Have they gone nuts? Nurseries are told not to call children 'boys' and 'girls' and to use 'humanity' instead of 'mankind' in bid to stamp out gender discrimination (and even stories about Mr Squirrel are banned!)

Syl wrote:One more that should be filed under "Has the world gone mad" banner.

I swear some disturbed people will not be happy till male and female identification is banned completely from our society.   .

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:One more that should be filed under "Has the world gone mad" banner.

I swear some disturbed people will not be happy till male and female identification is banned completely from our society.   .

Exactly Syl. The vast majority of people are male and female. So why try to erase this biological fact?

There is nothing worse than when science comes under attack, by the PC culture.

Syl wrote:

Thor wrote:


Exactly Syl. The vast majority of people are male and female. So why try to erase this biological fact?

There is nothing worse than when science comes under attack, by the PC culture.

More and more we are reading about the minority, sadly often in charge of the majority, who are conning people in this way...and it is a con.
No one in their right mind, no matter what age group they are, should object to being addressed by the sex they are. A boy is a boy and a girl is a girl...IF they are genuinely transgender, it can be addressed at the right time.
To pander to the tiny few by forcing the vast majority to comply is ridiculous.

nicko wrote:I,m sick to death of the bloody left leaning Snowflakes, why don't they MAN UP ?

nicko wrote:PS who's telling them this bollocks ?  It always says "they have been told"  ,  who the bloody hell is THEY ?

Tommy Monk wrote:These idiots need shooting...

nicko wrote:I,m sick to death of the bloody left leaning Snowflakes, why don't they MAN UP ?

Lord Foul wrote:I reference eils posts on xanother thread where to paraphrase, he said, that these minority LW views of insignificant lefties should be ignored by us RW types and that he couldnt see what harm it caused so let em get on with it.

Now we see how these idiotic and dangerous ideas get slipped into mainstream life, and rammed down the throat of a basically compliant (because they have been educated not to actually THINK,) population, via a LW dominated and controlled Semi govt organisation.

Rachel Adamson, director of Zero Tolerance, said: “Gender stereotypes encourage restrictive ideas of what it means to be a boy or a girl.

“They teach girls to be pretty and not to play with ‘boy’s toys’ such as cars and sports.

“They teach boys to be unemotional and not to play with ‘girl’s toys’ like baby dolls and art.

“Segregating toys in this way limits play, which is crucial to how children develop and learn about the world.”

She added: “The damaging effects of these early gender stereotypes are experienced by all children, but particularly by girls, from a young age, impacting their self-esteem, well-being, job choices and income.

“Evidence also shows that in societies with more gender stereotyping there are higher levels of violence against women.

“By tackling gender stereotyping, we can give children the opportunity to play and learn without the restrictions these stereotypes place on them.”

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Here's some good reporting about the intent behind the new initiative that the Daily Mail must have overlooked:

Rachel Adamson, director of Zero Tolerance, said: “Gender stereotypes encourage restrictive ideas of what it means to be a boy or a girl.

“They teach girls to be pretty and not to play with ‘boy’s toys’ such as cars and sports.

“They teach boys to be unemotional and not to play with ‘girl’s toys’ like baby dolls and art.

“Segregating toys in this way limits play, which is crucial to how children develop and learn about the world.”

She added: “The damaging effects of these early gender stereotypes are experienced by all children, but particularly by girls, from a young age, impacting their self-esteem, well-being, job choices and income.

“Evidence also shows that in societies with more gender stereotyping there are higher levels of violence against women.

“By tackling gender stereotyping, we can give children the opportunity to play and learn without the restrictions these stereotypes place on them.”

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/12/12/childcare-providers-urged-to-promote-gender-equal-play/

That sounds quite sensible to me. The rules they've come up with are insane, but the intent sounds noble, actually.

I make a conscious effort not to harp too much on my stepdaughter's appearance, because I want her to be more than an Essex Girl. Because she is more than that. Because most Essex Girls are more than an Essex Girl, but society fills people's minds with bullshit.

So my conclusion - criticize the tactics? Most definitely. But understand the intent, too, because it's not crazy to say that children shouldn't be stuffed into little boxes.

Children as young as 9 months-old prefer to play with toys specific to their own gender, according to a new study. The research suggests the possibility that boys and girls follow different developmental trajectories with respect to selection of gender-typed toys and that there is both a biological and a developmental-environmental components to the sex differences seen in object preferences.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm

Had you asked any group of social scientists — left-wing, centrist, conservative (if you could find them) — 30 years ago “Will egalitarian social policies in wealthy countries produce men and women who are more similar or more different?” the majority would have certainly said, “more similar.” And, to some degree, that has happened. Women have entered the workforce en masse, and are participating at levels approaching or exceeding equality in many of the domains that were male majority prior to the 1960s. But …

And this is a major but. We seem to have reached the point of diminishing, or even reversing returns. Over the last five decades or so, psychologists have aggregated great numbers of descriptions of personality traits, using adjectives, phrases and sentences, throwing virtually every descriptor contained in human language into the mix, in a remarkably atheoretical manner. The method? Describe people every which way imaginable, and then use large samples and powerful statistics to sort out the resulting mess. The results? Something approaching a consensus among psychologists expert in measurement, known as psychometricians (or, less technically, personality psychologists). The latter happens to be my field, in addition to clinical psychology. When you ask thousands of people hundreds of questions (or ask them to rate themselves using descriptive adjectives such as “kind,” “competitive,” “happy,” “anxious,” “creative,” “diligent,” etc.) powerful statistics can identify patterns. People who describe themselves as “kind” tend not to consider themselves “competitive,” for example, but are likely to accept “cooperative” and “caring.” Likewise, creative types might regard themselves as “curious” and “inventive,” while the diligent types are also “dutiful” and “orderly.”

Once a relatively standard model had been agreed upon, and been deemed reliable and valid, then differences, such as those between the sexes, could be investigated. What emerged? First, men and women are more similar than they are different. Even when men and women are most different — in those cultures where they differ most, and along those trait dimensions where they differ most — they are more similar than different. However, the differences that do exist  are large enough so that they play an important role in determining or at least affecting important life outcomes, such as occupational choice.

Where are the largest differences? Men are less agreeable (more competitive, harsher, tough-minded, skeptical, unsympathetic, critically-minded, independent, stubborn). This is in keeping with their proclivity, also documented cross-culturally, to manifest higher rates of violence and antisocial or criminal behavior, such that incarceration rates for men vs women approximate 10:1. Women are higher in negative emotion, or neuroticism. They experience more anxiety, emotional pain, frustration, grief, self-conscious doubt and disappointment. This seems to emerge at puberty.

There are other sex differences as well, but they aren’t as large, excepting that of interest: men are comparatively more interested in things and women in people. This is the largest psychological difference between men and women yet identified. And these differences drive occupational choice, particularly at the extremes. Engineers, for example, tend to be those who are not only interested in things, but who are more interested in things than most people, men or women.

It’s very important to remember that many choices are made at the extreme, and not the average. It’s not the average more aggressive/less agreeable male that’s in prison. In fact, if you draw a random man and a random woman from the population, and you bet that the woman is more aggressive/less agreeable, you’d be correct about 40% of the time. But if you walked into a roomful of people everyone of whom had been selected to be the most aggressive person out of a 100, almost every one of them would be male.

So even though men and women are more the same than they are different, the differences can matter.

What happens if you look at sex differences in personality and interest by country? Are the differences bigger in some countries and smaller in others? Would the differences between men and women be larger or smaller in wealthier countries? In more egalitarian countries? The answer: the more egalitarian and wealthier the country, the larger the differences between men and women in temperament and in interest. And the relationship is not small. The most recent study, published in Science (by researchers at Berkeley, hardly a hotbed of conservatism and patriarchy) showed a relationship between a wealth/egalitarian composite measure and sex differences that was larger than that reported in 99% of published social science studies. These are not small-scale studies. Tens of thousands of people have participated in them. And many different groups of scientists have come to the same conclusions, and published those results in very good journals.

Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that differences in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, this indicates that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome.

This is a big problem — particularly if the goal of such egalitarian policies was to minimize the differences between men and women. It’s actually a fatal problem for a particular political view. The facts can be denied, but only at the cost of throwing out social science in its entirety and a good bit of biology as well. That is simply not a reasonable solution.

The best explanation, so far, for the fact of the growing differences is that there are two reasons for the differences between men and women: biology and culture. If you minimize the cultural differences (as you do with egalitarian social policies) then you allow the biological differences to manifest themselves fully. I have seen social scientists struggle to offer a cultural explanation, but I haven’t heard any such hypothesis that is the least bit credible, and have been unable to formulate one myself.

There are also those who insist that we just haven’t gone far enough in our egalitarian attempts — that even Scandinavia and The Netherlands, arguably the world’s most egalitarian societies, are still rampantly patriarchal — but that doesn’t explain why the sex differences have grown, rather than shrunk, as those cultures have become demonstrably more equal in social policy.

Those who adopt this viewpoint, despite its apparent logical impossibility, maintain that we must  redouble our efforts to socialize little boys and girls in exactly the same manner — rendering all toys gender-neutral, questioning even the idea of gender identity itself — and believe that such maneuvering will finally bring us to the ideal utopia, where every occupation and every strata of authority within every occupation is manned (so to speak) by 50% men and 50% women. Why should we launch large-scale experiments aimed at transforming the socialization of children when we have no idea what the outcome might be? And why should we presume that we know how to eliminate gender identity among young children? Finally, why exactly is it a problem if men and women, freed to make the choices they would make when confronted with egalitarian opportunities, happen to make different choices?

So, this is the Scandinavian conundrum —  one that also affects the broader Western world (and the rest of the world, soon enough). Policies that maximize equality of opportunity make equality of outcome increasingly impossible. The doctrine, ever more radically and loudly insisted upon by the politically correct, that sex differences are only socially constructed is wrong. Get it? Wrong.

It’s no wonder that when I came bearing this news the Swedish Foreign Minister (a proud member of the world’s only self-proclaimed feminist government) suggested publicly that I crawl back under my rock, and that one of Sweden’s leading female politicians objected on prime time TV that her daughter could be raised to be anything she wants to be. But facts is facts, I’m afraid, and no amount of neo-Marxist leftist postmodern suggestion that social science is a patriarchal construction is going to make the ugly truth disappear: Men and women are similar. But they are importantly different.

The differences matter, particularly at the extremes, particularly with regard to occupational choice and its concomitants. There are going to be more male criminals, and more male engineers, and more females with diagnoses of depression and anxiety, and more female nurses. And there are going to be differences in economic outcome associated with this variance.

Game over, utopians.

And that’s why the information I shared during my visit to Scandinavia caused a scandal that continues to reverberate.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-gender-scandal-in-scandinavia-and-canada

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Here's some good reporting about the intent behind the new initiative that the Daily Mail must have overlooked:

Rachel Adamson, director of Zero Tolerance, said: “Gender stereotypes encourage restrictive ideas of what it means to be a boy or a girl.

“They teach girls to be pretty and not to play with ‘boy’s toys’ such as cars and sports.

“They teach boys to be unemotional and not to play with ‘girl’s toys’ like baby dolls and art.

“Segregating toys in this way limits play, which is crucial to how children develop and learn about the world.”

She added: “The damaging effects of these early gender stereotypes are experienced by all children, but particularly by girls, from a young age, impacting their self-esteem, well-being, job choices and income.

“Evidence also shows that in societies with more gender stereotyping there are higher levels of violence against women.

“By tackling gender stereotyping, we can give children the opportunity to play and learn without the restrictions these stereotypes place on them.”

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/12/12/childcare-providers-urged-to-promote-gender-equal-play/

That sounds quite sensible to me. The rules they've come up with are insane, but the intent sounds noble, actually.

I make a conscious effort not to harp too much on my stepdaughter's appearance, because I want her to be more than an Essex Girl. Because she is more than that. Because most Essex Girls are more than an Essex Girl, but society fills people's minds with bullshit.

So my conclusion - criticize the tactics? Most definitely. But understand the intent, too, because it's not crazy to say that children shouldn't be stuffed into little boxes.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I don't think anyone is trying to say that the sexes are exactly the same.

Rather, they've identified a problem in that the sexes are becoming increasingly polarized, which does seem to be the case.

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I don't think anyone is trying to say that the sexes are exactly the same.

Rather, they've identified a problem in that the sexes are becoming increasingly polarized, which does seem to be the case.

So you think this ideolgical nonense that has already been seen in practice in Scandinavia. Where it did the opposite it set out to do. Is now time we applied the same failed reasoning over here then?

Again what is there to porve that any of this will have any effect?

Can they even predict the possible consequencs of such policies on youngsters?

eddie wrote:Sometimes, you don’t, won’t, read what is really being said.

It isn’t about being correct. It’s about listening.  

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I don't think anyone is trying to say that the sexes are exactly the same.

Rather, they've identified a problem in that the sexes are becoming increasingly polarized, which does seem to be the case.

Syl wrote:I liked the days when was men were men and women were glad of it myself.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I liked the days when was men were men and women were glad of it myself.

Those are now called rapists.  

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Those are now called rapists.  

I think your definition of a man possibly doesn't concur with mine.

Syl wrote:I liked the days when was men were men and women were glad of it myself.

nicko wrote:Quill, are you now , or have you ever been a Rapist?

                      That's Lawyer speak !

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Quill, are you now , or have you ever been a Rapist?



                      That's Lawyer speak !

Donald Trump says Mexicans are rapists.  I'm a Scottish American, not a Mexican.

But as soon as he is opposed by a few from non-shithole countries, they too will be rapists.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Donald Trump says Mexicans are rapists.  I'm a Scottish American, not a Mexican.

But as soon as he is opposed by a few from non-shithole countries, they too will be rapists.

Why did you say that men are called rapists then? You're not Scottish anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think your definition of a man possibly doesn't concur with mine.

Why is it 'my' definition?  I just said that people call them ("those are called") rapists.  I haven't stated my opinion or definition on the matter.