[sfem]

The part of this which is relevant to this forum is the advice being given to hide your differences from the norm. It is really terrible advice to be given out so blindly. It may well be applicable to some. It most certainly isn't applicable to all. And the advisor is in no position to judge whether it applies. Don't swallow it.
I wrote up a long and very detailed rebuttal to the things I disagreed with in Bryony's postings and Richard Littlejohn's despicable act. But you're right AnnabelP, 90% of it doesn't belong here. So here are the one or two excerpts that might help people on this forum to understand that what they are doing is not harmful to others, and they shouldn't have to hide themselves unless they want to.

Bryony. Hate speech is always a bad thing. Period. It doesn't matter if it is enabled, empowered, and propagated by the press. Even if the press outlet is recognized to be a hate speech panderer.

sfem, have you read the original article? Quite tricky since it seems to have been removed. I didn't see hate speech there. I don't support necessarily what he says, but I do think free speech is important.

Of course I did. I'm not in the habit of judging things of which I am ignorant. Your post actually has some resemblance to what he wrote. He writes that the teacher shouldn't have stayed at their current place of employment, so do you. He writes that the school isn't doing the right thing by following the law and being supportive of her transition, so do you. He writes he isn't against people transitioning and then proceeds to describe it as something which children shouldn't be exposed to. You imply she did harm to her family and you say she shouldn't have transitioned without concealing it.

I don't believe that the victim is at fault, but I do think that the situation would have occurred without the article petitioned against.

Yes we know. Rather oracular. You already wrote they should have tried to stop her and she shouldn't have transitioned and if she did, she should have had it come out prettier and she should have moved somewhere that she could try to hide her dirty little secret and then maybe the bad people wouldn't have been bad with her unless they found her hiding spot. Nice message to put forward in this group.

Unfortunately, many of the parents believed that it was harmful to their very young kids to see their male teacher suddenly dressed up as a woman. I'm not saying I agree with that, but why is the taking of offense only a one-way street? Several parents found the concept offensive, but you understandably dismiss that as bigotry.

Did you catch the part where he suggested parents should think their child is harmed because they drew a picture of the teacher looking like he had a female hair length and style? It is actually a wonderful piece of evidence (meagre though it is without any surrounding detail) that the children had no problem with it at all, and were perhaps even intellectually and emotionally stimulated by learning something new in school.

Stop blaming her. She wasn't a man dressed up as a woman. She was a woman dressed up as a man for a long time. As it happens, that is fine in our society. Talk about your one-way streets.

This is the problem with freedom. If it means anything, it means the freedom to offend.

It means the freedom to express ideas and thoughts. It is not the unbridled freedom to spew unreasoning (he never does identify what is wrong with her actions, just says he doesn't like them), deceitful (he says the children had it forced down their throats and the children are confused implying children are never in need of having anything in life explained by their parents or schools, he says she is making them afraid they'll turn into girls where he is actually one of the people doing that, he says they will be punished if they make a mistake where in fact they earn punishment for bad behaviour around her just like around any other person at the school), hateful (language such as "lifestyle choice", "are you sitting comfortably children","What are you staring at", "devastating effect", "Why should they be forced", "aren't equipped to compute", "her personal problems"), paranoid garbage ("The school shouldn’t be allowed to elevate its ‘commitment to diversity and equality’ above its duty of care to its pupils and their parents."). The school's commitment to diversity and equality *is* part of its duty of care to its pupils and parents. I take exceptions to more that he wrote, but I am hesitant to give it more voice than it has already had.

If you want to allow someone to offend, at least insist they be honest in their statements, and have cause to do so and a goal to achieve by it that is rational and worthwhile to the species. Otherwise, it is just giving offense.

If you live here and you read the news you find sensationalist exposures like this all the time.

Yeah, um, I'm going to go ahead and say that's a bad thing and the point of this whole thread. If you don't feel you have a way to fight it, fine. But don't excuse it.

I'm entitled to have my opinions as much as anyone, and I don't see why I should see something discussed and keep quiet when I don't agree with it for fear of someone ranting at me.

That's pretty much exactly what went through my head when you originally posted. I'm not given to arguing in forums. But there needs to be a response to your position because it is relevant to everyone on this forum, including the GGs who are here trying to modify what nature handed them in order to improve their joy in life.

Oh, and btw, I didn't sign the petition for several reasons not the least of which is that the Daily Mail doesn't give a rat's ass how I feel about them. Did you like how I kept my post in line with the evolving theme involving rodent posteriors?