Impressive new article by Debbie Hayton.

OMG, JollyYellaHumberElla, for a moment, I silently commiserated with you on your DH situation.

Same here

Funnily enough it was that film of Rebecca Riley Cooper that peaked me too.

Dr Hayton's pinned tweet
"In summer 2016, a trans friend (not involved in this debate) told me to watch two videos. The first featured
boodleoops. She blew apart my ideas about gender identity. I needed to either abandon intellectual integrity or change my way of thinking.
Critically Examining the doctrine of gender identity
A presentation by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper for Coventry Skeptics on Wednesday 16th March 2016. Audio of the Q&A session that followed is here www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=QPVNxYkawao&feature=emb_logo
Dr Debbie Hayton 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈

Dec 14, 2019
The second was by Magdalen Berns
. Where Rebecca had been gentle, Magdalen was brutal. I do feel for Alex being made the example, but it made me realise that I am no more a woman than Alex is a woman."
www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JkK7zisjoDk&feature=emb_logo

It seems very strange that the NASUWT school guidance which relied on Dr Hayton's expertisewas published the following year & remains in place. Especially strange given the incusion of policies explicity demanding that males such as Pips/Philip Bunce, Alex Drummond & those who recognise the nature of their autogynaephilia be treated as female members of staff in school.

She’s using Kohlberg’s gender constancy as being a pre requisite for gender role typing, yet there is plenty of evidence of gender role typing occurring before the establishment of gender constancy.

No she's not doing this.

Dr Alcock is demonstrating how children come to understand & classify sex eg girl/boy (female/male)

I just don’t think Alcock’s talk reflects the current state of understanding about gender identity development.

It doesnt no.

She is describing how children come to understand & classify sex eg girl/boy (male/female)

Do you mean sex or gender in your last post Field?

Thelnebriati I’m not trying to disprove anything, I just don’t think Alcock’s talk reflects the current state of understanding about gender identity development.

She’s using Kohlberg’s gender constancy as being a pre requisite for gender role typing, yet there is plenty of evidence of gender role typing occurring before the establishment of gender constancy.

As an illustration of Alcock's point quoted by R0wantrees, here's the first paragraph from a paper about child development (my bold).

One of the most compelling yet controversial ideas in the gender literature is ‘‘gender constancy.’’ As proposed by Kohlberg (1966), children’s developing understanding of the permanence of categorical sex (‘‘I am a girl and will always be a girl’’) is a critical organizer and motivator for learning gender concepts and behaviors. Slaby and Frey (1975) demonstrated that children move through a series of stages: first learning to identify their own and others’ sex (basic gender identity or labeling), next learning that gender remains stable over time (stability), and finally learning that gender is a fixed characteristic that is not altered by superficial transformations in appearance or activities (consistency). Thus, children are thought to reach a full understanding of constancy once they recognize that they will always be the same sex, across time or change in situation (e.g., a boy who puts on a dress and a long-haired wig is still a boy even though he resembles a girl). These stages have been confirmed in other research, including cross-cultural studies (e.g., De Lisi & Gallagher, 1991).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17650129

You'll notice that the authors are using sex and gender interchangeably, but always to mean sex.

You haven't disproved anything yet Field, just posted a link that you don't seem to have read.

Here's another link, its written in plain English;
www.healthline.com/health/piaget-stages-of-development#stages

Children go through an extremely long period of development and need parenting the entire time. Once you grasp the stages of development you can immediately see how children at each stage are prone to external influences that influence their beliefs.

Katie Alcock is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University

Yes and Sally Hines is a professor at Leeds University.

What does any of that prove?

Alcock writes:

"What this also means is that terminology has changed. When this area of research first started, everyone knew, and was clear, that they were talking about children’s knowledge of biological sex. The terms “sex identity” and “sex constancy” were used, to mean children’s knowledge of whether they were a boy or a girl, and whether they or others could change into the opposite sex. Around the 1990s everyone started getting squeamish about the word “sex” and started using “gender” as a euphemism. Researchers, however, still meant a child’s knowledge of biological sex."*

Or is it? Have I clicked on something bad?

I’ve read the article. It’s a half baked pick and mix of various bits of people’s research and theories to attempt to justify the author’s own views.

The Medium piece is, as it states at the beginning, a summary of a speech that Dr Alcock gave last year.
Katie Alcock is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University

Her research areas include,
Infancy and Early Development
Language and Cognition

www.lancaster.ac.uk/psychology/about-us/people/katie-alcock#research-groups

It’s the encyclopaedia of child health. I know my browser is saying not secure, I think it’s just an out of date security certificate.

Field what is that site you're linking to?

an entirely different article

I’ve read the article. It’s a half baked pick and mix of various bits of people’s research and theories to attempt to justify the author’s own views.

From your link Field

A child's realization that gender is fixed and does not change over time.

You do realise that they are using 'gender' to mean sex here, don't you?

What else do you think it's based on?

That is the subject of much debate amongst psychologists

www.healthofchildren.com/G-H/Gender-Identity.html

It is possible to ‘know’ if you’re a boy or girl.

Of course it is. Children with female bodies are girls, and children with male bodies are boys. Children learn this at quite a young age. Once they have learnt this of course they know it.

For some people that sense of what sex they are is different from the physical body.

What sex they are is based on the physical body. What else do you think it's based on?

More on Kohlberg's gender constancy

www.healthofchildren.com/G-H/Gender-Constancy.html

Field you seem to have read an entirely different article or missed the points that Dr Alcock made.

In her speech (as referred to at the beginning of the article) the references to multiple studies cover a 100 year period:

"All the studies I’m going to talk about are really robust — well replicated — this means that lots of researchers have found the same thing time and time again. We have known about some related aspects of children’s thinking since the 1920s or earlier and some of the main, older studies in this area are from the 1960s."

Yes Alcock is quoting the work of Kohlberg, who made significant contribution to the understanding of the development of not only gender constancy but also ‘gender identity’, a concept often discredited here.

Anyway the research evidence for a link between the appreciation of gender constancy and gender-typing is not strong:

www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/childhood-youth/childhood-and-youth-studies/childhood/cognition-and-gender-development

(see reviews by Huston, 1983; Ruble and Martin, 1998). In fact, most of the evidence suggests that it is the most immature form of the gender concept – the accurate labelling of oneself as a boy or girl – that is often associated with gender-typed conduct and stereotyped beliefs. Bussey and Bandura (1999) note that “long before children have attained gender constancy, they prefer to play with toys traditionally associated with their gender, […] to model their behavior after same-sex models, […] and to reward peers for gender-appropriate behavior’ (p. 678)

With regards discussion earlier in the thread about how the children in school were required to 'accomodate' Dr Hayton's AGP expression, this is described in Physics World EDUCATION AND OUTREACH OPINION AND REVIEWS article:
'Gender balance, one woman at a time'
29 Sep 2016
(extract)
"When physics teacher Debbie Hayton transitioned from male to female, she conducted some “controlled social observations” in her classroom. In this article (originally published in Lateral Thoughts, Physics World’s regular column of humorous and offbeat essays about physics and physicists), she reflects on her experiences

What can be done to increase the number of women in physics? This question keeps committees busy and researchers funded, but the solution seems as elusive as squaring the circle. Four years ago, however, I did my bit: I transitioned from male to female. As this also meant that the number of men in physics was simultaneously reduced by one, it was, as they say in football, a “six-pointer" (continues)

"So, on 20 December 2012, the students in my school were sent home with letters to their parents informing them of an imminent and major change in my personal circumstances. Three weeks later they returned to school bright and eager, but probably with more than physics on their minds when they waited outside my lab. It was all very simple, I told them. Sir becomes Miss, he becomes she and – er – Dr Hayton becomes Dr Hayton. I knew that PhD would come in handy one day. From there life would go on pretty much as normal, as long as we all stood up straight (sometimes my classes even laugh at that joke)." (continues)

physicsworld.com/a/gender-balance-one-woman-at-a-time/

Teachers are called or referred to as Sir/Miss by children in school far more frequently than their full name including title is used.

Field How children develop an understanding of sex is explained in Dr Alcock's article.
This process is understood.

What is a cross-sex identity? It's not possible to 'identify as' or 'feel like' something you are not.

It is possible to ‘know’ if you’re a boy or girl. For some people that sense of what sex they are is different from the physical body. Whether in children this is based on nothing but stereotypes I don’t know.

It used to be said that the only point there need be concern about evidence of cross gender identity in children is if it involves distress or aversion to their biological sex characteristics. (Yes I know abuse can also cause that symptom).