Trans identifying

Sorry. I really am. If this gets heated, please feel free to shut it down.

A young boy (10) has been self-identifying as a girl since age 3? She is going to be made the marshal for the Pride Parade this year?

I’m going to try to put this in the way that I personally feel about it so that I don’t speak for anyone else. I don’t feel that a child that age is capable of understanding any of that. I’m not saying that I disagree with the choice, or the possibility that it could be true and actually happen, just that I have my doubts. It seems to be more of a want than a truth. That’s my opinion.

There is a scene in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life that comes to mind. During the birth scene, the father asks, “Is it a boy or a girl.” The doctor responds with, “It’s a bit early to be imposing sexual stereotypes, isn’t it?” I laughed, because it’s absurd.

Now, I’m asked to question that absurdity.

I’m not really sure how I feel about this, but this is the internet so I felt I had to post something about it somewhere. I felt that this group would be best able to handle the questions and respond with carefully thought out responses.

[quote=“Rizak, post:1, topic:1201”][/quote]
young boy … self-identifying as a girl since age 3 …
it’s absurd

What if he didn’t like milk & cookies, but wanted beer & cigarettes instead? Hey, he’s three years old now, time to start making his own choices.

They have no basis for comparison. I question how someone can question their gender at an age where you can hardly tell the differences between the genders.

If someone doesn’t feel drawn to a gender hard enough to buck their history and parental gender assignment, then I don’t think they are that gender. If I raised my daughter as a girl, and then a young woman and she looked at me at 16 and said “Dad, I think I’m really a boy inside” then I have no choice but to consider it as a valid statement. If I raise my “boy” in gender neutral (Which seems to most of the time mean female) styles and toys, and at 3 years old says “Dabby, ima gurl!!” and I treat them as such aren’t I just gaslighting them? Were they just cis and would have been perfectly happy as a feminine man, or happier as a gay man, or just a regular dude? Or were they going to grow up to be the next Buzz Aldrin and I’ve confused the shit out of them and they’ll be a mess forever.

I firmly believe if you raise them according to plumbing that they’ll find their place if you let them. But anything before puberty is a crime. Dress them the same and cut their hair the same and hand them an X-Wing fighter and they’ll all spin in circles making wooshing noises from 2-10. Which one is the boy and why does it matter.

This crap is almost as bad as the couple here that duct taped their four year old, beat her, and abused her, and told her her name was “idiot”. Parents control their kid’s reality. I belive they self identified about as much as I believe drug dog alerts on cars with cash in them.


Disclaimer: opinion is not, and never should be, correlated to fact.

Like @Woodman I agree that gender should not be seen as a thing before puberty. Children are children, regardless of an existence or lack of any combination of genitals. That there is such a separation between boys and girls at such a young age is a symptom of a sickness within society wherein men are prepared from boyhood to do “masculine” tasks, and women are prepared from girlhood for “feminine” tasks. This is most obviously demonstrated by the “dolls are for girls, JCBs are for boys” paradigm where you are preparing the girl for maternity and the boy for graft.

Considering the equality we are still trying to instil into society, the top down approach does not work and simply prolongs the amount of time before men, women, nongender, polygender et al are seen as equal. Raising a boy through default and traditional masculine teachings, and then suddenly telling them that they have to accept that masculinity isn’t the default causes confusion, stress, and undue shaming if they feel that they are indeed not as masculine as their upbringing. The same is true for girls, obviously.

Ideally we should work from a bottom up scenario where children are still gendered, there is no inherent problem with being physically male or female or trans et al, but the gendering is not enforced by typical roles. Girls should be able to play with guns and cars and those adorable miniature Black and Decker tool kits and not be told that this is inappropriate, and if a boy wants to play with dolls then he damn well should be allowed to. Disallowing this, or shaming it, or ridiculing it, reinforces the gender difference that causes the divides in society as we see today.

Puberty though is where the child will start to inherently know who they are. It may be at the beginning, aged 8 or 9, or it may be when they’ve finished growing at 20 or 25, but when they know they know and it is not up to anyone to tell them otherwise. If they have been able to grow up in a gender neutral environment, there will be no shame, no ridicule, to their – I had to cut myself off typing choice there. That is entirely the wrong word. It’s not a choice. I, personally, am gay. I know this to be true. This is not something I chose to be, indeed the knowledge of it caused no end of misery in my teens because I had a mixture Catholic and Anglican upbringing. And I know this is sexuality not gender but in this specific case my upbringing did indeed cause problems with who I am – just like it causes problems with transexual people in adolescence. This is also why I believe this to be true; I feel almost certain that if I had been raised in an environment where there had been no stigma attached to the ideas of… sexual deviance to use a strong but accurate word, then I would have been far more comfortable and far less miserable. I imagine that the same would be true for trans people growing up in a gender neutral environment. Heck, I don’t have to imagine, because even though I came to terms with my sexuality years ago, I still feel literally guilty whenever I do something considered feminine.

Sorry, this has turned into a wall of text. TL;DR: enforced gendering in children leads to a society of fear and ostracisation. Oh hey, just like society right now!


In a modern society at least. Try non-gendering a tribe in Africa and you’ve killed them. Gender isn’t a social construct, it’s a survival one. Teach the 4 year old girl to care for the doll, because she’ll be caring for her siblings next year, and teach the boy to throw the toy spear, he’ll be helping dad, or his uncles catch real prey soon enough.

Yet, in a modern society you also end up with children being raised this way, because dad has to work the farm, so Jr. has to learn to shoot the rifle to keep the coyotes away, and little Miss has to learn to bake to keep everyone fed. In a lower income manual labor economy it’s the same thing, yes Suzy can become a carpenter like her brother but we really need her to get that secretary job because it’s got benefits.

I wonder sometimes about the role of homosexuality and wealth as a society. Is there a trigger in the mother that sets the mix of hormones that creates it? In the poor or primitive societies I know of, it’s either considered totally normal and given up mostly on adulthood, or it’s verboten entirely.

Oh absolutely, but I was writing from the “developed Western World” viewpoint. I agree that what I said cannot and should not be applied to all societies, and indeed could be damaging to those that differ in the extreme. However, in our ivory castle, where we’re trying to out-liberal each other while the fascists slowly erode our rights (did you know the UK is preparing to tap all communications and store them for six months at a time? ALL communications!) … I digress … we are in a situation where I feel what I said applies entirely.

Ah now these are two entirely different kettles of fish.

As for the latter, humans (and monkeys, and birds, and deer, and octo…podes?) assign material worth to everything. Humans seem to be unique in that we can also defer that worth to tokens, whereas if you give a gorilla trained in sign language the choice between one banana and enough money to buy ten bananas, they choose the banana. What good is ten bananas later if you cant have that one banana now? That’s literally their reasoning (the study is absolutely fascinating).

Basic tribes (basic not used in a derogatory manner, but as a definite descriptor of a tribe in which there is no recognisable traits shared with wider societies) will rely on barter rather than tokens (think Fallout without the caps) because that’s dealing with equivalent value - something which primates and some birds are also capable of. Money seems to have cropped up at the same time as class structures in most civilised societies.

There is a theory that is often quoted and very much discredited that suggests that homosexuality developed during the hunter-gatherer stage of humanity, in order for there to be a surplus of non-reproducing humans for protection and to help raising the massive numbers of children our ancestors had in order for a minority of them to survive. This is a neat theory which has one major flaw: it’s entirely wrong. It also doesn’t explain homosexuality in animals and - in some rare but documented cases - fruiting trees. You read that right folks, trees are gay. :laughing:

Why are people gay? Genetics. Maybe. We’re not sure. And there are a lot of scientists working on it… and we know less about it than we do about curing cancer. What I think though is that asking why is a dumb question; the answer is because. Why are some people pansexual (or limited bisexual)? Because. The same is for transexual or nonbinary people - sure they may have a physical sex, but they feel it doesn’t suit them. Why? Because. Same reason why straight people feel straight. It’s not normal per se because that suggests that normal is straight and gendered the same as your sex, which is both arrogant and leads to massive and unnecessary - sometimes fatal - segmentation and ostracisation.

Normal: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Not saying that being gay or poly or something else is wrong, but it’s not normal. If you have blue hair, it’s not wrong, but it’s not normal. I work around too many homosexual people to think that there is something wrong with them, well, other than the things that are wrong with anybody, but it’s not the standard.

Normal is just a setting on the dryer. :slight_smile:


To a degree, yes. If you’re using averages and maths. But why use averages and maths on something as personal as this? I do get your point, and I don’t disagree with it, but I disagree with the concept of applying it to this situation.

Judging by what gets sold in a greengrocers, a tomato is a normal fruit. But you wouldn’t list tomato on your list of favourite fruits, would you? :stuck_out_tongue: Silly analogy true, but it shows how silly such an application can be!

A buddy just sent a link to this… from the WTF files

Nobody seriously reads the Daily Mail. It exists as some form of bizarre social experiment to weed out the idiots in society. As a general rule, if you find someone agreeing with the “news” and “opinion” articles, they’re not going to be good friends with normal people.

Pfft what am I saying, if they agree with the “opinion” articles, they’re not worth pissing on even if they were on fire and you were really, really desperate to go pee.

1 Like

So you’re saying that if they were on fire, it’s best to organise a collection to buy more petrol?

1 Like

It’s a “conservative” version of a pulp newspaper. I put conservative because they are more than happy to feed on “their own” when it helps them.

It’s like Fox is getting the last few years. The odd mainstream conservative article or show, surrounded by trailer park trash articles about the stupidest shit out there. Lowest common denominator crap.

Closest I can get to real news is Drudge and Instapundit now. Breitbart jumped the shark, Fox is a mess, CNN is annoying, MSNBC makes me see blood, NPR is a joke. Local radio works and that’s my main source now.

And in any case, I keep remembering all the stories about stuff I’m informed on are all wrong and confused, so everything else must be a disaster as well, so there’s really no point in reading any of it.

This. Of all the news outlets in the UK right now, Radio Four and Metro Radio are tied for “least awful coverage, and most accurate news”. Heck it was Metro that interrupted their broadcasting to report the Italian earthquake, everyone else waited for the Pips to do so.

(The Pips are an electronic chime on the hour every hour created by the atomic clock, they’re used by most radio stations to announce the hourly news.)

They report the things I want to hear about, and ask why the hell anyone else cares about the crap the media are talking about.

I can’t even listen to more than one article on NPR before I have to change it. Even Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me has gone political.

1 Like