Thread: Cub & Boy Scouts To Allow Trans Kids To Join Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000703
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
...based on the gender stated on their applications, and not their birth certificates.
"Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts Begin Accepting Transgender Children." (NBC News)
Thoughts?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Two thoughts.
1.About time
2.Tempest in a teapot. Given the percentages of trans people, then divide that in half, the odds that most scouts will actually belong to a unit that has a trans person in it become very small.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I don't think it's a "tempest in a teapot". Not when being trans while using a bathroom is still such an issue here. Being trans *at all* is still a major issue.
The Boy Scouts of America, AIUI, has a long history of sexual abuse of kids, conflating being gay with being sexually abusive, and keeping out gay staff and gay kids. IIRC, they finally agreed to allow gay staff and kids in, within the last couple of years.
I doubt they were any more fond of trans people. So this *IS* a big step.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
For what it's worth, a practical problem they are doubtless going to have to solve is what to do about current sleeping rules. Scouts are not permitted to sleep in the same tent with unrelated adults, nor with unrelated youth of a different gender. In the case, say, of a venturing crew (which can include both males and females up to age 21), you could find yourself needing two gendered tents for the under 18 group, the between-18-and-21 group (they age out at 21), and adult leadership. Thus six tents. I'm fairly sure that this is going to add an extra tent (mainly on account of clothes changing* **) for those who identify with a different gender to the one their bodies suggest--and given that we're talking youth here, that's probably every transkid. So I expect the youth protection training guidelines have been changed in the month since I took the courses last.
I'm not making any sort of political statement here--simply pointing out that there are logistical ramifications that would need working out.
* Yes, I know this can be accomplished discreetly, even if one stood outside in full view of God and everybody. I also know that a lot of kids don't accomplish it discreetly under any circumstances. And kids can be assholes about "checking out" / mocking anybody who is bodily different than they are used to. Or even not--which is why youth protection training has a section on making sure Scouts don't take cameras or camera phones anywhere near places where embarrassing pics could be shot, such as toilets.
I'm fine with transkids joining Scouts. But I'm very glad I don't have to write the guidelines and legal policies. It makes my head spin.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think it's a "tempest in a teapot". Not when being trans while using a bathroom is still such an issue here. Being trans *at all* is still a major issue.
The Boy Scouts of America, AIUI, has a long history of sexual abuse of kids, conflating being gay with being sexually abusive, and keeping out gay staff and gay kids. IIRC, they finally agreed to allow gay staff and kids in, within the last couple of years.
I doubt they were any more fond of trans people. So this *IS* a big step.
It is a big step conceptually and that is not nothing.
But ISTM, few will face practical implementation.
And that is part of the ridiculousness of the opposition to the integration.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
Presumably this is mostly about trans boys? If so, it doesn't strike me as a huge shift - almost all of the opposition I've come across to shared bathrooms is about trans women/girls, not trans men/boys.
Anxious parents don't want their daughter sharing a tent with a boy, whether a CIS male or a trans girl (who they perceive as still male). It's part of the 'male=danger' threat narrative, and is primarily about masculinity being seen as dangerous, not trans identity itself.
The Girl Scouts of America have quite vague statement about trans girls. Their policy is a much more significant indicator of social attitudes than the Boy Scouts'.
[ 01. February 2017, 13:12: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
The Girl Scouts of America have quite vague statement about trans girls. Their policy is a much more significant indicator of social attitudes than the Boy Scouts'.
I don't think it's that vague.
quote:
That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.
I think what it means is that they're not going to force the girl scout troop at your local Catholic church to accept a trans girl, but will work with the girl and her family to find a local troop where she will be comfortable and accepted. And that as a national organization they absolutely accept trans girls as girls.
The bit about accommodation for trans girls on campouts and so on says "do what your schools do". It might not be the bold stance that some would hope they'd make, but it's a pretty sensible one, given that what they do at school tends to establish norms for most children.
Shipmates might remember this girl scout story.
[ 02. February 2017, 05:15: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's good that the organization managed to deal with a trans kid.
They have bigger problems pending;
Girls in California want to be Boy Scouts ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
Send em to Canada. Scouts have been gender-neutral for over 25 years.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
Leorning Cniht, I think the US Guides' FAQ is pragmatic but pretty non-committal. I'm not criticising it for that - just arguing that they face greater obstacles than the Boy Scouts do in terms of parental fears and pressure.
That said, I just checked the British Girlguiding website. It turns out that a couple of weeks ago they updated their trans rules and (as far as I can tell) their current support for all trans people is very impressive. Which doesn't help my case at all but is wonderful to see.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's good that the organization managed to deal with a trans kid.
They have bigger problems pending;
Girls in California want to be Boy Scouts
I have a daughter who wants to be a Boy Scout. She likes the stuff they do much more than what the Girl Scouts offer.
She's currently counting the days until she's old enough to join a Venturing Crew.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Girls can be Scouts in the UK, but boys can't be Guides.
The Girl Guides I'm involved with camp, light fires, climb, build rafts, go hiking, do archery and a whole lot more. Those who want to are camping now. The climbing, building rafts, archery and hiking are things we arrange as usual meeting sessions, although some have to wait for the longer evenings in summer, but we went on a night walk in November.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
US Girl Scouts can also be active but it very much depends on the troop. The one I was in camped, canoed, caved, and backpacked among other things.
I note that atheist boys are still waiting to be allowed to join the Boy Scouts of America. UK Guides and Scouts allow atheists as do the US Girl Scouts but the Boy Scouts of America have been doubling down in recent years possibly in an attempt to appease their Christian and especially Mormon chartering organizations. A rule that came down a year ago was that the Scoutmaster had to ask a new scout (and each time a scout wants to advance in rank) to “Tell how you have done your duty to God.” (see blog post)
though it was also stated that this wasn't a back and forth discussion.
This so worried the National Jewish Committee on Scouting that they advised scouts who were uncomfortable to simply say As a Scout I understand my Duty to God. As a Jew, my belief and practice are centered in the home. I have fulfilled my Duty to God with the guidance of my family [if applicable: and my spiritual leader's religious practices].
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Americans looking for an alternative to Scouting might take a look at Camp Fire. I was in it, back when it was Camp Fire Girls. It's now co-ed. Not hard-core outdoors, but the kids do learn outdoor skills. And this incarnation of CF focuses strongly on supporting kids, teaching them acceptance, conflict resolution, and other sorts of skills.
Since it's been co-ed for a long time, there's a good chance that trans kids would be accepted easily. There still might be some practical problems, as discussed upthread, like sleeping arrangements. But it might be worth looking into.
FWIW, YMMV.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
*decloak*
*shakes off cobwebs*
Just for the record, best estimates from ten years ago are that 1% of the population is gender variant to some degree. Current thinking in the trans community is that "to some degree" is closer to "quite a lot" - so it's not at all unlikely that any reasonable sized group of kids will include trans children.
*shimmers away*
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Or wait, patiently, trying not to put your foot in something which will offend someone. Which I might be doing, but I am not one to think rushing to confirm gender identity that doesn't match biological identity is a good idea.
Transgender kids, have we gone too far?
quote:
What happens when your son tells you he’s really a girl?
Twenty years ago, you probably would have crossed your fingers and tried to wait it out. Today, you might buy him a whole new wardrobe, find someone to prescribe hormone blockers, and help him live as a girl....
About three-quarters of little kids who have issues with their gender...will be comfortable with it by adolescence...[take] a watch-and-wait approach. He even advises parents of princessy six-year-olds to say, “You’re not a girl. You’re a boy.”
It goes on to say that gender issues may mask other family dysfunction and mental health problems. The article I linked quotes some people who apparently know what they are talking about.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Just for the record, best estimates from ten years ago are that 1% of the population is gender variant to some degree. Current thinking in the trans community is that "to some degree" is closer to "quite a lot" - so it's not at all unlikely that any reasonable sized group of kids will include trans children.
This is problematic for a number of reasons. Communities often have an echo-chamber effect.
Cultural expectation muddles the issue.
And the data is not mature enough yet.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There was a recent programme looking at children who were identifying as transgender which found that most children didn't transition, and a number of those who did weren't happy with their new body. Wait and see seems to be quite general on this.
I wonder if some of what we are seeing is a reaction to the very gendered pink girls' toys and blue boys toys marketing schtick.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
That Globe and Mail article and that BBC documentary draw on people whose work is extremely controversial in the transgender community - scholars who'd be regarded as transphobic and as having an axe to grind. I don't have the time and bandwidth to go into the subject in detail, I'm just noting in passing that those links should not be seen as uncontroversial and I don't want any lurkers from the communities involved to feel unwelcome here or to think that no-one realises that.
[ 02. March 2017, 01:14: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Ah nostalgia...
"It's only a phase you're going through."
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That Globe and Mail article and that BBC documentary draw on people whose work is extremely controversial in the transgender community
Bits like this quote:
He even advises parents of princessy six-year-olds to say, “You’re not a girl. You’re a boy
seem odious to me. A dismissive attitude is going to do no good.
However, being a little cautious on hormone replacement and surgery seem to be sensible.
I would appreciate any information so to better understand.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
*decloak*
*shakes off cobwebs*
Just for the record, best estimates from ten years ago are that 1% of the population is gender variant to some degree. Current thinking in the trans community is that "to some degree" is closer to "quite a lot" - so it's not at all unlikely that any reasonable sized group of kids will include trans children.
*shimmers away*
The words "gender variant to some degree" seem very vague to me, possibly deliberately so. It may well be that they are so wide so as to catch as many people as possible. Until recent years, figures more along the line of 1 in 10,000 have been quoted. Efforts to find more recent and accurate figures for here have given next to no data at all - perhaps an indication of my search skills more than anything else. The impression I have from years gone by is that this very low figure pretty well matched what you'd hear of. But there are all sorts of problems with that also. - where I live, who I mix with, fear of disclosure to start with.
The doctor quoted in the article did not sound transphobic to me. Using that sort of label for him does not really take matters far. Perhaps those who use that label of him and others are in fact pushing ther own barrow and don't like any opposition.
I don't know of other jurisdictions, but the procedures here to transition are very strict. You can't just show up at a hospital and book yourself in for hormone therapy, let alone the operation. There is a lengthy period in which you have to live as the proposed new gender and other hoops to be gone though. This procedure is even more rigourous for minors, where permission must be obtained from (IIRC) the Family Court, just as for sterilisation/hysterectomies. Shpuld they be loosened?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
*decloak*
*shakes off cobwebs*
Just for the record, best estimates from ten years ago are that 1% of the population is gender variant to some degree. Current thinking in the trans community is that "to some degree" is closer to "quite a lot" - so it's not at all unlikely that any reasonable sized group of kids will include trans children.
*shimmers away*
And a warm welcome back from me. Good to see you posting again, for however long you wish to decloak and shake off your posting cobwebs.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Is there any evidence as to whether children report feelings of gender dysphoria at the same rate across all cultures, or whether it varies depending on the cultural attitudes towards gender?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Excellent.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag
The article I linked quotes some people who apparently know what they are talking about.
They don't. Zucker and Dreger are discredited and the overwhelming majority of professionals working in the field disagree with them, indeed Zucker's clinic was closed because his methods are now considered abusive.
[ 02. March 2017, 17:23: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
If anyone is genuinely interested, the press release from Trans Media Watch on the BBC programme is thorough.
A brief primer: there is a significant difference between kids who identify as trans and those who merely exhibit some gender-variant behaviour, and children don't get cross-sex hormones or surgery.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That Globe and Mail article and that BBC documentary draw on people whose work is extremely controversial in the transgender community
Bits like this quote:
He even advises parents of princessy six-year-olds to say, “You’re not a girl. You’re a boy
seem odious to me. A dismissive attitude is going to do no good.
However, being a little cautious on hormone replacement and surgery seem to be sensible.
I would appreciate any information so to better understand.
It's not dismissive to parent your children. They say and do all sorts of things. A child of 6 will have the definition and understanding of male and female and that these are different types of humanity, among others, but hardly has the cognitive, emotional, social and developmental maturity to propose they are misidentified. It's one of those "I see a dragon" types of things, where, it is certainly possible that the child is transgendered, but it is also possible that they've been influenced (the internet and Dr Google and other media), or had the thing passed along to them via some interactions with peers and others. I'd say that it isn't dismissive, it is good parenting to correct the child, just as I would correct a child who informed me of any other extraordinary thing that requires extraordinary evidence to know it is true, like "I see a dragon". Scepticism but open, but scepticism first.
I feel that the reach down to young children, to have them think they must identify and firm up identity at pre-adolescent ages is inappropriate. No problem with experimenting with some things, but it is not okay to encourage and support trans identification with a child whose just begun school, rather the attitude should be sceptical as I've suggested, with many questions posed.
It doesn't matter that the "trans community" might not like this, it isn't their children, and they are not children in making their objections. On the other side, it isn't okay to reject after experience and maturation into adolescence that an alternative identity has solidified.
I wonder if anyone understands developmental psychology any longer? The placement of the "identity crisis" within adolescence seems rather obvious to me, that we expect this time period to be one of questions, consideration of alternatives and coming to an adult life structure. I am comfortable with societal development having moved this to slightly earlier years, perhaps down to about age 12, but certainly not into the single digits of age.
Finally, I would note that Family Courts generally don't think children have the ability to choose which parental household to live in after divorce until age 13 or 15, depending on maturity and assuredness of independence of decision. While whom to live with isn't the same as a gender identity, the wisdom of a court to not accept a child's decisions as independent and mature recognizes the developmental level and when we understand from data that children are ready to make decisions.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
I'm trans and I'm finding the conversation difficult, so I'm going to turn on the cloaking device again. I'd urge everyone here who's expressed concern at trans children being affirmed to do some research with reputable specialists into outcomes rather than express armchair opinions, because there are studies that show 30-40% of trans people attempt suicide and affirmation helps that enormously. It's not an abstract discussion, it's life and death.
Bye all.
*recloaks*
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
It doesn't matter that the "trans community" might not like this, it isn't their children, and they are not children in making their objections. On the other side, it isn't okay to reject after experience and maturation into adolescence that an alternative identity has solidified.
Sometimes people 'might not like' something because the science behind it is actually bad as well as it coming to offensive conclusions - remember the doctors who used to tout reparative therapy for gay people?
No Prophet, you posted an article which put forward Kenneth Zucker as an expert. Greyface has posted a link to a very detailed document which says Zucker is really questionable - are you going to acknowledge that and engage with it? Are there reputable scientists who support your point of view? Can you link to their peer reviewed work?
The other person in the article you posted is Alice Dreger who has written fascinating intersex history but who has backed someone ( J Michael Bailey) who has a really bonkers theory about transgender identity which isn't accepted by other scholars - autogynephilia Do you contend that this theory is reputable? If not, why do you think we should accept Alice Dreger's work on transgender issues?
[ 02. March 2017, 20:28: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Also GreyFace, you know what is best for your own self-care, and I'm sorry you feel you can't post. I've appreciated your contribution and you're absolutely right to point out how important this is.
Thanks very much for engaging on this thread.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
Greyface, I was glad to welcome you back on the AS thread for such things. I am sad to see your cloak has been put on again, and am sad to see you felt you needed to do this. Go well.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Zucker appears to be an evidence-based researcher. On the science side. Wikipedia provides a summary of his professional and academic activities.
quote:
According to the Web of Science, Zucker has published almost 100 articles in peer-reviewed journals. These articles have been cited over 2000 times, with an h-index of 20.
I don't think we can ignore him. The link posted is a complaint and doesn't frame research or reasoned argument, it frames hurt and disagreement. I am not insensitive to hurt and pain, but I do not think adult advocates, whose lived adult experience represents what we should do with children, even if an adult tells us that he/she always knew, even when young that they were trans. That's a testimonial, and another could easily say that they thought they were another gender for a while when a child, and then were something else. It's part of child play and fantasy to do so.
If you read what I wrote, I asserting that it is inappropriate to go with what a preadolescent child might think about their gender identity, and many other things as well. We do not expect children to solidify such things at, in the example, 6 years of age.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Zucker's friend the late Robert L Spitzer who championed the efficacy of reparative therapy for gay people (therapy to change their sexual orientation to straight) weighs in at 2,254 citations on web of science - and published at least 231 articles, if I read the figure correctly. (I don't know how to get the h number for a dead person, I'm a historian I'm not used to doing this).
Yet Spitzer was still eventually found out to be wrong about reparative therapy and in the end admitted his error. People used the same kind of attacks against gay people who spoke up against him - sorry for their pain and suffering, but Professor Spitzer says X and he is so eminent... Even on this board you can go back and find people citing him against people who actually tried to change their orientation and suffered as a result. He got away with it for decades.
Zucker started practicing in the 1970s when there were some horrific ideas about the malleability of children and gender about - such as those espoused by John Money, and he's since been called out for practicing the last 'respectable' form of reparative therapy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria_in_children#Opponents
quote:
The consensus of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health is that treatment aimed at trying to change a person's gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth "is no longer considered ethical."[4] Clinicians have called Zucker and Bradley's therapeutic intervention "something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals" [32] and have noted that the goal is preventing transsexualism: "Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable."[33] ... However, strong critiques of Dr. Zucker's approach do not come from lay activists and journalists alone, but also from psychiatrists and psychologists within his own field. Edgardo Menvielle, a child-adolescent psychiatrist at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington states, "Therapists who advocate changing gender variant behaviours should be avoided."[36] Developmental and clinical psychologist Diane Ehrensaft told the Psychiatric Times, "The mental health profession has been consistently doing harm to children who are not 'gender normal,' and they need to retrain,"[37]
Critics argue GIDC was a backdoor maneuver to replace homosexuality in the DSM, and Zucker and Robert Spitzer counter that GIDC inclusion was based on "expert consensus," which is "the same mechanism that led to the introduction of many new psychiatric diagnoses, including those for which systematic field trials were not available when the DSM-III was published."[38]
If Zucker is correct, and not an academic titan from another time when this sort of thing was more accepted, you'd expect more modern scientists in the same field to be upholding his conclusions, where are they? Why are they instead saying that he shouldn't be running a clinic and that the kind of therapy he advocates should be avoided and people should retrain?
By the way, Alice Dreger is a historian not a scientist - like me she has a history PhD and she has for her research written some outstanding work on the history of intersex but that doesn't make her an expert on the science of transgender issues in children.
Where are the modern studies by people who are not Zucker which show he is on the right lines and not the last dinosaur of reparative therapy?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I apologise for sounding negative about transgender people earlier. I found the documentary about transgender children fascinating because it is so much in the news at the moment and because one of my daughter's friends transgendered when s/he was still a teenager. I got to be the responsible adult taking both this friend and my daughter to a range of places for a while as her family wouldn't.
I also got very cross with fellow pre-school workers who were judgemental in their attitudes and words when we had one little boy who loved dressing up in the pink tutu.
I found Zucker in the documentary not as interesting as the expert (psychologist?) who was trans themselves, and the statistics quoted of how few of the children who identified as transgender as children, then went on to fully transition when they were old enough. 80% desist according to the New Statesmen article.
It feels to me as if trying to push people into little boxes labelled different genders is not allowing people to be themselves in whatever way they feel comfortable and continues to be damaging, be they gay, trans, wanting to do things that are out of the stereotypical gender descriptions. But what do I know as the parent of a female engineer?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I agree with that CK.
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on
:
Children's Hospital in Washington DC used to (and I assume still does) have a clinic for gender nonconforming children with a helpful website on the issues. I remember they said that relatively speaking only a fairly small number of their clients ultimately sought re-assignment but that nevertheless they believed that a gender-affirming approach to gender nonconforming kids was the best approach from the point of view of their clients' mental health regardless of where they ultimately landed in terms of public gender identification. Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is that we're coming to realize that transgender isn't all or nothing. So just because someone doesn't ultimately transition doesn't mean they're 100% cisgender. The point is to give gender-nonconforming kids a safe space to figure out who they are.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Thanks, GreyFace.
I was going to respond with anecdata about the trans girls I know personally, and was trying to construct a reply that was sufficiently clear without the possibility of infringing their privacy (it would be difficult to discover my RL identity and then infer the identities of my young friends, but...) but your post has covered everything. The experience of my young friends is completely consistent with the document produced by Trans Media Watch.
"Wait and see" is more or less the approach in children. The use of puberty blockers is exactly "wait and see". Let's use the example of a young trans girl. Here is an XY person with a penis, who consistently says that she wants to be a girl, not a boy. Everybody agrees that taking her to the surgeon is not on the cards. So what does "wait and see" look like?
No prophet, I think, would argue that it means do nothing. I would argue that puberty blockers are entirely appropriate. 'cause if you really do have a person who is going to remain certain that she's really a girl, I'd imagine that going through boy-puberty would be a pretty traumatic experience, and would in fact be you making the decision that the should just be a boy by default.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm trans and I'm finding the conversation difficult, so I'm going to turn on the cloaking device again. I'd urge everyone here who's expressed concern at trans children being affirmed to do some research with reputable specialists into outcomes rather than express armchair opinions, because there are studies that show 30-40% of trans people attempt suicide and affirmation helps that enormously. It's not an abstract discussion, it's life and death.
Bye all.
*recloaks*
I apologise for making you feel uncomfortable and am sorry to see you leave.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
80% desist according to the New Statesmen article.
This critique of Sarah Dittum, the author of that article, is interesting.
marsupial.:
People should be allowed to feel comfortable exploring who they are. It is not a strong suit of humanity, though. We like to know where people stand in whatever category discussed and we feel threatened by that we do not understand.
That is why I do not feel these discussions are academic. Those who care need the language and knowledge to engage those who might be brought to understanding, and therefore be supportive.
[ 03. March 2017, 03:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It feels to me as if trying to push people into little boxes labelled different genders is not allowing people to be themselves in whatever way they feel comfortable and continues to be damaging, be they gay, trans, wanting to do things that are out of the stereotypical gender descriptions. But what do I know as the parent of a female engineer?
That's kind of my instinctive feeling about "gender", as well. I know what sex is, but I'm not even sure that gender exists, exactly. (And I know several boys who like pink, and tutus, but are also definitely boys (and have what seems to be the typical small-boy love affair with their penes.))
But then I listen to what trans people say, and what they say is that being a trans woman is not at all like being a girly or effeminate man. And they are quite sure that gender exists, and that they were born with a body that doesn't match.
And the starting point for any discussion has to be that trans people aren't lying or making it up when they describe their feelings. I don't think I understand what it means to think in the way that trans people describe, but that doesn't mean that they're making it up.
Perhaps some would say that I was hopelessly cisgender for being unable to understand what they mean, and for not being sure that gender exists, and perhaps they're right. I'm not very traditionally-masculine, but as we've been saying, that's different from whatever transgender is.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
I am also a cisgendered male and therefore quite possibly not in a position to understand, but I'd like to solicit responses to an idea I've been pondering.
It seems to me that none of us can know our gender identity in an objective way, apart from reference to the culture we experience around us. As far as I can figure, I can only determine how much I identify with (or counter to) culturally defined norms for both genders as I perceive them. I have trouble seeing how I could possibly identify myself as male gender or female gender any other way. So while I understand transgender identity in today's culture[s], I also wonder whether achieving a culture where the norms are no different for males and females would have any effect on transgender identification.
And yet I have a feeling I'm missing something, and if I am, I'm hoping someone can point it out to me.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not very traditionally-masculine, but as we've been saying, that's different from whatever transgender is.
I tend to think of that as a person's yin-yang balance. Some people need to be more yin/feminine, in terms of whatever that is for their culture. Some need to be yang/masculine. And some need to be balanced between the two. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the direction of their sexual attraction.
FWIW.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I know what sex is, but I'm not even sure that gender exists, exactly. (And I know several boys who like pink, and tutus, but are also definitely boys (and have what seems to be the typical small-boy love affair with their penes.))
I think a lot of the problem is down to the ridiculously gendered way society decides which activities are "appropriate" for which children. My 3-year-old nephew wanted a dolly for his birthday, so we bought him one, but there are plenty of people out there who would say that a boy shouldn't play with dollies because they're for girls. It's easy to see how that sort of attitude could lead a young boy to conclude that he wants to be a girl (or vice versa, of course).
If only society could get over this ridiculous idea that some toys/activities/clothes/etc are inherently male or female then it would enable us to focus support towards those who genuinely identify as trans, as GreyFace indicated here:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
there is a significant difference between kids who identify as trans and those who merely exhibit some gender-variant behaviour
To put it another way, using the ridiculously gendered societal approach to children's activities etc. to classify kids who exhibit some gender-variant behaviour alongside those who genuinely identify as trans will inevitably lead to the observation that many "trans" kids never actually transition. That's a shoddy conclusion based on shoddy research, and for it to be used to effectively deny the appropriate support to genuinely trans kids is just wrong.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Yep. I wanted to be a boy as a child. I looked around at boys and men, saw all their advantages and wanted to be one. Plus I never played with a doll in my life, but I still have my box of matchbox cars.
When I reached puberty I was attracted only to boys and my gay girlfriend couldn't persuade me into any lesbian romps - so I concluded I'm heterosexual.
But my wish to be a boy was real (and understandable imo) even 'tho - in those days - there were not huge supermarket aisles of pink 'girls toys' around.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Children's Hospital in Washington DC used to (and I assume still does) have a clinic for gender nonconforming children with a helpful website on the issues. I remember they said that relatively speaking only a fairly small number of their clients ultimately sought re-assignment but that nevertheless they believed that a gender-affirming approach to gender nonconforming kids was the best approach from the point of view of their clients' mental health regardless of where they ultimately landed in terms of public gender identification. Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is that we're coming to realize that transgender isn't all or nothing. So just because someone doesn't ultimately transition doesn't mean they're 100% cisgender. The point is to give gender-nonconforming kids a safe space to figure out who they are.
Excellent post. I shudder when I read about people who want to stop children's wish to be a different gender/sex. The results could be catastrophic.
It just sounds like an ideological insistence that sex and gender are binary. Not so.
I'm still complaining about the use of gender to refer to sex identity, but it's too late now. But if 'gender' is used to refer to sex, what term will be used to refer to gender, as it used to be described, i.e. cultural traits?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yep. I wanted to be a boy as a child. I looked around at boys and men, saw all their advantages and wanted to be one. Plus I never played with a doll in my life, but I still have my box of matchbox cars.
When I reached puberty I was attracted only to boys and my gay girlfriend couldn't persuade me into any lesbian romps - so I concluded I'm heterosexual.
But my wish to be a boy was real (and understandable imo) even 'tho - in those days - there were not huge supermarket aisles of pink 'girls toys' around.
My daughter is much the same. I think there's a distinction between (as in her case) wanting to be a boy, and feeling you actually are one. She wants to be able to widdle standing up and wear her hair short (quite rare in young girls) and almost never wears skirts or dresses, and often says she wishes she were a boy, but she never says she thinks she actually is one. So for that reason I see her (and I think, more importantly, she sees herself) as a girl who likes lots of things that "traditionally" are associated with boys, but she is still a cis-gendered girl.
Compare that with a friend of my cousins' who feels she actually is a boy and is now living as one, including a change of name.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, plenty of kids experiment with gender (in the traditional sense), but not with sex identity. In fact, the tomboy is widely accepted, I suppose boys with a feminine streak less so.
I don't know whether the girl who says 'I am a boy' is responding to differences in sex identity, biologically defined, or not.
But these are cases where the distinction between sex and gender seems useful, although, obviously, not everybody agrees with that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Interesting article, objecting among other things to the term 'cisgender', which seems to assume an awful lot, e.g. that I have a stable sex identity, and then I have a set of gender traits, and these match the former. As before, the use of 'gender' here confuses me. Hmm.
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/02/i-dont-feel-i-match-my-gender-so-what-does-it-mean-be-called-cis
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
(I'm skipping the stuff about Zucker — he was fired for being abusive to children, so I don't think he's worthy of consideration.)
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It doesn't matter that the "trans community" might not like this, it isn't their children, and they are not children in making their objections.
No, but most of us have been there. We remember what it was like to not have supportive adults around us. For lots of us, it caused lasting damage.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
So while I understand transgender identity in today's culture[s], I also wonder whether achieving a culture where the norms are no different for males and females would have any effect on transgender identification.
And yet I have a feeling I'm missing something, and if I am, I'm hoping someone can point it out to me.
I don't have all the answers, and I do think cultural norms are part of the story. But you may be missing taking into account dysphoria. It's a profound feeling that your body is wrong. That's not the same thing as "I wish society would allow me to wear that dress". It's more like a bout of nausea if you see yourself naked in a mirror.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Wait and see" is more or less the approach in children. The use of puberty blockers is exactly "wait and see".
Yup. Blockers are 100% reversible — stop taking them and they wear off. I think it's inhumane not to give them, if a kid is consistently either questioning or sure that they're trans.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Nobody is suggesting that males and females become the same in terms of gender, are they? (Gender as cultural traits). I don't see the trans movement as advocating that we all wear Mao suits and shaven heads.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not very traditionally-masculine, but as we've been saying, that's different from whatever transgender is.
I tend to think of that as a person's yin-yang balance. Some people need to be more yin/feminine, in terms of whatever that is for their culture. Some need to be yang/masculine. And some need to be balanced between the two. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the direction of their sexual attraction.
But that's a third thing.
1. Sexuality. What kinds of people you are attracted to.
2. Cultural gender mores. Do you enjoy activities / behave in ways that your culture assigns to people of your sex, or not?
3. Trans. Gender dysphoria. Your body is wrong, etc.
These are three different things, and whilst there might be correlations between them when you look at whole populations, an individual person needn't show those correlations.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Nobody is suggesting that males and females become the same in terms of gender, are they? (Gender as cultural traits). I don't see the trans movement as advocating that we all wear Mao suits and shaven heads.
Some schools of feminist thought have been suggesting exactly that. Get rid of the cultural patriarchal dominance and enforced gender norms, and people become free to be people. Men and women can take on any role, unfettered by their sex.
But while these feminists are busy saying that - that differences between the sexes are impositions of a patriarchal society, and that the "separate-but-equal" notions of complementarity are just raw sexism wearing a velvet glove, trans people come along and throw a spanner in their works by saying that gender differences are real and important, and they want to be the other kind.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Is gender necessarily fixed and is it necessarily an either/or?
[ 03. March 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Nobody is suggesting that males and females become the same in terms of gender, are they? (Gender as cultural traits). I don't see the trans movement as advocating that we all wear Mao suits and shaven heads.
Some schools of feminist thought have been suggesting exactly that. Get rid of the cultural patriarchal dominance and enforced gender norms, and people become free to be people. Men and women can take on any role, unfettered by their sex.
But while these feminists are busy saying that - that differences between the sexes are impositions of a patriarchal society, and that the "separate-but-equal" notions of complementarity are just raw sexism wearing a velvet glove, trans people come along and throw a spanner in their works by saying that gender differences are real and important, and they want to be the other kind.
Well, I mean that the trans movement isn't saying that. I know that some radical feminists have been advocating a kind of ground zero on both sex and gender.
Yes, trans people are not advocating that, but are traversing various gender and sex rules, not trying to get rid of them, although again some radicals might be.
I get it that gender is a set of cultural norms, which are probably partly determined by patriarchal values, but to take that back to sex identity is quite a stretch. You can argue of course that 'it's a boy' and 'it's a girl' (of babies) triggers a whole constellation of expectations and whatnot, but I don't anticipate babies being acclaimed with 'it's a non-sexed non-gendered being' anytime soon. People like sex, and like sex differences, don't they? And also gender differences.
I think de Beauvoir had argued that a female person need not be a woman, but I suppose the radicals would deconstruct 'female person'.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I recall the initial discussions of the differences between gender and sex (sex as in label of male and female) in the 1970s and early 80s, with the idea that gender identification was on a continuum between male and female. This was a concept and a theory, which has gone on to replace the categorical model that it is a binary male-female world. before that idea of gender versus sex became popular, these discussions weren't possible. But it isn't either categorical nor a continuum, and it is also both at once. I believe we lack the language to deal with the two disparate models in an integrated manner. The biological sex aspect is easier to deal with categorically than the aspects that are contained in the mind, feelings and as derived from social relations.
[tangent]
It is apparent that some of this is personal to some people on the ship; while not intending to offend, I am also not censoring my discussion of these issues, and it isn't intended as personal. This is a discussion of issues and ideas isn't it? Not a counselling or support forum.
[/tangent]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is gender necessarily fixed and is it necessarily an either/or?
Again, it depends on what you mean by gender. I am old-fashioned, and worked in gender studies at a time when sex and gender were differentiated. Then of course, gender, denoting cultural traits, is highly variable, and non-binary. A male can be as masculine or feminine as he wants, although he may attract disapproval.
The arguments amongst feminists have also been about sex identity (male/female), and the radicals have argued that this itself is socially constructed. Well there are strong arguments now that sex identity is non-binary, hence intersex, and other variations.
I'm not all that sure how trans people fit into these distinctions. We know that a male can be feminine, hence he can shift gender, but can he also claim to be female? Probably, but here you get arguments that 'female' is not simply biological but also cultural, psychological, and so on.
It looks as if a big shift is going on.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
So while I understand transgender identity in today's culture[s], I also wonder whether achieving a culture where the norms are no different for males and females would have any effect on transgender identification.
And yet I have a feeling I'm missing something, and if I am, I'm hoping someone can point it out to me.
I don't have all the answers, and I do think cultural norms are part of the story. But you may be missing taking into account dysphoria. It's a profound feeling that your body is wrong. That's not the same thing as "I wish society would allow me to wear that dress". It's more like a bout of nausea if you see yourself naked in a mirror.
That makes sense - thank you.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well there are strong arguments now that sex identity is non-binary, hence intersex, and other variations.
What is "sex identity"? I understand what biological sex is. Most people are either male (XY, male genitals,...) or female (XX, female genitals,...), but a small number of people have one of the intersex conditions. Traditionally, these people have been socially assigned a sex that comes closest to their external presentation, but that doesn't alter the biology. Assigning male or female sex to an intersex person is a social statement, not a biological one.
This is completely different from saying that sex is a spectrum. What we have is a binary division, with some exceptions.
I think everyone agrees that cultural masculinity / femininity is a continuous spectrum, and not necessarily stable over time.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well there are strong arguments now that sex identity is non-binary, hence intersex, and other variations.
What is "sex identity"? I understand what biological sex is. Most people are either male (XY, male genitals,...) or female (XX, female genitals,...), but a small number of people have one of the intersex conditions. Traditionally, these people have been socially assigned a sex that comes closest to their external presentation, but that doesn't alter the biology. Assigning male or female sex to an intersex person is a social statement, not a biological one.
This is completely different from saying that sex is a spectrum. What we have is a binary division, with some exceptions.
I think everyone agrees that cultural masculinity / femininity is a continuous spectrum, and not necessarily stable over time.
Well, I was avoiding 'biological sex' as it's often used by transphobic people, to say, for example, that John is 'really' a boy, even though he wants to be, or claims that he is, a girl.
'Sex identity' is more neutral. Also, some of the radicals argue that biological sex is not some inert category that humans find lying around, but is itself socially constructed.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I was avoiding 'biological sex' as it's often used by transphobic people, to say, for example, that John is 'really' a boy, even though he wants to be, or claims that he is, a girl.
'Sex identity' is more neutral.
But also unclear, because you're conflating different things (or at least, things that might be different.)
We understand, more or less, how the biology works in intersex people. It is not true to say that an intersex person is biologically male, and it is not true to say that they are biologically female.
Trans men, on the other hand, are biologically female, given our current understanding of biology. They have XX chromosomes, ovaries, uteruses, and can bear children (unless they've had surgery to remove some of those parts).
Our current understanding of biology is not complete. There are studies suggesting a biological etiology for transgenderism, although what we have now is basically correlations rather than mechanisms. And we can't look at a transgender person and see that they are trans - the only way we find out is when we are told.
Given our current biological understanding, this places transgender in a different category from intersex. It is possible that transgenderism is a different manifestation of an intersex condition, and that biological advances will allow us to identify the causes and mechanisms in an objective way (ie. without having to ask the trans person how they think / feel), in which case we could consider them in the same category. That's not where we are now.
quote:
Also, some of the radicals argue that biological sex is not some inert category that humans find lying around, but is itself socially constructed.
This is woolly-headed, and likely caused by people conflating biological language with social language.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, as I said, I try to avoid citing biological sex as I've seen so many occasions where it's used to denigrate trans people. Of course, it's not always possible to avoid it, as in this post.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, some of the radicals argue that biological sex is not some inert category that humans find lying around, but is itself socially constructed.
Interesting. Never had a tongue in my social construct. My primary biological sexual characteristic is another matter.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, some of the radicals argue that biological sex is not some inert category that humans find lying around, but is itself socially constructed.
Interesting. Never had a tongue in my social construct. My primary biological sexual characteristic is another matter.
Very cute, as you would say. I think that transphobic people tend to weaponize biological sex, so that they can say, no, John's not a girl, he's got a penis.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that transphobic people tend to weaponize biological sex, so that they can say, no, John's not a girl, he's got a penis.
If we change definitions or words to communicate more effectively, that is good. If we do it in response to hate, then we are allowing the haters to dominate the conversation. And that is bad.
The correct response is, IMO, "John is a girl with a penis".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that transphobic people tend to weaponize biological sex, so that they can say, no, John's not a girl, he's got a penis.
If we change definitions or words to communicate more effectively, that is good. If we do it in response to hate, then we are allowing the haters to dominate the conversation. And that is bad.
The correct response is, IMO, "John is a girl with a penis".
I think the idea of biological sex as a social construct predates all the discussions about trans people. But undoubtedly, it has intensified it.
I don't really know when feminists first began to discuss this, possibly de Beauvoir said something about it. But she is famous for saying that one becomes a woman, which is rather different. (1949?). Another major figure is Judith Butler, but a lot later.
It would be interesting to have a thread on this, rather than hijacking the scouts.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
"Sexual difference ... is never simply a function of material differences which are not in some way both marked and formed by discursive practices".
Butler, 'Bodies that Matter'.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The correct response is, IMO, "John is a girl with a penis".
That is agreeable sometimes. Not always. If this is a 7 year old, then it is "John's a boy, and is pretending/play with the idea of/uncertain of being female", and we would have to know many other factors in his life before we should move in a direction of confirming by our interactions that the identity is confirmed.
I had a discussion with a 13 year old recently where I was told they were "gender fluid". With non-directive discussion and not leading questioning indicated that this was something under discussion within the GSA (gay-straight alliance) at school, and the person was considering the idea. It was much better to not confirm anything in this discourse and to be open to disconfirmation or confirmation. I fully admit that my bias is disconfirmation when the person has limited life experience. We should not support other than there are things to explore is such situations.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that transphobic people tend to weaponize biological sex, so that they can say, no, John's not a girl, he's got a penis.
Biological sex and sex/gender identity mean different things. They are conceptually different. But we tend to use all the same words for both, which leads to confusion, much of which is deliberate.
So on the one hand, we have people who argue as you describe here - that sex/gender identity is not separable from sex, and that, for example, a trans girl is "really" a confused boy.
On the other hand, we have people who argue that sex/gender identity is primary, and biological sex is irrelevant, leading to discussions that go like this:
A: "So a trans woman is a woman with a man's body?"
B: "No, it's a woman's body, because she's a woman, and it's her body."
Which while being affirming of the trans woman isn't really all that helpful to a discussion where the distinctions are important.
In the case of an intersex person, their biological sex is neither male nor female. Their gender identity could be male or female, or might not be. If you conflate biological sex and sex/gender identity, you don't have the language to talk about an intersex woman. Because she doesn't have ambiguous gender identity: she fits perfectly well into binary gender, but her body doesn't fit into a binary classification of sex. Whereas a non-binary/genderqueer person might not fit into a male/female gender classification, but has a standard male, or standard female, body.
Socially, the biological language isn't important, because in polite company one does not pry into someone else's bodily details.
ETA: And I still don't know whether gender actually exists.
[ 03. March 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's an interesting point that normally we don't scrutinize genitals, or in fact, bodies, to ascertain sex identity. It used to be said that 'secondary characteristics' are used to infer this, but I suppose also stuff such as hair, clothes, make-up, gait, and so on.
It's as if some gender traits are a gateway to sex ascription. One of Butler's ideas is that gender is a performance, intended to convey aspects of identity.
I suppose trans people elicit fear and loathing, as a cherished binary is being blurred. Although I realize that some Christians see male/female as created by God, presumably not to be tampered with. Honi soit qui mal y pense. Shame on him who thinks ill of it.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
... If this is a 7 year old, then it is "John's a boy, and is pretending/play with the idea of/uncertain of being female", and we would have to know many other factors in his life before we should move in a direction of confirming by our interactions that the identity is confirmed. ....
I think if John continues to present as a girl* despite being beaten up repeatedly or disciplined at school or subjected to exorcism, or all sorts of other shit, we should take her word for it. I'm also somewhat bothered by the idea that other people's reactions "confirm" (or, presumably, can deny) a child's gender identity. Is there a magic age when we stop debating and accept trans kids as they are?
---
*Sorry, it's Friday and I can't think of a better phrase for expressing gender identity
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is there a magic age when we stop debating and accept trans kids as they are?
Sometime after the Anthropocene.
We suck, perhaps we'll evolve into something that doesn't.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Can I in advance apologise if a phrase I use offends - it's not intended as offensive, but used from ignorance.
I can sort of understand transgender, probably as much as most who are not can. There was a recent article in the Guardian by a person who said that they did not identify as either male or female. I find that very hard to comprehend as apart from they did not say how they did identify (I am using them and they as that's what the author did).
Any comments please to assist.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I think if John continues to present as a girl*
*Sorry, it's Friday and I can't think of a better phrase for expressing gender identity
I'm not convinced we need to change existing phrases. Add some, perhaps.
quote:
Is there a magic age when we stop debating and accept trans kids as they are?
On a less sarcastic note than my previous post, we should always accept. Though, no pressure in any direction. A serious question is what age hormone therapy and surgery, I think. Or I think I think.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not very traditionally-masculine, but as we've been saying, that's different from whatever transgender is.
I tend to think of that as a person's yin-yang balance. Some people need to be more yin/feminine, in terms of whatever that is for their culture. Some need to be yang/masculine. And some need to be balanced between the two. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the direction of their sexual attraction.
But that's a third thing.
1. Sexuality. What kinds of people you are attracted to.
2. Cultural gender mores. Do you enjoy activities / behave in ways that your culture assigns to people of your sex, or not?
3. Trans. Gender dysphoria. Your body is wrong, etc.
These are three different things, and whilst there might be correlations between them when you look at whole populations, an individual person needn't show those correlations.
Ok, that's what I was trying to say, if I understand you correctly. You said "I'm not very traditionally-masculine", and someone upthread mentioned having a daughter who's an engineer. Those seem to fit in with my description of yin/yang balance, within cultural parameters.
I said it doesn't necessarily correlate with sexual attraction. And I'm adding that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being trans.
Apologies if I put things clumsily. I'm trying to work through this and understand it, as I have for many years. Given my fundamentalist background; living in a very vanilla place in my childhood; being gay was Liberace, and Jack pretending to be gay on "Three's Company"; trans was Christine Jorgensen; and my having some bad experiences with LG people, I've come a long way. And vote for SSM twice.
Please excuse my learning/understanding/adjustment curve.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Transgender is different - my daughter's friend who transitioned could not deal with puberty, menstruation caused extreme distress. And lack of access to clothes of his choice. We went through our wardrobes at one point and gave up our more masculine clothes to help, as well as taking him out shopping.
(I don't find very feminine clothes practical, so when fashion goes too frou-frou will buy unisex or men's shirts and jumpers, trousers and shorts. That way I get shorts down to my knees and pockets in clothes. And I live in DM's in winter.)
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I can sort of understand transgender, probably as much as most who are not can. There was a recent article in the Guardian by a person who said that they did not identify as either male or female. I find that very hard to comprehend as apart from they did not say how they did identify (I am using them and they as that's what the author did).
Any comments please to assist.
No idea about the specifics here but as I said upthread there's growing recognition that transgender isn't necessarily all or nothing, probably because the processes by which gender identity is formed are not all-or-nothing either. So someone could be experiencing some degree of cross-sex gender identity without completely identifying cross-sex. (So neither male nor female the but elements of both.) But as you say it's difficult to understand exactly what they are saying without some more positive characterization of how they identify.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
... If this is a 7 year old, then it is "John's a boy, and is pretending/play with the idea of/uncertain of being female", and we would have to know many other factors in his life before we should move in a direction of confirming by our interactions that the identity is confirmed. ....
I think if John continues to present as a girl* despite being beaten up repeatedly or disciplined at school or subjected to exorcism, or all sorts of other shit, we should take her word for it. I'm also somewhat bothered by the idea that other people's reactions "confirm" (or, presumably, can deny) a child's gender identity. Is there a magic age when we stop debating and accept trans kids as they are?
The schools would not have any form of discipline for such things. Not allowed at all under school regulations and human rights. There are strict hands-off policies as well, with a requirement of students to report bullying they observe. Less in primary schools (grade 1-8 or 1-6, depending), but in high schools and junior high schools, gay-straight alliances and anti-racism is required.
Schools here are also converting the W.C.s (I don't know why we have the antiquated term "water closet" for toilets/washrooms) to generic, anyone may use. They are taking out male urinals. This isn't from my province but it's describes what we have.
quote:
students have the right to self-identify their gender and be addressed by the name and pronoun of their choice....students [may] dress in clothing and participate on the sports team that reflects their gender identity and expression.
Are your jurisdictions doing something else?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
A couple of relevant articles:
"Biology Teacher Expertly Smacks Down Transphobe Who Cited ‘Science’" (Huff Post).
Her answer is really good, and mentioned a cause I'd never heard of.
"Yelp Can Now Help You Find A Gender-Neutral Toilet" (Huff Post).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thanks marsupial. They're the sort of lines I was thinking but I find it very hard to comprehend. They made no comment about still searching, rather saying that they identified as neither male or female with no expanding on that. The photo accompanying the article was a very posed one. Sorry, I can't find the article now to give a link.
As to the conversation Learning Cnight sets out - what a way to win friends and influence people! As bad as those who simply deny the right of transgender people to be.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If you read what I wrote, I asserting that it is inappropriate to go with what a preadolescent child might think about their gender identity, and many other things as well. We do not expect children to solidify such things at, in the example, 6 years of age.
So if a six year old male says that he is a boy do you tell him he is too young to be sure and should wait until he's a teenager?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
A couple of relevant articles:
"Biology Teacher Expertly Smacks Down Transphobe Who Cited ‘Science’" (Huff Post).
Her answer is really good, and mentioned a cause I'd never heard of.
"Yelp Can Now Help You Find A Gender-Neutral Toilet" (Huff Post).
That first link shows how bigots often use pseudo-science to denigrate trans people, and as an extra bonus, allude to mental illness also.
I suppose conservatives dread the neat boxes of sex/gender and sexuality being eroded, which is happening today in spades.
All these arguments do raise some interesting questions, e.g., is there such a thing as a 'natural woman' (or man), is there an essential womanhood (or manhood). Opinions vary.
An interesting point about causation - in the days when gays and lesbians were denigrated considerably, there was much attention paid to causation, but this has died down. I think trans people are at that early stage - the search for etiology can go alongside an attempt at pathologization.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So if a six year old male says that he is a boy do you tell him he is too young to be sure and should wait until he's a teenager?
I think you mistyped - you meant perhaps the male child said he was a girl.
Perhaps you haven't been a parent? Parenting is far more that telling a child anything. You often can't get a child to eat their vegetables, get ready for school, not hit s sibling, let alone discuss such things. That's how adults talk to each other and to older children. Adults are incredibly quick to come to conclusions and be bossy.
Probably a discussion of gender and sex will come from reading a book together or because you've time together to discuss something which came up from friends or at school. It's hardly unreasonable for a 6 year old to wonder why they are the biological sex they are, and wonder why the other social gender gets to do things they don't. And to query the idea of being the other. The dominance of boys although their social skills are undeveloped as compared to girls is a very great social influence in the early school years.
Children are often working out at age 6 how other children see them, how they fit into a social hierarchy at school, and wonder about the way they are. They have been in the social context of family where they know the basic love and acceptance (we hope!), and then they go into a world of other children and adults, finding this sometimes challenging. We certainly shouldn't be jumping to confirm a desire to change gender in the midst of such development, unless it persists and seems to be significantly stable.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
No, the relevant question is about a young boy saying that he's a boy. Do we accept this at an early age? If so, why, when you've said that sex/gender ascription should not happen with young kids?
[ 05. March 2017, 14:28: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We accept it because it is normative. Usual.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We accept it because it is normative. Usual.
But kids who are divergent are told to shut up, or comply with the norms? Well, there may be better ways to induce depression and suicidal thoughts in kids, but I can't recall any.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
No. You are making things much more extreme than I state. We do not confirm everything 6 year olds want or say. Nor do we refute everything. There are probably rare 6 year olds on the planet who say they want to change gender, but we are not going to recommend parenting on that basis. I don't think other than a rare and frightening parent would want to push a child toward mental health problems. It is ridiculous to say a parent who doesn't confirm a 6 year old's floating of an idea as promoting suicide.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There are probably rare 6 year olds on the planet who say they want to change gender,
I know one, as it happens. Not well enough to know all the ins and outs of her situation, but some. She's pretty definite about being a girl. She's 10 now.
It's uncommon, but not unheard-of.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I can remember telling people I would never have kids long before puberty. Through my entire life, everyone, including several of my doctors, told me I would change my mind. I didn't. Just because it's normal for women to have children doesn't mean a woman who doesn't want children is abnormal.
Of course kids have lots of fantastical ideas and love to experiment and shock the grown-ups. That doesn't mean they don't also have knowledge of who they really are.
There is a difference between "normal" and "common". Dark hair, skin and eyes are most common in the human race, but we don't consider blue eyes or red hair abnormal. We accept that the spectrum of pigmentation is simply natural diversity as a result of exposure to different environments. When it comes to sex, 99% of us are definitely not average - the average human having one ovary and one testicle, of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quetzalcoatl--
Re causation:
Well, the biology teacher's response mentioned a certain biochemical problem that can cause someone who's outwardly a girl to develop a penis at puberty.
I'd never heard of that particular condition. The teacher also mentioned androgen insensitivity as another possibility. That, I'd heard of.
I don't think that's "pathologizing" in the sense of "Oh, horrible, exile them from society, at least until we can fix them". But ISTM that whether you consider trans/intersex conditions to be bad, good, troublesome, or something the person just have to figure out how to live with, it may not be helpful to ignore causation--if only to help with other medical issues related to the underlying medical condition.
FWIW. YMMV.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There are probably rare 6 year olds on the planet who say they want to change gender,
I know one, as it happens. Not well enough to know all the ins and outs of her situation, but some. She's pretty definite about being a girl. She's 10 now.
It's uncommon, but not unheard-of.
I think the point is that it is common for children to float many ideas and we mustn't be too quick to judge and hold them to conclusions when it mightn't be than an experiment. I also hold it is important to start from the ususal and normative because it is usual and normative. None of this means being rejecting either. There is a sceptical middle in here. There is no point in pretending that things outside if the norm are going to be smooth or easy.
Re the biology and related. The genetic arguements never have seen as intereting and persuasive as the various animals which change sex over the course of life. Like little barnacles with 8 inch penises to reach others, which may mature into female barnacles. Or some fish species which become the other biological sex if there are too many of their current one. Which of course says nothing about humanity and human values. But it might cause us to be less quick to judge and conclude.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No. You are making things much more extreme than I state. We do not confirm everything 6 year olds want or say. Nor do we refute everything. There are probably rare 6 year olds on the planet who say they want to change gender, but we are not going to recommend parenting on that basis. I don't think other than a rare and frightening parent would want to push a child toward mental health problems. It is ridiculous to say a parent who doesn't confirm a 6 year old's floating of an idea as promoting suicide.
No, I didn't mistype boy for girl.
They are uncommon but not rare. And they're self selecting... when they say they are the opposite sex, it's time to listen and not vehemently deny they are as not normal or they are too young to know. You might want to listen to some people who are transgender and have experienced your kind of denial of non-normative.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
They are very uncommon, if not rare - but that does not mean that their legitimate needs can be ignore. Societies as a whole should support their working out what is appropriate.
I don't think those physical instances set out really are what we're talking about. Isn't the topic those who appearing physically to be one sex (sex not gender) beileve that their true gender is the other?
[ 06. March 2017, 05:57: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think the point is that it is common for children to float many ideas and we mustn't be too quick to judge and hold them to conclusions when it mightn't be than an experiment.
And nobody is holding them to any conclusions. Nobody anywhere on the planet will do more than prescribe puberty blockers to under-16s, and that's a reversible choice.
quote:
I also hold it is important to start from the ususal and normative because it is usual and normative.
Norms are descriptive, not prescriptive. You seem to me to be rather too close to prescription.
I've known plenty of small boys who have enjoyed wearing pink skirts and mascara. These are all small boys with older sisters, and older siblings are often an aspirational role model. I haven't thought any of them were trans, and I suspect you will find no correlation at all between the boys who liked pink skirts and the ones that turn out to be gay.
This is both much more common than, and much different from, biological boys who say they are girls.
quote:
There is no point in pretending that things outside if the norm are going to be smooth or easy.
No, of course not. I don't think anyone pretends that. But that's not terribly relevant - trans kids are not deciding that they fancy being trans on a whim, and they're not going to respond to "You've got a biologically male body. Wouldn't you rather be a boy - it'll be a lot easier" by saying "Actually, you're right: it's less hassle that way. I'll be a boy instead."
quote:
Re the biology and related. The genetic arguements never have seen as intereting and persuasive as the various animals which change sex over the course of life.
You find data about humans less compelling that data about barnacles when it comes to thinking about transgender issues? I'm afraid I don't see how the life cycle of a barnacle is even vaguely relevant.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another media storm, after Jenni Murray did an article saying that trans women are not real women. She has aroused the usual mix of opposition and support.
I do wonder what 'real women' means, and who is going to decide this? But I suppose some women feel a kind of appropriation is going on by trans women. It's noticeable that trans men don't seem to arouse the same anger. I don't mind if somebody wants to live as a man, nor be called a man, without the requisite tackle. Why would I?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
How does the tablods' favourite object of ridicule from a couple of years ago, Rachel Dolezal, fit in to this?
(She has recently changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo.)
To recap, Ms. Diallo was born a white woman to white parents, but considers herself black. She darkens her skin, wears her hair in black styles, and so on. Since her origins were publicized, she has been called "transracial" and quite explicitly copies the language used by the trans community.
She attracted criticism from some black people for "playing" at being black, and not having been subject to the same racism as "real" black people growing up. Her alteration of her appearance has been described as "blackface" by some critics. It strikes me that the criticisms of her are rather similar to those used about trans women by Jenni Murray.
(The concerns seem centred in equity. Are we affording Ms. Diallo the benefits of diversity / minority access schemes that she hasn't "earned" by being the victim of structural racism growing up? Are trans women who grew up with the advantage of being treated by society as male taking a "real" woman's job?
That's why men don't care about trans men "taking their places" - there's no issue of equity in play. We don't ever attempt to compensate men for the disadvantages that their male state has given them.)
I don't think the cases are the same, but there are some parallels.
[ 06. March 2017, 14:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
What parallels might those be?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You find data about humans less compelling that data about barnacles when it comes to thinking about transgender issues? I'm afraid I don't see how the life cycle of a barnacle is even vaguely relevant.
You miss the point. Sexuality isn't fixed in some animal species. It doesn't prescribe for humans, but it indicates that sexuality isn't necessarily as fixed as we might think biologically.
I am rather interested in biology. It would be interesting to hear the evolutionary arguments for transgender in humans. Or is this cultural? Where and what are the lines between the two.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
For what it's worth, my son had life plans to grow up to be a lion when he was what, five? And I wasn't truly convinced of my species until I hit puberty at 12. (If I was going to be truthful, which I won't, I'd say I still am surprised when human-wide imperatives like menopause actually affect me.)
I think I'd be very careful neither to confirm nor deny anything a six-year-old says about identity. For me, it's usually "Hmmmmmmm, that's interesting" and no more.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, that's why the phrase 'insistent, consistent and persistent' is used about trans children, to distinguish a whim, from a serious and committed intent.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think the point is that it is common for children to float many ideas and we mustn't be too quick to judge and hold them to conclusions when it mightn't be than an experiment. I also hold it is important to start from the ususal and normative because it is usual and normative. None of this means being rejecting either. There is a sceptical middle in here. There is no point in pretending that things outside if the norm are going to be smooth or easy.
You keep suggesting that what happens is that John wakes up one day, picks up a Barbie and says "I wanna be a girl" and his liberal parents jump on this and force him into a long commitment that he didn't want. A bit like my mum making me play the violin because I expressed an interest once.
Can you not see how ridiculous this is? Nobody desperately wants their kid to be trans. Nobody jumps on a half formed idea and pushes the kid into it. Everyone wants their kid to be cisgender*: even the people who'd love and cherish a trans kid know that it's a hard life to have.
So what's more likely to happen: John starts saying "I'm a girl" over and over. John starts crying when told "you're a boy" and starts to withdraw and looks sad all the time. Gradually it dawns on John's parents that this isn't like the whole "I wanna be a unicorn" thing. After a few months of this John's parents say "fine you can wear girly clothes in the house". Seeing how delighted John looks and how much more comfortable when presenting as a girl, they start to think about what's best for the kid. Eventually they realise that John is being crushed by presenting as a boy at school, so they get together with teachers and the school authorities and talk through how a social transition would work. John wants to change names to Lucy: she starts living as Lucy full time with the understanding that if she decides she really does want to be a boy after all she can just change straight back and it'll be fine.
After several years of being Lucy, she goes on puberty blockers so that she doesn't suddenly grow a beard and have her voice break. Her friends may not even know that she's trans. This is how it goes until her late teens when she's able to decide if she wants female hormones, surgery or other treatments.
That's the ideal way for this to work out for a trans kid, imo.
* this is not a slur, for crying out loud. It literally just means not trans.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
You make it sound so simple. Which I dare say it isn't. And because it is a child, and not at the level where we think children necessarily think independently of social influence, even if Johnny/Lucy looks sad.
Liken it to children in divorce. The child may consistently say he or she wants to live with one parent, does not want contact with other etc. The people involved in dealing with the family have to separate out the influences upon the child and the child's actual wishes, feelings, and desires. And also what is in the best interests of the child.
I am not saying that the child is or isn't transgender, but that we must be very careful. Consistency of a child's statements and emotional behaviour is one factor to consider, but it is not sufficient.
I thought This Link about hormonal suppression was interesting, which is related but on a different tack.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You make it sound so simple. Which I dare say it isn't. And because it is a child, and not at the level where we think children necessarily think independently of social influence, even if Johnny/Lucy looks sad.
Two things. 1) This is not a case of John looking randomly sad for reasons unfathomable. This is John saying clearly "I am sad. This is why I am sad. You making me be a boy is making me sadder." As a parent you have to formulate a response to that. Sure, you can come up with some version of "John, you're a a kid and you don't know what you want. Shut up about being a girl" but that also has consequences. 2) again with the social influence. What social influence do you think is trying to turn kids trans? Literally all the pressure is in the other direction.
quote:
Liken it to children in divorce. The child may consistently say he or she wants to live with one parent, does not want contact with other etc. The people involved in dealing with the family have to separate out the influences upon the child and the child's actual wishes, feelings, and desires. And also what is in the best interests of the child.
Liken it to a kid being trans. Seriously. Listen to trans people speak about their experiences. Listen to them talk about how hurtful it was being told over and over that they couldn't be true to themselves, that they were just stupid kids who didn't know what they wanted. Listen to trans kids. You don't need to compare it to something that is a completely different experience that you picked purely because it support supports your point. Have you actually listened to trans people talk about their own experiences of childhood?
quote:
I am not saying that the child is or isn't transgender, but that we must be very careful. Consistency of a child's statements and emotional behaviour is one factor to consider, but it is not sufficient.
Okay. We have to be careful. Of what? What are you so worried about? John keeps saying he's a girl. Spell out what you're worried may happen if his parents take him at his word on this one.
I'll check out the link in a mo.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't understand what the alternatives are, with a boy who insists he's a girl, and reacts badly to being a boy. What are the parents supposed to do? Ignore him? Tell him to shut up. Make him wear boys' clothes?
And I don't mean something whimsical, but that 'insistent, consistent, persistent' attitude mentioned earlier.
It would worry me that such a boy would be heading for serious depression, if not supported by parents - but would they ignore that?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You miss the point. Sexuality isn't fixed in some animal species. It doesn't prescribe for humans, but it indicates that sexuality isn't necessarily as fixed as we might think biologically.
I think you mean sex, rather than sexuality, here. And I still don't see the relevance.
Sequential hermaphroditism is a normal part of the life cycle of several kinds of fish, for example. These are functional changes: an individual fish can reproduce as a male, and later reproduce as a female.
It is not a part of the normal human life cycle.
In humans, we observe rare intersex conditions where the person's apparent sex changes (usually at puberty). This is not a true sex change (the individual isn't reproductively functional in both sexes), but are merely changes in external appearance.
Almost all of these are apparent female->male changes: an example would be 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, where a lack of 5-alpha-reductase inhibits the production of dihydrotestosterone, and so inhibits the formation of male genitals in an XY individual. At puberty, increased testosterone production in the testes triggers virilization.
And none of this has much to do with trans people.
quote:
I am rather interested in biology. It would be interesting to hear the evolutionary arguments for transgender in humans. Or is this cultural? Where and what are the lines between the two.
I don't think there is an "evolutionary argument" for transgender. Where's the evolutionary pressure? A trans woman is a normally-functional biological man unless she chooses to do something about it. I know several trans women who transitioned fairly late in life; they were all married with children. Evolution doesn't care how you feel - just what you do.
We don't know what causes transgenderism - whether it's genetic, environmental, or what.
The acceptance of transgenderism is cultural. Transgenderism itself is unlikely to be a cultural product.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We're talking about a 6 year here.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We're talking about a 6 year here.
And?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Who are you responding to?b
(Crosspost obv!)
[ 06. March 2017, 20:10: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We're talking about a 6 year here.
Who according to you can define their gender if it's the normative choice but can't if it's not the choice you want them to make.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
My point is that unless there is extended confirmation of gender dysphoria, we can't just go with a 6 year old's assertion.
"Transgenderism itself is unlikely to be a cultural product."
-which begs the question. Biology then? Which brings me to evolution of course.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My point is that unless there is extended confirmation of gender dysphoria, we can't just go with a 6 year old's assertion.
"Transgenderism itself is unlikely to be a cultural product."
OK, and given that as I said, nobody actively wants their kids to be trans because it's a harder life for them, the kids who are going to be transitioning are the ones who are very unhappy about their birth assigned gender. They're going to be the ones who've said over and over "I don't want to be a girl/boy. I am very unhappy about this" over a long period.
There's your extended gender dysphoria. Unless what you mean is that you need someone else to agree that the kid is telling it like it is.
quote:
-which begs the question. Biology then? Which brings me to evolution of course.
I don't like this, and I'll tell you why. This thread is about how we should treat trans kids and evolution - fascinating subject though it is - tells us nothing about that. I have seen evolution used to justify horrible homophobia. I have seen it used to justify rape and the subjugation of women. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying you're in favour of any of these things. I'm just saying that nothing good comes from mixing evolution and morality.
If your response is that we need to know why kids are transgender before we can know what to do with them then I disagree.
I'm going to repeat my question: what are you worried about? What is the outcome that we're trying to avoid, if we take these kids at their word?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Because it is more complicated in terms of mental health, health and other outcome issues. I'll limit this to 2 links from some diverse areas of study to not over-burden hosts. Background: about 30 years ago when I was a doctoral fellow, another student who'd surgically transitioned was studying what he termed "the wish". I've followed this on and off since. I don't actually think dysphoria, other indicators and a stated desire is sufficient to support transitioning for a pre-adolescent child. Much more about family and psycho-social context is required. There appears to be a flow toward the individual away from context. It could also be that where I live the mental health supports are much worse in terms of availability than elsewhere, and what I assume re contextual assessment of additional factors is done elsewhere when it isn't here.
I realize some of the disconnect in this discussion is that about half of my work time is spent on health policies and funding from a population perspective (not in this area, I'm sure you will be glad to know). The quality of information isn't good, relies on testimonials to a large degree, there is medical endorsement of treatment approaches like pubertal hormone blocking medications which are unknown about long term adverse effects. My read is that before blocking drugs made available that transgender people had to wait until age ~16 for endocrine therapy. Which further complicates the assessment.
Factors associated with satisfaction or regret following male-to-female sex reassignment surgery
Baseline Physiologic and Psychosocial Characteristics of Transgender Youth Seeking Care for Gender Dysphoria
My query about evolution is not to use it as a weapon to attack, rather to recognize that there might be something here. Ethological studies of other primates would be of interest. I suspect that humans are not the only primate to assume differential roles.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The first study acknowledges several shortcomings, I'll add another. Acceptance. Rather, the lack of. This will factor into the problems some have afterward. Society doesn't accept them.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The second study concludes:
Transgender youth are aware of the incongruence between their internal gender identity and their assigned sex at early ages. Prevalence of depression and suicidality demonstrates that youth may benefit from timely and appropriate intervention. Evaluation of these youth over time will help determine the impact of medical intervention and mental health therapy.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
OK there's a lot here so I'll probably post a few times at intervals. I'm going to start with the first study which compares trans people to cis people and finds that they are more likely to be miserable, more likely to die prematurely, more likely to get a criminal conviction. OK.
My response is: no shit, Sherlock. Being trans is hard. Really hard. Whether or not you manage to get treatment. Do you know how hard it is to get a job if you're a trans person who doesn't "pass" as cis? Do you know how many trans women end up in sex work simply because there is no other profession that'll have them? Trans people constantly fear harassment. Some can't leave their houses without being shouted at. The whole thing about bathroom bills is aimed at making it impossible for trans people to exist in public. Many won't travel abroad because they are afraid of being harassed about official documents that don't match their presentation. So in the face of this mountain of crap, is it any wonder that trans people are more likely to be depressed or suicidal?
And yet. In spite of all the crap, they keep going, keep pursuing treatment, keep presenting themselves in a way that doesn't conform to their birth sex. Does that not tell you something about how important this is? If a trans woman would rather go out and be yelled at every day as a woman than go back to trying to live as a man, does it not suggest that that need to be female is very real and very powerful?
You can't compare trans people with cis people and make the case that it's transitioning that's bad for them. That's like comparing people on antidepressants and people not on antidepressants and concluding that antidepressants make people depressed.
Incidentally you'll find these kinds of results for any marginalised group if you compare them to the dominant group. Black people have worse outcomes than white people. Gay people have worse outcomes than straight people. Life is just harder, on average, for some people than it is for others, because we don't live in a fair and equal society.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
You can't compare trans people with cis people and make the case that it's transitioning that's bad for them. That's like comparing people on antidepressants and people not on antidepressants and concluding that antidepressants make people depressed.
Yeah.
If you compare the following groups, how do you think they'll rank on misery?
- Cis people
- Trans people who have/are transitioning
- Trans people who are 'in the closet', whether by choice or because of external circumstances
If you prevent a trans child from transitioning, you don't make them cis. You put the in the last group. And I predict that the last group will be the most miserable of all.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Trans is a protected human rights status in all areas of life here, including private and public businesses, education, employment including duty to accommodate. It is understood human rights are more restricted elsewhere. Discrimiation doesn't cease with laws but it makes a difference.
The term "cis" isn't in general use. A new coinage. The term is used in chemistry for many decades, where bonds, say on a benzene ring are cis, trans and meta. Perhaps this use is the source.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
What is your point here?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Returning to your previous post:
Something I missed first time around is that the title you've given the link of the first study isn't actually anything to do with what was examined.
The second study says, again, that trans kids are often pretty unhappy, and frequently to the point of attempting suicide. I think the line you're trying to take here is "see it's complicated so they shouldn't be able to transition." If you actually talk to trans people, though, the story that comes out again and again is that they were miserable trying to be cis and keeping their identity secret, but upon transitioning they felt much better. You would expect to find that trans youth had been miserable at some point, because gender dysphoria makes people miserable. So I don't think this is backing up any point that you're trying to make.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The term "cis" isn't in general use.
Yes it is.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The term is used in chemistry for many decades, where bonds, say on a benzene ring are cis, trans and meta. Perhaps this use is the source.
Yeah, I believe that's the etymology. Cis (as short for cisgender) has been used for over a decade, so it's new as words go but it's not a fad from last week! (Merriam Webster reckons the first recorded use was 1994.)
[ 08. March 2017, 14:57: Message edited by: Amorya ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's rather similar to the arguments that bigots used to raise about gays and lesbians - that they are miserable, have mental illnesses, attempt suicide and so on. But this (neatly) ignores the point that a lot of this arises from the prejudice and rejection that gays face.
It's kind of saying, stay in the closet, then you won't have to face all this flak. But hang on, maybe we could reduce the flak, then being out, will be OK.
So the problem isn't being gay or trans, but the rejection and negativity that gays and trans people face. Bigots try to sidestep that, by saying that being gay and trans is intrinsically problematic.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The term "cis" isn't in general use.
Yes it is.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The term is used in chemistry for many decades, where bonds, say on a benzene ring are cis, trans and meta. Perhaps this use is the source.
Yeah, I believe that's the etymology. Cis (as short for cisgender) has been used for over a decade, so it's new as words go but it's not a fad from last week! (Merriam Webster reckons the first recorded use was 1994.)
Gallia Transalpina et Gallia Cisalpina - what do they teach them in the schools these days?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Trans is a protected human rights status in all areas of life here, including private and public businesses, education, employment including duty to accommodate. It is understood human rights are more restricted elsewhere. Discrimiation doesn't cease with laws but it makes a difference.
The term "cis" isn't in general use. A new coinage. The term is used in chemistry for many decades, where bonds, say on a benzene ring are cis, trans and meta. Perhaps this use is the source.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It's a recognised word in the Oxford English Dictionary
"This word belongs in Frequency Band 3. Band 3 contains words which occur between 0.01 and 0.1 times per million words in typical modern English usage. These words are not commonly found in general text types like novels and newspapers, but at the same they are not overly opaque or obscure. "
Other Frequency Band 3 words include examples like prelapsarian, contumacious, so not anything people here couldn't be expected to handle.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The term "cis" isn't in general use. A new coinage. The term is used in chemistry for many decades, where bonds, say on a benzene ring are cis, trans and meta.
It's been more than two decades since my last organic chemistry class, but the bond locations on a benzene ring were ortho-, para-, and meta-.
Cis- and trans- refer to having functional groups on the same or opposite sides of a hydrocarbon chain.
[ 08. March 2017, 23:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The term "cis" isn't in general use. A new coinage. The term is used in chemistry for many decades, where bonds, say on a benzene ring are cis, trans and meta.
It's been more than two decades since my last organic chemistry class, but the bond locations on a benzene ring were ortho-, para-, and meta-.
Cis- and trans- refer to having functional groups on the same or opposite sides of a hydrocarbon chain.
It's been 4 decades since my second year organic chem class. It shows
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Trans is a protected human rights status in all areas of life here, including private and public businesses, education, employment including duty to accommodate. It is understood human rights are more restricted elsewhere. Discrimiation doesn't cease with laws but it makes a difference.
You've posted this twice and I'm still not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. That Canada is better than other places for trans people? That it's really not so difficult being trans? My responses are as follows: yes, probably, but most people don't live in Canada and you can't legislate away this kind of prejudice. No, it really is that difficult (or can be - best case scenarios can be very different). I know this because I have spoken to actual trans people about their actual experiences. It's tough out there. You don't seem to be all that concerned with what actual trans people have to say.
Also you still haven't answered my question.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
FWIW, anti-trans discrimination is as banned in NSW as any discrimination on the basis of sex, sexuality, race, age etc. Can't speak of the other States. I don't know that this takes the discussion any further though.
I don't like cisgender as a word, nor the way in which it's often used. It has all the hallmarks of being a label put together by a sociologist in search of a tenured position. But my dislike does not mean that it's not a word.
[ 09. March 2017, 09:53: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I genuinely don't understand why people object to "cisgender". Linguistically it is the obvious choice: we've been using "trans" (on the other side) for a long time and "cis" just means "on the same side". It's not any kind of slur. It's not insulting. It's just a statement, basically, that all your gender stuff lines up on the same side.
What people often seem to mean when they say "don't call me cis" is that they'd preferred people use words like "normal" or "real woman" etc. Which are actually very insulting to trans people by extension.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't like labels at all. I can see that this is contradictory, since I use terms like 'trans' and 'gay'. But they are very distancing, even alienating. If I look into myself, I find a swirling confusion of 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits, although in 'biological' terms, I am 'male'.
[ 09. March 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Just thinking about that again, I remember in work I would encounter various people who would be called disturbed, e.g. borderline, bipolar, schizophrenic, and so on, and I had a tendency to look up various text-books.
However, I found that this did not work, since psychotherapy is based on an encounter between two people. What did work was being with that person, and going on from there, honestly and openly.
At the same time, in some contexts, labels are useful and important. We don't want a surgeon not to care about what 'legs' and 'arms' are, and proceeding accordingly.
But one issue for gay and trans people is that they have been treated as labels, not persons.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
One is only allowed to be a person instead of a label, or collection of labels, if one is part of the dominant group. In our society that is straight, white male with no mental health isssues.
The rest of us are labels first.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Yup. I was going to say that myself. Being able to say "I don't like labels" really is a mark of privilege; if you're part of any marginalised group you know the labels will come flying at you whether you like it or not.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Yup. I was going to say that myself. Being able to say "I don't like labels" really is a mark of privilege; if you're part of any marginalised group you know the labels will come flying at you whether you like it or not.
Yet I've heard gay people say that they don't like being labelled, ditto people with various 'mental illnesses'. Does this mean that they are privileged? Possibly they are, since they have been educated presumably, and have enough nous to say 'I don't like being labelled'.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Labels are priviledge? What do you mean? Labels are categorical and classification. The other way is to place things on a continuum. Biological sex is mostly categorical, but there are exceptions. Gender identity is both categorical and on a continuum.
Cis is a term which is yet to be in general use. People who have not heard it may discern what it means from context. Until it would become a word in everyday discourse, it probably won't catch on. Mostly I think because it captures something most don't need to talk about because of the everyday conflation for most of biology and social identities.
Re human rights. I was hoping to hear of regulations and laws in other places. I wondered, what, beyond equality and acceptance is desired.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
I didn't mean that labels are privilege. I mean that being seen as the "default" human category rather than the "other" category is privilege. I've seen people object to being called cisgender for no other reason than "I don't think we need a new word for normal." They're used to being the default category, the first one on the list.
Among people who regularly discuss trans issues and concerns, the word cisgender is universally used. It's an accepted term. It may be that people who don't talk about trans issues ever haven't heard it. Nonetheless it is the accepted term for pretty much everyone who regularly gives a shit. In the same way, people on the autism spectrum may say "neurotypical" to mean "not autistic" and I have heard people object to that label as well. Once again it seems to stem from feeling uncomfortable at being put into a category rather than just being considered default. "I don't need a new word for normal."
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The use of the word "normal" is probably the issue, because people mean either that and its opposite "abnormal" or they mean "normative" as in usual or most frequently encountered.
I don't think the autism/ASD and neurotypical are comparable. In the Canadian context, Québec and the ROC (rest of Canada) doesn't work either. These categories are far too large and diverse.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You find data about humans less compelling that data about barnacles when it comes to thinking about transgender issues? I'm afraid I don't see how the life cycle of a barnacle is even vaguely relevant.
You miss the point. Sexuality isn't fixed in some animal species. It doesn't prescribe for humans, but it indicates that sexuality isn't necessarily as fixed as we might think biologically.
I am rather interested in biology. It would be interesting to hear the evolutionary arguments for transgender in humans. Or is this cultural? Where and what are the lines between the two.
It doesn't follow that because a trait exists in humans there is an evolutionary basis for it. Evolution happens because mutation throws up a new trait and the organism is able to pass it on to it's successors. The classical examples are things like being able to run faster to evade predators or catch prey. Hence the speed of gazelles and cheetahs. Looked at in those bald terms there isn't an evolutionary reason for being Trans inasmuch as it's a pretty suboptimal strategy for reproduction. But so is falling in love with a woman in her forties, marrying a chap who has had the snip, being gay or becoming a member of a religious order. They all happen and none of them, IMO, are intrinsically bad. For all sorts of interesting reasons human beings don't arrange their lives purely around ensuring that they have biological descendants.
If there is a combination of genes, for being Trans then all we can say is that it has emerged in the human gene pool and hasn't currently become extinct. It doesn't answer the question as to what to do when a six year old girl announces that she is a boy and now wishes to be called Fred or whether or not same-sex bathrooms are a good idea or what to do when a transgender person who is biologically male receives a custodial sentence for a crime of violence. Evolution can sometimes give you an answer to the question of how behaviour emerges but when you ask what to do about it, it shrugs and tells you that it neither knows nor cares.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I didn't mean that labels are privilege. I mean that being seen as the "default" human category rather than the "other" category is privilege. I've seen people object to being called cisgender for no other reason than "I don't think we need a new word for normal." They're used to being the default category, the first one on the list.
Among people who regularly discuss trans issues and concerns, the word cisgender is universally used. It's an accepted term. It may be that people who don't talk about trans issues ever haven't heard it. Nonetheless it is the accepted term for pretty much everyone who regularly gives a shit. In the same way, people on the autism spectrum may say "neurotypical" to mean "not autistic" and I have heard people object to that label as well. Once again it seems to stem from feeling uncomfortable at being put into a category rather than just being considered default. "I don't need a new word for normal."
I don't think the opposite of 'label' is 'default'. I came across this a lot in my work as a therapist, where people began to cast off those labels that had been stuck on them in early life - they were bad, or mad, or irrational, or stupid, or sexy, or uninteresting. Of course, it's very tough to get rid of this stuff, even becoming aware of it is tough.
Using labels such as 'trans' is different, of course, and they are useful. But, and there is a but here, isn't there a danger of missing the person?
I suppose it's quite challenging that trans girls, for example, may be rejecting one label (boy) and embracing another, (girl). But there is a real person here as well, who is complicated, and resists being labelled.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The use of the word "normal" is probably the issue, because people mean either that and its opposite "abnormal" or they mean "normative" as in usual or most frequently encountered.
I don't think the autism/ASD and neurotypical are comparable.
Normative doesn't mean usual or most frequently encountered. It means correct, ideal, standard. It means the best out of the various alternatives. Normative is what people are supposed to aspire to.
Look, having language set up in such a way that other people are the normal ones, and you're the outlier and weirdo, is a problem. It alienates people. It's why we no longer talk about "homosexuals vs normal people". Trans people don't like it anymore than anyone else. Once again I'm saying this because I've actually paid some attention to what trans people are saying about things. You really don't appear to care.
It's exactly the same as ASD people talking about "neurotypicals" instead of "normal people." If you don't think so, you might want to explain why not.
Also you still haven't answered my very straightforward question about what the bad thing is that might happen if John is allowed to be Lucy. Just that we need to be very careful to avoid... whatever it is.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet I've heard gay people say that they don't like being labelled, ditto people with various 'mental illnesses'. Does this mean that they are privileged?
Liopleurodon answered the question, but I'd like to address an unasked tangent.(You're welcome)
Privilege is a sliding scale and situational. For instance, in the UK and the US; a gay, white male will generally have more than a straight, black male.
quote:
Possibly they are, since they have been educated presumably, and have enough nous to say 'I don't like being labelled'.
I don't think nous is the proper word. No one likes being adversely labelled.
We generally don't notice the positive labels, though.
Labels are an offshoot of our evolution, categorising things is how we survived as a species. And they are useful. We cannot remove labels and be completely functional and it isn't how our brains work anyway. It is the connotations of those labels that are descriptive or damaging.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Normative doesn't mean usual or most frequently encountered. It means correct, ideal, standard. It means the best out of the various alternatives. Normative is what people are supposed to aspire to.
One of the meanings is " a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom".
quote:
It's exactly the same as ASD people talking about "neurotypicals" instead of "normal people." If you don't think so, you might want to explain why not.
You do not think autism constitutes a disorder?
quote:
Also you still haven't answered my very straightforward question about what the bad thing is that might happen if John is allowed to be Lucy. Just that we need to be very careful to avoid... whatever it is. [/QB]
Because John is 6 years old. Developmentally inappropriate. Answered already. I am not going to agree with you on this.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
But what might happen? I'm not expecting you to agree with me. I'm asking you to flesh out your objections as to WHY it's inappropriate rather than just asserting that it is. There must be a negative outcome of some sort that you're worried about.
Whether or not autism is a disorder in the sense of being necessarily a bad thing is a topic that gets debated a lot. I don't want to derail this thread by pursuing it here. Suffice to say: many people on the spectrum dislike the implication that we are less good than NT people, or that we should want a cure.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Lilbuddha - fair enough; by nous I meant that being able to say 'I don't want to be labelled' is quite sophisticated, isn't it? It's a metacommunicative act, after all. In some people, I see it as a great step forward, but this is in a different context, when somebody has been labelled as X as a child, and then struggles to get out from underneath that. But I suppose trans children are doing this to an extent.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]Using labels such as 'trans' is different, of course, and they are useful. But, and there is a but here, isn't there a danger of missing the person?
I suppose it's quite challenging that trans girls, for example, may be rejecting one label (boy) and embracing another, (girl). But there is a real person here as well, who is complicated, and resists being labelled.
I don't follow you, quite. When you say "there is a real person... who... resists being labelled" who are you talking about?
Our relationship with labels is always a bit complicated. Sometimes the label is actually pretty important to people, because it says something about who they are and what they've experienced. And when someone else jumps in and says "oh you don't need to label yourself like that!" it comes across as "that part of you isn't important. In fact I'd rather you forgot about it."
Consider the way in which white people often insist "but I don't see colour! I don't think of you as black!" and think that they've said something kind and supportive to their black acquaintance. However many black people have said that they hear this and think "but I am black. That's a part of me. It's shaped my experience. What is so bad about it that you're going out of your way to avoid acknowledging something that is very clear and obvious to anyone who can see?"
Nobody wants to be treated badly because they belong to a marginalised group, obviously. But when you're in the dominant group, you don't have to think so much about labels. As an example: I'm white. I don't have to think very much about being white, because if I go into a branch of Boots they'll have makeup in my shades. Most hairdressers will understand my hair - I don't have to travel across town to find one. If I don't get a job I can be pretty sure that I wasn't rejected because I was white. When I turn on the TV I'll likely see people who have my skin colour without having to think much about finding a show that represents people like me. My whiteness is just kinda there.
But when the world is set up in a way that makes things that bit more difficult for you you have to confront that identity. So if you're gay, it's harder to meet a partner. You might have to travel a long way to find a pub where you feel comfortable trying to meet someone. Shows don't show so many people like you, and when they do they're more likely to be one note token characters. You might be happy with who you are, and not want to be different, but you know yours is considered the outsider identity by many. And you have to work out how you deal with that.
So when someone comes along and says "I don't want you to call me cis!" or "neurotypical is insulting! Just say normal!" for one thing they're making a judgement about how they're definitely NOT the outsiders here. For another, quite often it's the first time they've ever thought about it. I'd never thought all that much about what it meant to have my gender line up neatly with the gender everyone else identified me as. Everyone agrees I'm female. Nice and straightforward. I never really considered that fact until I met a few trans people and realised that they have to be aware of their "transness" constantly, because that's how the world is set up. NOT having to think about it is a luxury. If your response to hearing the word "cisgender" is to complain that you don't like being labelled, you probably don't know how lucky you are.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
But what might happen? I'm not expecting you to agree with me. I'm asking you to flesh out your objections as to WHY it's inappropriate rather than just asserting that it is. There must be a negative outcome of some sort that you're worried about.
I've already discussed the developmental inappropriateness of this above. Children are not miniature adults, and we don't accept that various things they say, feel and think they firmly believe are not going to change. We need to see internalization over time. There is a developmental line at adolescence, where we understand from a number of developmental models that autonomy and working through towards adult identity is the progression. Somewhere in there: ages will be the double digits.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, if 6 year old John comes to you and says "I am a girl and should like to be called Jill", how do you propose to deal with that?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, if 6 year old John comes to you and says "I am a girl and should like to be called Jill", how do you propose to deal with that?
I don't expect declarative statements like this from 6 year olds. False premise. That's not how conversations occur at this age. I might expect something like "how do you know you are truly a boy (or girl)", with a lot of discussion. Along with questions like "what's a vagina", "why can't girls have a penis", "why do girls have long hair and boys shorter hair", "did you ever wish you were <the other biological sex>. The attention span for any of these may be up to 20 mins or so, but more likely 5 or less. There is likely to be many other questions and topics within the same conversation if it is prolonged.
I would also expect to be told things like older children have said something about the child I'm talking to, that peers are doing and saying things that are nice and not nice, and to understand the social influences. What teasing and bullying may be going on. How the child's social interactions have contradicted mummy and daddy's statements that you can be anything, with others identifying the child with the other biological sex because of interests and friend choices.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
How long has it been since you dealt with a 6 year old? Declarative statements are what they are about almost as much as questions.
And six is old enough to have a definite sense of gender. Some of that might be informed by culture, but it is there.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Whoa, hang on a moment.
(and i am qualified to work with young children...+ have raised a clutch myself.... and have an even larger group of grandchildren)
If a six year old started having a discussion like that with Me.....then i would be taking very seriously indeed what is being said.
Most six year olds are very secure in their gender identity.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Gender identity is an adult concept. 6 year olds have a sense of their identity as a person, which includes that they are a boy or girl, part of a family, who they have play dates with. They know who they are.
I wonder if there isn't a reification issue going on along with a confirmatory bias.
I am not interested in us telling each other we do or do not know children and understand them. Irrelevant and ad hominen. My assertion here is that 6 years old is too soon developmentally to agree with a trans identification. It might be the start of some data collection and information from the child, but we'd better see some ongoing repeat, and know the other psychological and social issues involved.
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on
:
No prophet you're confusing two things here. It's true that no 6 year old has ever identified as "trans"' or "genderqueer" or any other such thing. But it does happen, rarely but consistently, that 6-year-old (and for that matter 4-year-old) natal males identify insistently and persistently as girls. And vice-versa. And after several decades of clinicians actively trying to figure out how to deal with this, the clinical consensus from most practitioners is that their gender identification needs to accommodated, at least tentatively, and possibly permanently by way of transition if it persists into adolescence.
You're discussing this as though it was some new thing that some oddball gender theorist invented last year. It's not.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I am not confusing anything. You have stated approximately what I think should happen. Collect info. Don't presume that a 6 year old knows.
Clinicians often advise based on their judgement in matters where data isn't available or robust. Some are advocates. There are differences among evidence-based, clinical judgement, and advocacy.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Having been an early modern church historian I not only know the [OED frequency band 3] word prelapsarian, I've used it a fair bit and indeed it has been used in these boards, but I've never ever seen it disputed or problematised the way 'cis' or 'cisgender' is. If I decided I wanted to make an argument about the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall, I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be attacked for using the word people who write about that normally use, even if it isn't something you generally read in The Sun, The Telegraph or Harry Potter.
I have seen another OED frequency band 3 word that gets problematised with similar arguments about etymology and usage - 'homophobe' and the people who problematise it and 'homophobia' inevitably turn out to be, how shall I put it? A tad anti-gay.
It's made me very suspicious of these kind of etymological quibbles where the vocabulary of marginalised groups is concerned. I think they're proxies for deeper stuff. It's worth examining why if I started a jolly discussion of contumacious opinions on the prelapsarian state and even if I started in on (Band 2!) supralapsarian Calvinism, i'd be unlikely to get it in the neck to anything like the same extent, but maybe that's because there isn't the same prejudice towards church historians and their vocabulary that there is towards LGBT people.
Just a thought.
[ 10. March 2017, 00:55: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Gender identity is an adult concept. 6 year olds have a sense of their identity as a person, which includes that they are a boy or girl... My assertion here is that 6 years old is too soon developmentally to agree with a trans identification. ...
So you think that a six-year-old knows whether or not they are a boy or a girl, but cannot possibly know whether they are a trans boy or trans girl. That makes sense to you?
See, I think kids are very much aware of the "adult" concepts of gender and sexuality. They may not know all the details, or be able to give textbook definitions, but they're as accurate as a cruise missile when it comes to picking on kids that aren't perfectly cis and straight. And it's not just the kids - this teacher apparently couldn't tolerate a boy with <shock!> <gasp!> long hair. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re six year old:
Not a parent, but I might say some of the following if I had a little kid who approached me about this:
--"Wow", and not push further unless the kid did.
--"Wow, really? What's that like for you?", and not push further unless the kid did.
--If the kid told me, then asked why their outside and inside selves don't match: "Well, some people know right away that they're a boy or girl, and their bodies match up with that. Some people take a little longer. And, sometimes, a person's inside and outside don't match, and it may take a while to work that out. Keep talking to me about this, when you want to, ok? And if we find out, down the road, that we need to get some advice, we'll do that, too. I love you. Now, let's have some cookies and watch a movie!"
Would adjust according to age and child.
FWIW.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
See, I think kids are very much aware of the "adult" concepts of gender and sexuality. They may not know all the details, or be able to give textbook definitions, but they're as accurate as a cruise missile when it comes to picking on kids that aren't perfectly cis and straight. And it's not just the kids - this teacher apparently couldn't tolerate a boy with <shock!> <gasp!> long hair.
Right. I think children are much more complex and individual than adults often give them credit for. They're naive, of course, but they're not blank slates waiting for the right imprint of characteristics to be given to them. If that were the case, there wouldn't be trans kids in the first place, because the pressure on kids to BE gender conforming is immense. As I said, nobody wants their kid to be trans. Even the parents who'd love and accept them don't actively want it, because who wants that kind of struggle for their kid?
I remember quite a long time ago now, there was a thread about severe mental illnesses in children. I said some fairly dumbass thing about "I don't think young children need those labels" and was schooled by the mighty Josephine along these lines: "Why is it that children get labels that they don't need, but when it's adults, they get diagnoses that they DO need?" I had no answer and made the very rare SoF move of changing my position on something! The stupidest thing is that as a kid I was diagnosable with depression, if anyone had cared, and I still made that argument.
I think many of us would like to perceive children as having a simpler inner world with fewer of the complicated things that make it really tough to be an adult. We want to believe that they just don't need to think about any of this stuff yet. But is this a position supported by the evidence? Because that really is what matters. If they do, in fact, have to deal with some of the more complicated things that show up in life, we need to be supporting and helping them.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
... I think many of us would like to perceive children as having a simpler inner world with fewer of the complicated things that make it really tough to be an adult. We want to believe that they just don't need to think about any of this stuff yet. But is this a position supported by the evidence? ...
I know for a fact that some kids begin masturbating long before puberty. In other words, long before most parents start worrying about their kids learning about masturbation.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{Hope this is an appropriate thread.}
I'm watching ABC's "20/20", an investigative news show. The episode is "A Boy Named Lucas". It's an expose' of "Christian" turn-your-kids-straight camps. Very, very abusive. Think prison camp.
Lucas was dropped off by his mom at his first camp when he was 13. "Is it ok if we spank your son?" "Oh, yeah, beat his ass!" He eventually survived the various camps. When he got out, he worked hard on healing, and met with journalists.
Sarah, a lesbian, was sent to a camp at 17, I think. Her cousin is a celebrity, and got people and money and publicity together to get her out. And it worked.
The show's about half through. Not light and happy, but worth watching, IMHO.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My assertion here is that 6 years old is too soon developmentally to agree with a trans identification. It might be the start of some data collection and information from the child, but we'd better see some ongoing repeat, and know the other psychological and social issues involved.
And that's what actually happens. You start with your 6-year old consistently and persistently telling you that she's really a girl or whatever. And you have conversations with her about what that means, and what she wants, and she says that she wants to grow her hair and wear pretty barrettes in it. And maybe later she says that she wants to wear skirts, and maybe at some point that she'd like to be called by some female name, and have female pronouns used, so you do that.
And you see how it goes. And when she's older, you can have discussions with her about whether she wants puberty blockers to prevent her from going through male puberty, but that's a long way away for a six-year-old.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Right. I think children are much more complex and individual than adults often give them credit for. They're naive, of course, but they're not blank slates waiting for the right imprint of characteristics to be given to them.
Children are neither miniature, ignorant adults or mindless larvae waiting to pupate. Understanding how they process at what age is key to successfully communicating. Children tend to really like me, because I communicate with them at their level. Neither from on high or underestimating them.
Well, that and they do not have to crane their necks to look me in the eye.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0