Conquer Club

A BOY aged 12 turned up at school as a GIRL - after changing sex during the summer holidays.

Teachers called an emergency assembly to order fellow pupils to treat him as female.

The lad, whose parents have changed his name to a girl's by deed poll, arrived in a dress with long hair in ribboned pigtails. He is preparing for sex-swap surgery.
At 12 years old

Angry parents told yesterday how their kids were left tearful and confused after school staff announced the boy pupil was now a girl.

They said the head teacher should have informed them in advance of the "sex change" so they could prepare their sons and daughters and inform them about gender issues.

They added that the school's failure to do so had left the boy to suffer cruel taunts and bullying.

One mum said: "They behaved appallingly by throwing this hand grenade into the room and then leaving the inevitable questions about it for unprepared parents.

"Maybe we could have explained sexual politics and encouraged our kids to be more sensitive if we'd had a chance to be involved."

Over the summer holidays his parents changed his name to a female one by deed poll. He is preparing to undergo hormone treatment and surgery - and could become the world's youngest sex-swap patient in the coming years.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -girl.html

An interesting story, if slightly confused.
The parents of the boygirl thoght people might not notice as he/she was startign ata new school.
So the new school announce it in assembly...
Interesting photo...posed by model.
If this isn't a fabication(always a possibility with the Sun), I'd like a better-reported version. If I get a moment I'll look for one.

For all the times people have criticized the Sun, they've yet to refute a single claim.

The Sun is as accurate as any other media source.

GabonX wrote: The Sun is as accurate as any other media source.

Angry parents told yesterday how their kids were left tearful and confused after school staff announced the boy pupil was now a girl

Wtf is wrong with those kids? Why would you cry over it?

What a surprise, this happened in England.

Snorri1234 wrote:

GabonX wrote: The Sun is as accurate as any other media source.

I totally just spit my coffee out in a dramatic fashion.

I know you guys don't like it, but I've yet to see any reason to doubt it's claims. All of the stories from it can be cross examined, including this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ouces.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... idays.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... der_Expert
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551960,00.html
etc.

I stand by my initial statement. Hell, The Sun probably more accurate than MSNBC!

Burrito wrote:What a surprise, this happened in England.

Polls indicate that the British are just as fed up with these shenanigans as people are here. Expect things to change after the next election

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but doing that to a child of 12 is pretty warped.

GabonX wrote:I know you guys don't like it, but I've yet to see any reason to doubt it's claims. All of the stories from it can be cross examined, including this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ouces.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... idays.html
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... der_Expert
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551960,00.html
etc.

I stand by my initial statement. Hell, The Sun probably more accurate than MSNBC!

Burrito wrote:What a surprise, this happened in England.

Polls indicate that the British are just as fed up with these shenanigans as people are here. Expect things to change after the next election

I repeat: I am not saying that this didn't happen: but I have my doubts.
The telegraph story is taken from the SUn, and only has comments given to "the Sun reporter".
The Daily Mail doesn't say so, but gives no details not given in the Sun, and quotes the same interviewees, I can see no reason to suppose they have a source other than the Sun.
Fox News merely reproduces the SUn article, acknowledging it is from the Sun.
Sky News (owned by the same people as the Sun) has a second photo of what looks like the same "model", adds an expert comment which appears to be the answer to: "What if a 12-year-old boy wanted a sex change", and gives no indication that the expert is aware of the case so far as I see.

So: we come back to one source: the Sun.

The Sun: "no reason to doubt its claims"...



http://www.news24.com/Content/World/New ... el_damages
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cameron- ... -Sun-5591.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... tion=sport
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/ ... 97184.html

It took me a minute or two to find these cases.
Note: all these stories concern libel cases, where someone in particular was able to claim damages. In the present story under discussion, no school or individual has yet been named - hence no possibility of damages.

Other than the ethical implications of this just wow.

Gabonx wrote:

Burrito wrote:What a surprise, this happened in England.

Polls indicate that the British are just as fed up with these shenanigans as people are here. Expect things to change after the next election

I'm actually indifferent that this actually happened, it means people have to freedom to do whatever they want without some uber-childish society crying about it. Oh, and please show me this "Poll" that you read. Also, not much socially will rally change after the next election as the government really does not have that much power in the UK to change social attitudes as most things are accepted as free choice and not outlawed (unlike in your "land of the free".

hecter wrote:Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but doing that to a child of 12 is pretty warped.

Worry not, the girl-boy will change his mind after a few years anyway

If he exists.

Semigall wrote:

hecter wrote:Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but doing that to a child of 12 is pretty warped.

Worry not, the girl-boy will change his mind after a few years anyway

Well if he decides to stick to his plan right now he'd already have changed sexes.

Titanic wrote:...it means people have to freedom to do whatever they want without some uber-childish society crying about it...

Oh boy! The freedom to slice your junk off! Sounds like your utopian vision has been realized.

Or,..this could be the boldest plan by an adolescent boy to get into the girls bathroom unhindered - ever!

Anybody found a link that doesn't go back directly to the Sun story about an un-named child in an un-named school yet?

jonesthecurl wrote:The Sun: "no reason to doubt its claims"...



http://www.news24.com/Content/World/New ... el_damages
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cameron- ... -Sun-5591.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... tion=sport
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/ ... 97184.html

It took me a minute or two to find these cases.
Note: all these stories concern libel cases, where someone in particular was able to claim damages. In the present story under discussion, no school or individual has yet been named - hence no possibility of damages.

You logic is somewhat flawed. A libel case does not prove that the paper dealt in misinformation, even if they lost a case. It simply means that a court for one reason or another ordered that they pay a party money, OR that they chose to settle with a given party rather than go through a lengthy legal process.

You're first link may be legitimate (though if it were I would think it would be easier to find information about this case), but a quick search of the name of the man in question reveals that there was widespread misreporting on Mohamed el Guerbouzi. The BBC, ABC, and a number of other media sources made apologies to Mohamed el Guerbouzi along with The Sun. Clearly there was something going on regarding suspicion of this individual. To propose that The Sun had uniquely and wrongfully accused him is misleading to say the least.

We can go on. Your second link simply states "404 - page not found". The third one has a somewhat unorthodox source though it is cited. Once again, the result of a libel case does not equal deliberate publication of misinformation or even publication of misinformation. It simply informs us of the result of a lawsuit. It's a sad fact of life that two different courts can arrive at two different conclusions regarding the same case, hence the neither of the libel cases you present conclusively demonstrate that The Sun was inaccurate. (As a side note, I saw the event referred to in the third link live . I can't read lips, hence I can not report on the accuracy of the claims. )

We can go on about your claims if you want to. Their are more holes in the logic of the post I quoted that I could write about but in the interest of saving time I'm not going to address them unless someone here insists. There was also an implicit suggestion that all of the media sources suggested trace back to The Sun. The Fox article does cite The Sun as it's source. If the Telegraph is in fact owned by the same people as The Sun we could discount this as well, but there is no indication that the other two use the Sun as a source. Quoting an interview reported in another newspaper does not indicate that that newspaper is the sole source of information.


While no source is perfect, I see nothing which indicates that The Sun is a generally unreliable source. If anything, the findings here indicate that The Sun is held in some esteem by other publications which are as varied in nature as Fox and the BBC.

I'll leave you all with a page linking to some of the many media outlets which have covered this story. Though I'm not familiar with all of the sources and some of them do appear to be duplicates (as is the case with all online media) there are a variety of reports on this subject.

GabonX wrote:If the Telegraph is in fact owned by the same people as The Sun we could discount this as well, but there is no indication that the other two use the Sun as a source. Quoting an interview reported in another newspaper does not indicate that that newspaper is the sole source of information.

....

While no source is perfect, I see nothing which indicates that The Sun is a generally unreliable source. If anything, the findings here indicate that The Sun is held in some esteem by other publications which are as varied in nature as Fox and the BBC.

The Telegraph is not owned by the same people as The Sun. The Sun is owned by Murdoch, and I'm fairly sure that the Telegraph is not owned by hmim. The Sun was is not held in any esteem, all the media outlets which sourced it were all right-wing papers with the same ideology. Its like Fox quoting Rush Limbaugh. Finally, I highly doubt that anyone at the BBC (the largest news organisation in the world, and also one of the best) actually has any kind of respect for The Sun (a dirty crappy newspaper with a clear agenda). Oh and if you want to see how bad The Sun is at reporting, look at what the News of the World does for its "reporting" and it'll give you a good idea.

GabonX wrote:We can go on about your claims if you want to. Their are more holes in the logic of the post I quoted that I could write about but in the interest of saving time I'm not going to address them unless someone here insists. There was also an implicit suggestion that all of the media sources suggested trace back to The Sun. The Fox article does cite The Sun as it's source. If the Telegraph is in fact owned by the same people as The Sun we could discount this as well, but there is no indication that the other two use the Sun as a source. Quoting an interview reported in another newspaper does not indicate that that newspaper is the sole source of information.

Your third source is sky news. owned by Murdoch, as are Fox and the Sun.
Your fourth source carries the Sun's banner at the top and, at the bottom says "click here to see more from the Sun". How can you say there is no indication it used the Sun as its source?

Having looked at all your links (including the ones about the second "sexchange" which the Sun "discovered" after the first was so popular), I can find no indication whatever there is any source for this other than the Sun. The Daliy Mail even uses the Sun's front page to show it's source.

I still am not saying that this story is a complete fabrication, but I am saying that it would come as no surprise if it were. I can see absolutely nothing to indicate that any of the other news sources have investigated this beyond reading the Sun.

jonesthecurl wrote:

GabonX wrote:We can go on about your claims if you want to. Their are more holes in the logic of the post I quoted that I could write about but in the interest of saving time I'm not going to address them unless someone here insists. There was also an implicit suggestion that all of the media sources suggested trace back to The Sun. The Fox article does cite The Sun as it's source. If the Telegraph is in fact owned by the same people as The Sun we could discount this as well, but there is no indication that the other two use the Sun as a source. Quoting an interview reported in another newspaper does not indicate that that newspaper is the sole source of information.

Your third source is sky news. owned by Murdoch, as are Fox and the Sun.
Your fourth source carries the Sun's banner at the top and, at the bottom says "click here to see more from the Sun". How can you say there is no indication it used the Sun as its source?

Incidentally, I said it explicitly, or at least that there was no evidence to the contrary.