Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

No, not regardless of which culture they experience. Think about Thailand as one example. Society there is divided along strict gender roles. In some regions where boys are born to families, but no girls, the youngest boys are raised as girls. If there are too many girls, they can be sold off.

Then they are simply males being forced to adhere to the rigid stereotypes expected of Thai females. They are having a male experience of female socialisation because they are male. It won't be the same experience as a Thai girl has because it's not an embodied experience.

Gender identity reifies these rigid gender boxes. It does nothing to expand them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

But kids often resist stereotypical behaviours. So there's something there, whatever wish you to call it.

Yes they do. Probably better just to let kids wear what they want, play with what they want, behave how they like, without forcing expectations of gender roles on them. They shouldn't have to resist stereotypical behaviours because we shouldn't present them with stereotypes.

 

[monkers]

Then they are simply males being forced to adhere to the rigid stereotypes expected of Thai females. They are having a male experience of female socialisation because they are male. It won't be the same experience as a Thai girl has because it's not an embodied experience.

Gender identity reifies these rigid gender boxes. It does nothing to expand them.

It's way more complicated than your simple interpretation. How is that when they become adults and leave their families, they don't simply flip to be congruent? Maybe some do, but many leave their regions and head for the cities for a different lifestyle retaining that gender identity.

We can begin to understand others by placing our minds in the position of being in their shoes. And then we may still not understand it, and in my view it is not then reasonable to reject as something fake. We each have our own lives to live.

 

[classic33]

Yes they do. Probably better just to let kids wear what they want, play with what they want, behave how they like, without forcing expectations of gender roles on them. They shouldn't have to resist stereotypical behaviours because we shouldn't present them with stereotypes.

Are you willing to say let them choose who they are, without saying that you disagree with what they say?

 

[monkers]

Yes they do. Probably better just to let kids wear what they want, play with what they want, behave how they like, without forcing expectations of gender roles on them. They shouldn't have to resist stereotypical behaviours because we shouldn't present them with stereotypes.

Finally something we can agree on. I can still tell you that there will be kids who will reject their gender at least in part to rejection of the negative behaviours (not gender roles) of be like their parents.

I mustn't talk about my niece too much as it doesn't seem fair to her, and you'll typically accuse me of something or other. But it is pertinent to this conversation. She was beaten by her father for rejection of his expectations of gender. She learned that men can be like this. She didn't want to be like that or to be seen as one capable of that. That doesn't describe her whole being, or the initial drivers, but it was a formative experience and I suspect at least a part of her ongoing need to escape from be raised as a boy. That's all a long time ago now, and transition has proved to be absolute making of her.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Gender identity is not taught or learned, though I agree that it's presence pervades society and can be copied, gender is taught to be performative according to what biological sex you happen to be. When you see, as I have, very young children their gender identity of the basis of 'I'm not one of those, but one of those', you see that this is not the result of a direct learning process, but a rejection of the expectations of others 'to fit in'.

Then it is learned because kids are looking at stereotypical expectations, thinking they don't fit them, then being allowed to think this says something profound about them. It doesn't. It says they are kids who don't conform to manufactured stereotypes, that's all. They shouldn't have to think that just because they don't fit one manufactured stereotype they must therefore be part of another stereotype - which is what the concept of gender identity teaches.

I've never seen a story about a 'trans' child that didn't start with them playing with the 'wrong' toys or liking stuff associated with the other sex. It's all based on stereotypes.

If you do happen to think that seeking recognition of gender identity is so wrong, is it also wrong to choose a different religion and be confirmed in it?

The consequences of deciding to become a Christian at 15 are likely less serious that deciding you are the opposite sex. I think taking puberty blockers is more worrisome than taking Confirmation. And of course adopting a religion mostly requires little from others by way of affirmation and accomodation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's way more complicated than your simple interpretation. How is that when they become adults and leave their families, they don't simply flip to be congruent? Maybe some do, but many leave their regions and head for the cities for a different lifestyle retaining that gender identity.

Because 15+ years of social conditioning can't be given up overnight. I thought gender was innate? This is forcing a gender role on someone. If that's really what happens it's an abhorrent practise and pretty much what the founding father of gender identity, John Money, did with a boy whose pens was removed during a botched circumcision.

 

[monkers]

I've never seen a story about a 'trans' child that didn't start with them playing with the 'wrong' toys or liking stuff associated with the other sex. It's all based on stereotypes.

That's because when trans people go to a GIC they aren't asked just to give an open account of themselves but asked about toys and masturbation.

Yes, really! There's no diagnostic test, so they rely on tropes while pretending to be experts. I've always said that all diagnosis is self-id. There is no diagnosis, instead the person is required to regularly parrot the same stuff. Worst still it takes five years of waiting to get on the queue to start this.

This why I say we need self-Id for trans people but with more risk assessment and safeguards built in. Safer to filter out any possible rogue element than those who are less sure as it were.

I stand by my assertion though, blanket bans on sections of the wider community remain unlawful, be they trans people, the travelling community or any other marginalised group.

 

[monkers]

Because 15+ years of social conditioning can't be given up overnight. I thought gender was innate? This is forcing a gender role on someone. If that's really what happens it's an abhorrent practise and pretty much what the founding father of gender identity, John Money, did with a boy whose pens was removed during a botched circumcision.

Whatever opinion you or I have, this is the kind of things that happens. So the point is made, culture differences are very influential.

In the UK our culture gender identity is innate, but not from birth perhaps but certainly it seems often before toddlers are fully aware of sexual difference.

 

[AuroraSaab]

How can it be innate in some nationalities but not in others? You're either born with a gender identity (that may or may not match your sex, you've claimed), or you're not. Spoiler alert: you're not, nobody is.

The idea that toddlers in nappies would know they are not boys but girls beggars belief.

 

[classic33]

The consequences of deciding to become a Christian at 15 are likely less serious that deciding you are the opposite sex. I think taking puberty blockers is more worrisome than taking Confirmation. And of course adopting a religion mostly requires little from others by way of affirmation and accomodation.

A little over a 100 years ago, being in the wrong religion meant that you couldn't own land, had no right to vote, prohibited from speaking your native tongue. Even from freely practicing your religion. You even had families "planted" in areas to keep an eye on their new neighbours. Provided with arms, to protect themselves and their families. And with the expectation that should the need ever arise, you'd enforce the law against those sane people.

Even today, being the wrong religion in parts can be dangerous. Again it's in the UK, not some other distant country.

Was this on the other side of the world, in what we now call the middle east. No, this was in one part of Great Britain.

 

[monkers]

How can it be innate in some nationalities but not in others? You're either born with a gender identity (that may or may not match your sex, you've claimed), or you're not. Spoiler alert: you're not, nobody is.

The idea that toddlers in nappies would know they are not boys but girls beggars belief.

I gave Thailand as an example of a culture where some boys are raised as girls. That does not mean in every case, It demonstrates that in some but not all cases culture or custom make a significant difference. Some flip back on reaching adulthood, but as I understand it, some do not.

These cultural differences are modelled around success / survival of the family.

Spoiler alert; you don't know what you are talking about because you are a self-centred bigot who doesn't give a flying fark about the harm they cause to others.

Today was the first day of the hearing into the murder of Brianna Ghey. This negativity feeds into the minds of impressionable people.

Brianna Ghey was a target. It had everything to do with the negativity and stereotypes being made by these hateful campaigns that you contribute to.

Read and weep if you care, but you won't because you don't.

Everybody on this thread should see THIS ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ed-discussed-killing-five-children-court-told

 

[monkers]

In today's Daily Telegraph ...

Britain faces UN blacklist after lobbying by trans rights groups​

UK's human rights body could be stripped of status after campaigners including Stonewall successfully push for special review.

Britain could be blacklisted at the UN’s human rights body over its defence of biological sex, The Telegraph can reveal...

Well now that we had to leave the EU, are talking about repealing the UK Human Rights Act, leaving the European Court of Human Rights, Leaving the Council of Europe, so why not leave the United Nations and go for a full set?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/27/britain-faces-un-blacklist-over-trans-rights-lobby-ehrc/

 

[icowden]

Brianna Ghey was a target. It had everything to do with the negativity and stereotypes being made by these hateful campaigns that you contribute to.

There is no reference at all to anything even remotely like that in the guardian article you linked to.
This was a horrible crime and there remain many questions to be asked such as how two teenagers under 16 managed to purchase a 13cm hunting knife. Drugs were also involved.

They didn't kill her because they saw something on Tiktok.

 

[monkers]

How can it be innate in some nationalities but not in others? You're either born with a gender identity (that may or may not match your sex, you've claimed), or you're not. Spoiler alert: you're not, nobody is.

The idea that toddlers in nappies would know they are not boys but girls beggars belief.

How is it rational argument when you write this stuff? If you decide to critique a post, do at least to attempt to what is written rather than what is not.

Nobody has said that gender identity is cemented into a reality that they can be articulate by toddlers in nappies - though it may be true in some cases that already by the age of being a toddler some children might begin to have some sense of it. Nobody is saying that the best evidence comes from child's play; in fact I have mocked the very idea that this can be part of a diagnosis at GIC, yet you persist with this strange narrative.

It is obvious that your thoughts derive from a place of bigotry, you needn't trouble to reinforce the point within every post as you've made it plain enough.

The basis of diagnosis is to try to establish a pattern of recurring expression of gender incongruence over an extended period. The problems as I see it is that the so-called diagnostic process is just a list of closed questions about what your favourite colour was when a child and what it is now, and what toys did you play with. For a start, an only child will play with the toys provided by adults with certain expectation.

I well remember my niece coming out of each appointment disgusted by the frivolity of it. Out of the battery of 40 questions asked, eight were about pretty colours and toys, and 32 were about masturbation. On the back of asking these same questions on each visit a diagnoses is made. The trick that 'patients' learn is to find out from other what the 'correct' answers to the questions are and dimly rattle them off.

The whole exercise is a complete waste of time and money. This is why I support the Scottish proposal. It may be less than perfect but then every system is. At least the Scottish proposal shortens the time from 24 to 6 months, drops the faux diagnosis nonsense, and instead looks to filter out rogue cases - much more sensible.