Shiloh Jolie-Pitt: always a girl, doing her own thing.

ridiculous assumption that wearing masculine clothes equals being a female engineer.

The assumption was because the kid loved construction. You've completely ignored that part though.

You've never seen a kid who is passionate and amazing at drawing and thought they may go on to have a career in art? Or become great footballers, writers, singers, dancers?

MissBarbary

It’s perfectly clear that the PP is claiming she was likely to be an engineer because she played obsessively with with construction toys. The same child also happened to prefer wearing traditionally masculine clothing.

The reason both are mentioned is because both are masculine coded, and taken together are likely to trigger sexists into assuming she’s signaling she’s “really a boy”.

I suspect you have taken one possible interpretation of the post by @SkeeterP
Maybe that poster could explain their comments. But personally, I didn't get the same interpretation as you MissBarbary

HerselfIndoors Thanks for the feministplaining lecture by the way. You clearly however entirely missed the point as well as inventing things I never said.

Since you think we don't get it, can you explain clearly why you think itdoesmake sense to suggest a person is trans on the basis of sexist gender roles and stereotypes?

Why are you asking me? I never said anything of the kind so please don't invent things. Where in my post do I say anything about a person being trans on the basis of "sexist gender roles and stereotypes"

I was querying the ridiculous assumption that wearing masculine clothes equals being a female engineer.

MissBarbary

If we describe "masculine clothes", that's shorthand for "masculine (as they are generally defined)".

As you say, the GC position is that there is no inherent gender – you have a sex, and then there are cultural gender norms that are traditionally associated with or imposed on the sexes. Whatever your sex, you should be able to wear and do what you like from the whole range of "gender", just like you can have any music taste, or any taste in food.

However, modern trans ideology tries to bring back those strict sex-defined gender norms, and say that (for example) if you're born a girl but like trousers, ties, engineering and short hair, and/or maybe are a lesbian, then you are ort could be "really a boy". That's based on nothing other than sexist gender norms. So while we'[re engaging with that position, it makes sense to talk about "masculine" norms - i.e. those traditionally identified as masculine - when we are pointing out that those gender norms traditionally associated with boys don't make you a boy.

I also actually think that there is nothing wrong with expressing yourself through the gender norms of your choice, even if that does mean being a "feminine" girl /woman or a "masculine" boy/man. These traditional associations do clearly exist and fashion/culture often plays with or subverts them - as you'd expect. You can recognise that without abandoning the GC position.

Since you think we don't get it, can you explain clearly why you think it does make sense to suggest a person is trans on the basis of sexist gender roles and stereotypes?

So close yet so far.

You can't see it. You (general you) gender critical feminists all argue vociferously about not enforcing gender stereotypes yet apparently a female engineer will wear masculine clothes.

It's laughable how prejudiced some of you are about appearance.

@MissBarbary

Why is it ironic for the pp to have thought that a child who is always to be found in the construction area might become an excellent engineer?

Looks like Google have now fixed her name & gender.

See, as a very little child I was obsessed with big flouncy Princess dresses, fairies at the bottom of the garden, shiny jewels etc..... But my mum only bought me dungarees, cut my hair short and told me I was a tomboy.

Same. Except my Mum didn’t buy me dungarees, she just made me wear all my brother’s old clothes. Which was probably why she did it to be honest, couldn’t afford to buy me dresses so just stuck me in bro’s hand me downs and told people I was a tomboy. I fucking hated having short hair.

It very nearly put me off posting anything else. It got quite personal, I was called disgusting, one poster said looking at the photos made them feel sick - I even apologised and was told that my 'faux apology was embarrassing'......

But here we are, discussing it, and hasn't cast so much sunlight on this subject? I bet Angelina Jolie is so glad she didn't go down the heavily medicalised route; I bet she is glad she didn't introduce her daughter as transgender to the world - something very hard to go back on, as another celebrity mother might find out one day......

What? Wait, so @MNHQ truly think a member's seniority gives the preferred status and means they are right? I already thought @Mumsnet was unprofessional by telling people in emails that they have had 'many reports' - um, as if that means jack shit? All it means, is vexatious bullies and trouble makers are vexatiously reporting posts - I have experienced that myself, and the mod who I was emailing with refused to see that I was being vexatiously reported. I think it is poor form to tell someone they've received 'many reports', and further poor form to suggest that the 'volume' of reports means one rather than the other is wrong. But it takes the cake for Mumsnet to openly say they have a hierarchy of what posters rule the roost and that longer term members can bully and report and get away with it, which you would be concerned that it would discourage new members from joining if they are going to be treated like that. It's disconcerting just how unprofessional the jokers that are mods on this site really are.

At no point did anyone ever consider that I might be a boy and every time I think of it I consider what a regressive ideology it is.

what if a parent has decided they want a transgender kid? For attention, to be trendy?

Or because they're uncomfortable with having a feminine boy.

See, as a very little child I was obsessed with big flouncy Princess dresses, fairies at the bottom of the garden, shiny jewels etc..... But my mum only bought me dungarees, cut my hair short and told me I was a tomboy. She told all her friends I was a tomboy, whilst I sat there thinking, no, I am a Princess!!

Nothing really wrong with that, though, didn't make me particularly unhappy or anything. But isn't that another huge danger of this ideology? Parents make decisions about what their children wear, what if a parent has decided they want a transgender kid? For attention, to be trendy?

Just where has this all come from!???!

I was the sane as a child- I longed to be a boy called Peter but did I have dysphoria? No. Do I wish I had a sex change? No.

Refreshing article. Nice to see common sense applied.

Hmm. Maybe there was one and it's now gone.

This is very shit:

Listed as "transgender."

www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55430492

It may not have been a wiki page? I can't find one now.

Ah I see I missed that.

I posted about her being named a boy by google a couple of months ago (or longer, Covid time is weird) and it wasn't an issue. But was on a thread about another celebrity daughter.

I spent some time trying to work out if she had "transed" but all articles referred to her as she.

I found the google and wiki references very chilling.

I think it is very clear why this is so important. This disproves a lot of the ideology of the transgender debate very publicly.

I personally know girls who did the same thing, insisting they were boys with a new, boy's name up until a certain age. It terrifies me that any of them could end up like Jaz Jennings.