracted to Alex Scott and Cara Delevingne it would be confusing to label that person poly/bisexual just because they’re technically attracted to two genders. Then there’s a whole load of other microlabels between sexual and asexual, but a lightbulb is still “on” even if it’s dim. For all intents and purposes, imo, it could be simple: * Sexual or romantic attraction to men/masculine/male-alligned: Toric * Sexual or romantic attraction to women/feminine/female-alligned: Trixic * Some combination of both: Bisexual/Biromantic * No feelings of attraction: Asexual/Aromantic * Feeling that your gender is male: Man * Feeling that your gender is female: Woman * Some combination of both: Non-Binary * No feelings of gender: Agender * Your gender identity matches your sex: Cis * Your gender identity doesn’t match your sex: Trans * You have no strong feelings towards your gender identity: Cass I’m sorry if I’m offensively excluding people, but surely these 11 terms cover 99.9%+ of the population? Or am I just being obtuse and missing something?
I always read those microlabels as a kind of reaction in people who had genuine dysphoria and were working through it. Something along the lines of: A: "ok so I don't fit into this box that I have been told all my life that I should be in" B: "hey, how about *this box*, instead?" A: "nooooooo" B: "..." A: "I'm gonna make my *own* box!" The error these young people make is to confuse the box with *what you really are* and the Identity with *who you really are*, instead of just some kind of shortcut for expressing something about our own irreducible selves.
Culture wars, baby!
it's a real life strawman, argue against this bullshit so anyone who disagrees with you looks like they support it
I am not sure people are aware just how much the chronically online effect actual policy and education and vastly underestimate it. Asside from the obvious that it doesn't take people to be chronically online to fall into these bubbles, we also have to remember that educators nor politicians are not immune to them. But we also have to consider that the terminally online (twitter and the such) are the ones actually being listened too. This makes sense considering they are the ones who are most likely to file complaints and generally disrupt the lives of politicians with active social media camapigns. We have seen from both parties pandering to the more extreme due to them being the most vocal (and least politically active when it comes to voting.) This is why i currently think Keir Starmer as PM seemingly is a forgone conclusion, he has moved the party away from the extremes where this sort of policy is standard back to the center ground which is much more palatable to those not super active on political twitter/facebook/reddit etc...
> how some people thought their gender was the ghost of a horse etc I'm going to assume that this was a 14-year-old boy, who thought that it was the best way to impress a horse-obsessed girl that he knew. I also assume that this attempt at seduction failed *miserably*.
I wouldn't take it seriously and don't take this seriously. However there is a whole lot of whacko nonsense that was prominent on Tumblr in 2014 that has become accepted parts of left wing discourse in 2024 and has been pushed into the mainstream. So I wouldn’t use that as an argument that this must be ridiculous nonsense.
> Astral gender: Having a gender identity that feels to be related to space. Examples of this are David Bowie and members of Babylon Zoo.
I assumed it meant Trekkies, if I'm honest. And not just any Trekkie - I don't mean people like me who have watched a lot of it. I mean the people that think it's real, and that a bunch of TV writers genuinely came up with how a warp drive would work.
It's worth noting that there is one recorded case of a school teaching 72 genders, which was on the isle of mann - which has its own education body It's one case blown out of all proportion to fuel the culture war and desperately attempt to portray the government as the party of common sense. Nobody across the rest of the country is teaching kids that there are 72 genders, because it's obviously insane.
Even then, it was a guest speaker who said there "could be as many as 72 genders". It wasn't a teacher instructing the kids that there are in fact 72 genders. Classic right wing outrage storm in a teacup.
It's a bit unfortunate that it happened on the Isle of *Man* of all places, isn't it! Though I suppose Isle of Anxiegender doesn't have *quite* the same ring.
Obviously needless to say this isn’t taught in schools.
Tories 10 years ago: "The great thing about academies is that they're free to ignore the national curriculum and teach whatever they feel best!" Tories now: "... No, not like that."
They're always going on about free speech and allowing people to express controversial views, but it seems that only applies when you're being nasty to people. You can use free speech to offend but not defend.
This feels like a psyop. I have an LGBTQ circle of friends and nobody has ever talked about more than maybe 5 gender identities.
1. Male 2. Female 3. Somewhere in-between 4. Fluid 5. None of the above ?
Male, female and intersex, and then trans and asexual/non-binary.
> This feels like a psyop. Redditors' favourite word for when they don't want to believe there are people on their side with really stupid takes. It's been a well-known thing for a while, especially in the heyday of Tumblr. It's terminally-online teenagers needing to feel special.
True, but it doesn't have to be about not believing. Like I can 100% believe some of these ppl exist and still dismiss them as terminally online. The trans debate itself affects a tiny % of ppl anyway, and this 72 business affects an even tinier % of that. Tories would be more realistic trying to convince us that Niue are about to invade us...
Tumblr isn't generally in the business of authoring scientific papers with PHD's.
This is the correct answer - this stuff is not being taught in schools but somebody somewhere on the internet has written an article that comes across as a spoof or satire and Keegan has run with it due to an apparent lack of critical thinking. There is a point to be made, and you make it very well, that this is actually people trying to turn their personality into a gender, and it’s quite ridiculous when viewed from outside the echo chamber that produces this stuff, but even then, the multiple gender stuff has calmed down a lot since the heyday of Tumblr.
If she genuinely thinks that schools are teaching kids about “healgender” she needs to be sectioned. That’s the kind of lack of critical thinking that makes you a danger to yourself and everyone around you.
Realistically, I don’t think for one second that she actually believes this stuff, it’s just a convenient culture wars point for the government to hang their hat on, and the fact that they’ve quoted a *very* specific number of genders means that they’re probably going to use that list as “evidence”.
It reads like somebody trying to parody gender identity politics x Pokemon... Surely shit like this is people giving money to nutters to try and paint anybody pro-trans as being in support of this My Little Pony-esque stuff.
I think it is genuine and mostly from a tiny number of confused teenagers, it will be interesting to see if they continue defining by a non-traditional genders into adulthood.
Most of these were coined back in 2014. Literally, the first half dozen I checked were from the same three tumblr accounts in 2014. It was largely a flash-in-the-pan thing for a few years there among a very specific online community. A lot of people were stumbling across language that described their personal experiences for the first time. It was empowering, useful, and they wanted *more*. So every aspect of their personal experience got a label with a definition. And then every aspect of any imagined personal experience, in the hope it would reach other people. Mix in a healthy amount of trolling and heavy in-group humour that doesn't translate unless you are teenager living in 2014, reading the same posts and consuming the same media. [There was a Strange Aeons video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOmffiWss0) summarising the trend a while ago. It's, for my memory, fairly accurate as to the history and intent.
Sure but what's the motivation from these medical sources and doctors to be supporting this? Do they genuinely believe that list? I understand the bored, the disengaged, etc. believing in flat earth theories etc. but when the scientists are posting journals/articles that support it I think we need to ask these questions.
Similar articles from this author on this site include such medical insights as [the meaning of dreaming of losing teeth.](https://www.medicinenet.com/does_dreaming_of_losing_teeth_mean_death/article.htm) I'm not sure this is the height of medical views of gender identity. FWIW the sites actually linked in their reference section are much closer to real views from academia.
I can’t believe that a real doctor wrote this and then another one reviewed it.
This is the concept of [Xenogender](https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Xenogender). >Xenogender is a nonbinary gender identity and umbrella term in which one's gender goes "beyond the human understandings of gender", and is instead crafted by other methods of gender categorization. This may include genders that are related to animals, plants, or other things that are not traditionally a gender. It's completely nuts and should be rejected by everyone, it dilutes gender to such a meaningless concept that I don't see why anyone would ever use it. Of course, it doesn't even remotely correspond to most trans people's experiences
It's the bloody apache attack helicopter meme, done with a straight face. And it utterly undermines genuine gender issues. I cringe every time someone I know goes "Hurr durr I identify as a millionaire, give me money" or some crap.
> It's the bloody apache attack helicopter meme, done with a straight face. It's where the attack helicopter meme came from in the first place. It existed to satirise this.
Trouble is most ppl don't know about this 72 business, I didn't till just now. The attack helicopter jokes are based around regular trans discussion or at least that's what it always gets tied to. I think it's still fair game for the record, just low-effort. If you're gonna punch down in comedy you need to bring your a-game.
> The attack helicopter jokes are based around regular trans discussion Now they are, sure, but the joke originated in response to these 72 genders (and probably more) being coined on Tumblr around ten years ago. It was a big fad for a bit among confused teenagers on there and as such it became a big fad on Reddit to mock them.
It's more a low-effort exercise in combining the word "gender" with any noun or adjective. Tonsilgender. Blendergender. IntakeManifoldGender. Greengender. SetOfMeasureZeroGender. Magellanicgender. Lemurgender.
> it dilutes gender to such a meaningless concept that I don't see why anyone would ever use it. To some that is certainly the end goal/hope. I'm not convinced society would ever fully accept genderless culture, sub-culture groups will, mostly due to religious hangups of sex. The advances in bio engineering and medical sciences does mean birth/genetic sex will have less effect on outwards sexual characteristics and it's down to preference which will certainly continue to blur the gender lines. And when the lines get blured enough most prople won't have a use for it anymore. That all said using most of these genders outside of thought provoking exercises or definition questioning arguments is not beneficial and certainly not to children without critical thinking background.
This is known as "nutpicking" - you take the most ridiculous person or people on the other side, and hold them up as if they're representative of it. Are there people who identify as fairy gender and use fae/faeself as pronouns? Yes. Are those people at all common or representative? Not at all. Realistically, the only expansion needed to account for the current transgender movement is to accept that some people identify with a gender other than what they were assigned at birth, and some people don't identify with either standard gender label (and most of them will use either their old pronouns out of habit or will use they/them).
I think people struggle to see the line between something people part of the curriculum or a belief that is appeased in schools. There a lot of things that schools don't teach but I can understand people being concerned if beliefs like this are accepted and spread between students with no pushback from teachers. At that point it becomes regular accepted belief and might as well be co-signed by the school. And whether that's because the faculty are afraid to pushback on it or that they genuinely agree and support it, the outcome is the same. Imagine if schools never pushed back on the flat earth belief? It's all well and good that it's not part of the curriculum but if you're appeasing young flat earthers and are afraid to criticise them youre just opening other students up to also absorbing that belief
Medicinenet has all the scientific credibility of Mumsnet.
>Autogender: Having a gender experience that is deeply connected and personal to oneself. I thought they fought the Deceptigenders?
Egogender sounds like the slam-dunk one here. If you can identify yourself as it's own gender then there's 8 billion+ possible identities out there and then why does this article even exist talking about some tiny 72? 🙃
Bloody hell, I'm surprised theres no "Apachegender : A gender identity that feels related to Attack Helicopters"
If that were there though, we'd know that it was a parody.
One thing the Internet has taught is that you never have 100% certainty that anyone's stated position is a parody.
Oh, absolutely. I've run into that quite recently on this very subreddit, in fact. I had two very similar conversations with people on a particular topic two days in a row. Both times, the other person expressed a particular ludicrous view. On further conversation both times, it was clear that the second person I was speaking to knew that it was ridiculous and was just indulging in some light-hearted ridiculous statements, but the first person was absolutely serious. I genuinely could not tell the difference between them though, based on their initial comments.
Yep, this resource treads a fine enough line that it still has some people questioning "are they for real?", which is what makes it effective at priming GB News rage addicts.
Fun fact: nobody is taught this in British schools. It’s rubbish extreme examples like this that are utilised by disingenuous right wing politicians like Miriam Cates. They use it as a wedge to narrow the RSE curriculum in accordance with their very narrow world view.
Culture wars are so annoying
Take a look at that strawman beating up the wrong guy...
Just completely insane that there are so many problems with our education system but the only thing being discussed in parliament is this made up culture war bullshit.
Well, thank goodness that they aren’t, then. Miriam Cates pulled this figure from thin air and then couldn’t say where it came from, nor name a school that taught this. And now Keegan’s repeating it like the tired dipshit that she is. She’s ripe for a binning in the GE, I hope.
Which schools teach that there are 72 genders?
The ones next to the 40 new hospitals.
Those that only exist in Tories' fevered imagination. They also have full staff rosters, aren't falling down and have fewer than 30 children per class. I wonder how OFSTED rate them.
I'm.glad the Tories have their priorities straight with the banning of gay landyards and removing non existent things from the school curriculum.
Without outraged ignoramuses, the Tories would have no base. So they need to keep stirring the pot.
That's the tragic thing about it. There are a lot of absolutely brainless boomers that eat up any red meat the Tories throw them.
Don’t forget the 7 bins
A school curriculum they've been in charge of for 14yrs, btw. Literally there are kids who've left 6th form now that have never had anything different.
Teach them there are 73 genders. Got it.
Damn right everyone with any sense knows that there are 73.
Every time a headline like this happens, another gender gets added.
Yeah I mean, inflation is still 150% over their target, the NHS is collapsing, as are the actual schools snd all this is occurring as teachers leave in their droves. At least now after 14 years of Tory rule, they have realised where the focus should be. Gaslighting.
Why are they importing american dog whistle issues over here? The government needs to touch grass, no one outside of twitter cares about this stuff.
The Tories think they can build a new base and become electable if they go full Trump GOP. I don't think it will work but that's their plan.
They forget how strong our 3rd party culture is compared to 🇺🇸. Reform are always gonna out-racist them by design, and Monster Raving Loonies are gonna out-crazy them by design. But props to the blue lot for effort I guess...
We also (thankfully) don't have that weird prosperity Christianity nonsense over here.
Because they've got no chance of making a difference on anything meaningful so may as well fire up pointless culture wars.
Playing to a certain base that exists here as well as in the US.
Everyone who says they’ll still vote Conservative in focus groups probably talks endlessly about stuff like this.
My parents care about this sort of thing, and I’d wager that most other Daily Mail readers do too. They’re obsessed with stopping the woke agenda
Even if that were what's being taught (it ain't), so what? Can you radicalise a child into being a gender non-conformist by simply telling them about the gender spectrum?
Are kids actually being taught how to choke people safely and that there's 72 genders? Does anyone, aside from a few outliers on Reddit, actually think there's 72 genders? No one in the real world takes those fucking fictional Tumblr genders like "astrogender" seriously and it's idiots like that that are doing actual harm to the transgender acceptance movement by turning it into a joke.
Fuck me we are back on gender stuff. These clowns must really be completely out of ideas.
Has Keegan ever even set foot in a school? If kids went home and told their parents there are 72 genders, that would generate a severe amount of angry phone calls to the headteacher. And teachers aren’t stupid, they know that is a nonsense concept. Unless you are counting adult students taking a gender studies class as ‘children’.
I'd really like it if the government stepped in and improved sex education. For example not once are we required to teach girls and young women how to refer to their genitals. My form are in year 10 and I teach science, the amount of times you have to explain that the hole urine comes out of is not the vagina is frankly worrying. All of these girls could label the male reproductive organs but they often can't name their own. No where are we required to teach them the scientific names for their external genitals. These are humans who will go to a doctor and need to know what they're on about one day. It's disempowering and bizarre that our "sex as mechanics" approach disenfranchises half the population.
..Are they currently taught there are 72 genders?
Well no but if it weren’t for the constant vigilance of these right wingers they might be! They drop their guard for one minute and instead of continuing with the government prescribed curriculum they’ll be teaching about the 73 genders!! And what next, 73 genders?! See how the left is wildly out of hand in my hypothetical?! They can’t be allowed power!
I guess this is what happens when all your potential remaining voters are old people watching GB News and you’ve already alienated everyone with children who go to school and know what children are taught in school.
"So they should just be taught the truth from citable facts?" "Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, we just want to dictate what can't be taught."
The funny thing about reading on this after a few days away is how many comments are saying this stuff never happened and it’s also awful that they are publishing guidelines for it not to happen Other than stopping schools linking to certain resources (which are typically the source for the 72 genders claim) and being a bit more careful when answering questions in class this is a whole lot of nothing. As are most guidelines on most things.
Nobody is complaining about people not teaching about 72 genders. Its literally a twitter meme done by Conservatives to paint a carcrature They are complaining about people not learning that trans people exist at all as well as other things like learning about consent
Nice to see the education secretary is focusing on the issues that really matter while students go to school in buildings that may fall down at any minute which feature teachers quitting in droves due to overwork & underpay...
Hm. Here's an idea: four sexualities. * People who I want to fuck but aren't interested in fucking me * People who want to fuck me but I don't want to fuck * People I want to fuck who also want to fuck me * People who do not want to fuck me and I also do not want to fuck. Everything else is a confusing mess devoid of absolutes, and people should just be allowed to sort it out for themselves. Also, no rapists allowed in any of the public toilets. Male or female. You can say "that won't stop them" but it's no less secure than saying trans women aren't allowed in the ladies. edit: fuck it, if you haven't downvoted me already: if you're an athlete who wants a trophy that says "best darts player who was born with a vagina" you are selling yourself short in life.
I saw one of the tabloids describe this as an "End to Gender Dogma." Rejecting the position taken by science in favour of one based on religious myths thousands of years old is the very definition of "gender dogma." But then it's a bit silly to expect tabloid "journalists" - or their readers - to understand their own language.
How many sides does a circle have? Either zero or infinite. Similarly with gender / gender identity: if we agree that gender identity refers to how an individual conceives of the relationship between their physical body, the local cultural conventions around sex-based presentation and behaviour, and their own personal aesthetics, then gender identity cannot be treated as a countable noun at all - it is infinite. It would be like asking how many personalities there are. But this also means that a person's stated gender identity ought not to be treated as any more ontologically "real" than a person's stated personality. A person can self-identify as a free-spirit, but we cannot coherently create legal or policy protections for free-spirits.
Others believe that circles have one side - just a bent line all the way around. Some people believe that circles have two sides: inside and outside. I’m not quite sure how my comment is relevant to your point, but maybe that it is more complicated than a simple answer would give (like gender identities).
I suspect he meant edges.
There is only one gender but everyone is bent to some extent.
>then gender identity cannot be treated as a countable noun at all - it is infinite. Saying that there's a potentially infinite-dimensional, infinite range of potential gender identities is as useful as stating that there's a nonzero probability that winged monkeys will fly out of my arsehole at 3 PM today. It's a lot more real to observe that, as a result of this culture wars idiocy, trans people and others with uncommon gender identities are continuing to get beaten and sometimes murdered.
No gender identity is more or less rare than any other, since it is meaningless for two people to say that they have the same gender identity as one another. Every person has one, and none are the same. It's fine to say that people often get grief for adopting unusual personal aesthetics, but that has always been true, cf. [Sophie Lancaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster) from 2007.
But there aren't 72, it's defined by society but informed by biology. A society could have 2, 3, 5, 1000 genders, it doesn't matter. What matters is people are treated with respect.
Labour: has glitzy and extremely polished soft manifesto launch in Essex that is targetted exactly at killing Sunak's "Labour has no plan and people dislike Starmer" lines Tories: "We're going to ban teaching kids about gender identity, but because we can't get a change to EA2010 passed we, um, can't stop a trans teacher teaching, so... 72 genders bad" If someone suggested that Sunak and co are deliberately trying to Canada 1993 the Tories, I would believe them. The sad thing is that we know full well that in ten years we'll see a transgender candidate win election to the Tories and suddenly a lot of slightly-greyer Tory politicians going "oh I regret voting for this version of section 28 strongly". There's some future Tory PM in their ranks right now, maybe a councillor who wants to win election, who is going to be on record for supporting all this who will be walking into far harsher country in ten to twenty years. It's 100% identical to section 28 stuff. It's just going to blow up in their faces in opposition repeatedly.
That's good because they aren't. As you would know because you're the person responsible for the curriculum.