The example of the man in the changing room with girls seems a perfect example of the ridiculousness that ensues with a strict adherence to a hierarchy of oppression. And in this hierarchy a transwoman outranks girl children. It doesn't matter if the children are extremely uncomfortable (as they should be, if they begin to feel comfortable being around adult men who are strangers and naked, that is not good, it's bad). If the transwoman will feel hurt by being banned from a girl's locker room then that is the priority. Adults need to put their foot down. And yes, I think it is particularly important for men to have a strong voice in these types of instances, that they can and will protect girls when needed.
Kate and Alejandra, a terrific, jam-packed round-up as always, thank you so much. I watched My Shadow Is Pink with interest. While I would love to hear from parents in the thick of this about their views, my preliminary thought is that while, in the absence of current context, the video could be seen as simply supporting different ways for children to express themselves, unfortunately, in the current environment, I am concerned that its use is likely to be quite problematic. Many schools right now can be fairly seen as pipelines for fostering a belief that a child can be born in the wrong body and that the “fix” for that is medicalization. My Shadow Is Pink can easily fall right in line with that: boy likes pink, teacher says maybe you’re really a girl, boy then socially transitions, and on it goes. Until and unless we can be confident that teachers will not use the video in service of those ends, I am uncomfortable with using it as a teaching tool. I would instead encourage, for example, use of books like Rachel Rooney’s My Body Is Me, and a whole host of other books/videos that don’t wade into these dangerous waters. (Michael Rosen is another terrific children’s author. Here, from him, is “We’re Going on a Bear Hunt”: https://youtu.be/0gyI6ykDwds).
I also wanted to comment on My Shadow Is Pink. A few thoughts:
The book doesn't actually say that a boy who likes pink/sparkles/dancing is not a boy, so that's good. However, it does draw a sharp distinction between things that are "boy things" like axes and science and being big and strong, and things that are "girl things" like dancing and painting. Most or all of the characters in the story that had shadows that were interested in other things exhibited the boy/girl divide, which certainly reinforces the notion that certain things are for boys and certain things are for girls. Now, it is generally the case (at this point in our Western history) that girls will be more interested in dancing and painting, but do we need to refer to this in a children's book? Or is it perhaps better just to show various characters, both boys and girls, who are simply doing different things and are interested in different things? Why is it necessary to really obviously point this out?
This brings a larger point about children's literature that I've observed as a parent and as a library worker who deals with a lot of children's picture books and fiction. We seem to have a notion that kids must be represented in the books they read. Perhaps most of us think: well, of course, kids want to see characters who are like them. Fine, but is that really that important?
There are underlying assumptions that 1. children will not respond as well to books with characters who are not like them, and 2. that seeing characters like them in books is somehow therapeutic or empowering. I would question both these assumptions, and I would point out that this well-intentioned desire led us to create books that are not meant to be read to a group of kids, and perhaps not really meant to be read to kids at all.
I see so many books for young children (picture books and easy chapter books) about divorce, about a parent who is in jail, about the death of a loved one, about depression and other mental health issues, etc. etc. I know for a fact that as a child I would have been mortified if a teacher read out a book about a girl who immigrated to another country and who is being bullied (my particular situation in childhood), even if the story had a nice moral and ended happily ever after. I know my husband would have been mortified to hear a story read in class about a boy who is so poor he has nothing in the house to eat except flour and oil. The other children know who is being referenced, and it's the worst feeling in the world to have your private life exposed like this.
Even if the books are read without a particular child in mind, I really don't understand why all children in primary school need to know about death, depression, poverty, police brutality, etc. This can certainly be something that a therapist uses (gently and hopefully knowledgeably) to help his or her young patient deal with some kind of difficult life event. Or a parent can potentially use a book to help his or her child understand something challenging. But writing children's books that are meant to be used as teaching tools to promote a certain kind of world view or behavior (as this one certainly is meant to do) is, in my opinion, just wrong. They are usually not as interesting because they are obviously moralizing, and they are limited because they are discussing one particular experience and cannot be applied to general life situations.
If you have a gender non-conforming child in your classroom and you want the kids to treat him kindly, read books about friendships, where characters show kindness to one another. Don't limit it to sex-stereotypes or gender roles.
I'm sorry I went on a bit of a rant and on a tangent, but this is an issue I'm quite passionate about. I loathe bad children's literature.
Thank you for your comment re Florida bill HB599. I agree. DeSantis' tit-for-tat attitude really gets to me. I don't understand why every problem needs to be met with a "I'll do you one better". It seems that not many see it that way, thinking he's just great. So I appreciate your comment!
I can't find the Swimming Canada story in ANYTHING except highly unreliable, far-right media. Nadda thing. It's not even in the National Post, our conservative but not ultra-right-wing newspaper. Are you sure about this? Please check your sources.
The Sun broke the story, and it fits in with the type of sensational tabloid journalism they like to run, but Media Bias Fact Check rates them as "mostly factual"...it's been picked up by other tabloids like the Daily Mail and the New York Post...the Sun did have statements from Swimming Canada and Swim Ontario, although Wiseheart has so far refused to comment. What part do you think is not true? I can see from the Caledon Enterprise that Wiseheart has been competing with women in Canada since at least 2010, but it's unclear if and when that started to include competing with girls https://www.caledonenterprise.com/news/caledon-couple-break-down-transgender-stereotypes/article_0a4a3180-fbfe-5726-be2e-5d78ca8f7793.html
What I do when I find provocative news stories in the far right press is to Google key details, like names & places and 'transgender' and 'sexual assault' and whatever to see if I can find a more mainstream, somewhat less biased and more factual sources, and most times I can. But, sometimes the far-right media is the *only* one telling the story and it turns out to be true - like Rebel News (notoriously far-right Canadian newspaper) breaking the story about the Oakville high school shop teacher acquiring large prosthetic breasts and suddenly going 'trans' (and being photographed in his own 'hood looking like a dude, sans breasts). It strikes me as weird that even the National Post doesn't mention this - they're conservative, but not crazy-ass conservative, and ranks high for factualism. They love this sort of story so it's unusual to me that they haven't covered it *at all*. The Sun is 'mostly factual' although I've seen it rank lower in the past, so I don't take it too seriously although I have confirmed other stories reported there. Usually, if a story is true you can find a few brave lefty or moderate news sources covering it; a few times, like with Kayla Lemieux (the busty shop teacher) I had to get the scoop from Reddit, also not the greatest source, but enough Googling time and again about it revealed that it did happen. (I figured Oakvillians would be bitching about it somewhere).
This just doesn't seem quite right to me, *yet*. It might be like the Rebel News story, something that takes awhile to hit the mainstream. So I'm not saying it didn't happen, I did confirm that the TG guy exists and swims, but I'm not quite convinced yet that he's in the changing room. If someone wants to come up with a decent source, I'm happy to look at it. I wanted to link to it in one of my own articles, but I'm holding off until/unless I can find a better source than what I see so far.
It could be that the Red Team extreme stance on this is a ploy to undermine the popularity of Trump, since a significant number of their party elites are as virulently opposed to the Orange Dumpster Fire as the Blue Team. Our overlords will go to any lengths to undermine any scent of populism, real or not, to maintain their ability to continue the planetary plunder and pillage without any pesky straying from the playbook.
The example of the man in the changing room with girls seems a perfect example of the ridiculousness that ensues with a strict adherence to a hierarchy of oppression. And in this hierarchy a transwoman outranks girl children. It doesn't matter if the children are extremely uncomfortable (as they should be, if they begin to feel comfortable being around adult men who are strangers and naked, that is not good, it's bad). If the transwoman will feel hurt by being banned from a girl's locker room then that is the priority. Adults need to put their foot down. And yes, I think it is particularly important for men to have a strong voice in these types of instances, that they can and will protect girls when needed.
Kate and Alejandra, a terrific, jam-packed round-up as always, thank you so much. I watched My Shadow Is Pink with interest. While I would love to hear from parents in the thick of this about their views, my preliminary thought is that while, in the absence of current context, the video could be seen as simply supporting different ways for children to express themselves, unfortunately, in the current environment, I am concerned that its use is likely to be quite problematic. Many schools right now can be fairly seen as pipelines for fostering a belief that a child can be born in the wrong body and that the “fix” for that is medicalization. My Shadow Is Pink can easily fall right in line with that: boy likes pink, teacher says maybe you’re really a girl, boy then socially transitions, and on it goes. Until and unless we can be confident that teachers will not use the video in service of those ends, I am uncomfortable with using it as a teaching tool. I would instead encourage, for example, use of books like Rachel Rooney’s My Body Is Me, and a whole host of other books/videos that don’t wade into these dangerous waters. (Michael Rosen is another terrific children’s author. Here, from him, is “We’re Going on a Bear Hunt”: https://youtu.be/0gyI6ykDwds).
I also wanted to comment on My Shadow Is Pink. A few thoughts:
The book doesn't actually say that a boy who likes pink/sparkles/dancing is not a boy, so that's good. However, it does draw a sharp distinction between things that are "boy things" like axes and science and being big and strong, and things that are "girl things" like dancing and painting. Most or all of the characters in the story that had shadows that were interested in other things exhibited the boy/girl divide, which certainly reinforces the notion that certain things are for boys and certain things are for girls. Now, it is generally the case (at this point in our Western history) that girls will be more interested in dancing and painting, but do we need to refer to this in a children's book? Or is it perhaps better just to show various characters, both boys and girls, who are simply doing different things and are interested in different things? Why is it necessary to really obviously point this out?
This brings a larger point about children's literature that I've observed as a parent and as a library worker who deals with a lot of children's picture books and fiction. We seem to have a notion that kids must be represented in the books they read. Perhaps most of us think: well, of course, kids want to see characters who are like them. Fine, but is that really that important?
There are underlying assumptions that 1. children will not respond as well to books with characters who are not like them, and 2. that seeing characters like them in books is somehow therapeutic or empowering. I would question both these assumptions, and I would point out that this well-intentioned desire led us to create books that are not meant to be read to a group of kids, and perhaps not really meant to be read to kids at all.
I see so many books for young children (picture books and easy chapter books) about divorce, about a parent who is in jail, about the death of a loved one, about depression and other mental health issues, etc. etc. I know for a fact that as a child I would have been mortified if a teacher read out a book about a girl who immigrated to another country and who is being bullied (my particular situation in childhood), even if the story had a nice moral and ended happily ever after. I know my husband would have been mortified to hear a story read in class about a boy who is so poor he has nothing in the house to eat except flour and oil. The other children know who is being referenced, and it's the worst feeling in the world to have your private life exposed like this.
Even if the books are read without a particular child in mind, I really don't understand why all children in primary school need to know about death, depression, poverty, police brutality, etc. This can certainly be something that a therapist uses (gently and hopefully knowledgeably) to help his or her young patient deal with some kind of difficult life event. Or a parent can potentially use a book to help his or her child understand something challenging. But writing children's books that are meant to be used as teaching tools to promote a certain kind of world view or behavior (as this one certainly is meant to do) is, in my opinion, just wrong. They are usually not as interesting because they are obviously moralizing, and they are limited because they are discussing one particular experience and cannot be applied to general life situations.
If you have a gender non-conforming child in your classroom and you want the kids to treat him kindly, read books about friendships, where characters show kindness to one another. Don't limit it to sex-stereotypes or gender roles.
I'm sorry I went on a bit of a rant and on a tangent, but this is an issue I'm quite passionate about. I loathe bad children's literature.
Just a couple of days later, and I find (through my FAIR weekly digest) this amazing list: https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/picture-book-recommendations-for?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I'm looking forward to checking some of these out of the library if I can find them. The author of this post knows exactly what I'm talking about!
Thanks for the great summary. I’ve been busy with other things this week but now I feel caught up on the news. How fast things change!
The intersectional left. Muslims for trans kids. Queers for Palestine.
SPLC ain't what it used to be. If it ever was...
Thank you for your comment re Florida bill HB599. I agree. DeSantis' tit-for-tat attitude really gets to me. I don't understand why every problem needs to be met with a "I'll do you one better". It seems that not many see it that way, thinking he's just great. So I appreciate your comment!
I can't find the Swimming Canada story in ANYTHING except highly unreliable, far-right media. Nadda thing. It's not even in the National Post, our conservative but not ultra-right-wing newspaper. Are you sure about this? Please check your sources.
The Sun broke the story, and it fits in with the type of sensational tabloid journalism they like to run, but Media Bias Fact Check rates them as "mostly factual"...it's been picked up by other tabloids like the Daily Mail and the New York Post...the Sun did have statements from Swimming Canada and Swim Ontario, although Wiseheart has so far refused to comment. What part do you think is not true? I can see from the Caledon Enterprise that Wiseheart has been competing with women in Canada since at least 2010, but it's unclear if and when that started to include competing with girls https://www.caledonenterprise.com/news/caledon-couple-break-down-transgender-stereotypes/article_0a4a3180-fbfe-5726-be2e-5d78ca8f7793.html
What I do when I find provocative news stories in the far right press is to Google key details, like names & places and 'transgender' and 'sexual assault' and whatever to see if I can find a more mainstream, somewhat less biased and more factual sources, and most times I can. But, sometimes the far-right media is the *only* one telling the story and it turns out to be true - like Rebel News (notoriously far-right Canadian newspaper) breaking the story about the Oakville high school shop teacher acquiring large prosthetic breasts and suddenly going 'trans' (and being photographed in his own 'hood looking like a dude, sans breasts). It strikes me as weird that even the National Post doesn't mention this - they're conservative, but not crazy-ass conservative, and ranks high for factualism. They love this sort of story so it's unusual to me that they haven't covered it *at all*. The Sun is 'mostly factual' although I've seen it rank lower in the past, so I don't take it too seriously although I have confirmed other stories reported there. Usually, if a story is true you can find a few brave lefty or moderate news sources covering it; a few times, like with Kayla Lemieux (the busty shop teacher) I had to get the scoop from Reddit, also not the greatest source, but enough Googling time and again about it revealed that it did happen. (I figured Oakvillians would be bitching about it somewhere).
This just doesn't seem quite right to me, *yet*. It might be like the Rebel News story, something that takes awhile to hit the mainstream. So I'm not saying it didn't happen, I did confirm that the TG guy exists and swims, but I'm not quite convinced yet that he's in the changing room. If someone wants to come up with a decent source, I'm happy to look at it. I wanted to link to it in one of my own articles, but I'm holding off until/unless I can find a better source than what I see so far.
It could be that the Red Team extreme stance on this is a ploy to undermine the popularity of Trump, since a significant number of their party elites are as virulently opposed to the Orange Dumpster Fire as the Blue Team. Our overlords will go to any lengths to undermine any scent of populism, real or not, to maintain their ability to continue the planetary plunder and pillage without any pesky straying from the playbook.
Hope Dr Raffery’s institution carries s lot of liability insurance. Is he also being sued as an individual?