The kind of “girl” that a boy who identifies as a girl thinks he is

This is really upsetting and really not ok.

OP has asked questions. @Lacksie and others are entitled to come on the thread to address them. It would, of course, be helpful if they did actually address OPs questions rather than diverging into DSDs - a common TRA tactic when the questions about gender identity get too difficult.

Yes. They are XY. And that Y chromosome has effects outside of their androgens. In spite of the androgen insensitivity, they have greater height, longer limbs and a weaker immune system than they would have of they were a woman, all as a result of the Y chromosome.

Your only other way of defining them as women will be to refer to body parts that not all women have and a gender stereotype that not all women conform to.

Please don’t, didn’t you say once that you have a family to look after? You spend so much time on Mumsnet, they must feel a bit neglected? You also seem to be up and posting on here for such long periods that one begins to worry for your health.

Women with CAIS are men?

You are the only person arguing whether people with DSDs can talk about their genitals.
How about you address OP's question: is it posited that there is an innate sense of boy:girl that exists outside of the experience of seeing and being the presence of others?

It does develop "naturally". It may not develop "properly".

They are men, by the by.

Ok so if they're one of the people whose vagina only requires dilation they are allowed to talk about their vagina; but if they require surgical intervention it's not allowed ? Just trying to understand the rules..

What neurological structures are associated with gender identity?

This is not necessarily true. The vagina, because it is true vaginal tissue and not a 'neo-vagina', can often be dilated sufficiently for penetration.

Which doesn't happen in women with CAIS. They typically have what's known as a "blind vagina" , that looks normal on the outside but actually has developed and requires surgical intervention if they want to be able to have penetrative sex.

Which part of develops naturally as part of the human body did you miss?

?

Please don't insult our intelligence.

Experts like who? WPATH? Harry Benjamin, who had weird ideas about testicles and had one tied off because he believed it would give him more energy?

Maybe not, but it doesn't need to be conscious. Children and adults pick up on micro expressions and body language.

When survival depends on keeping in favour with an adult, you can train a pre-verbal child to behave how you want, and that training may not even be conscious in the adult.

What about women with CAIS? Are they allowed to talk about their vaginas? Or is that not allowed either?

No, I can't prove that no sheep can fly until I throw the last one off a cliff either.

If a boy identifying as a girl is not doing so because he has a girl's body (he hasn't), and also not identifying with the girls he sees on the basis of their appearance and behaviour, then what is he identifying with?. You can't just "identify" in a vacuum.

If what he feels is a dislike of or alienation from some of his body parts, then why is it different from any other pathological rejection of body parts?

If that isn't what he feels, but it's also "not about stereotypes", then what exactly is he rejecting when he says he isn't a boy?

This is the kind of twisted logic that obfuscates isn't it.

Its not the same and can never be the same because a vagina develops naturally as part of a female body.

A neo vagina is surgically constructed in a male body from other tissue originating in that male body.

They are not the same.

Even if they were indistinguishable in look, smell, taste and function, they would not be 'the same'in any normal understanding of what 'the same' means - because they are a surgical add on to a male body.

When words mean whatever you say they mean, all bets are off.

It's like on Reddit when someone said 'is neovagina same as regular vagina' (to actually own, not fuck), and a bunch of people saying it's the same. Like how tf would you know it is? Or even assume it would be?!

All this obscure language and vague reference to research indicating whatever is a useful (for some) distraction from the basic facts.

A boy can never know what it is like to be a girl because he can never have a female body, and likewise a girl can never know what it is like to be a boy because she can never have a male body. Nothing is ever going to change that, no matter what is (shamefully) done to children or what ideas adults put in their heads.

So whatever "identifying as" means, it doesn't mean identifying as what girls are in reality (and girls are all unique and different aside from sharing being female). It can only mean identifying as some notional idea of what it means to be a girl. Your brain is not separate from your body. A boy's brain is in constant connection to the rest of his actual male body. There's no way it is connected to an imaginary female body instead.

If he is unhappy or confused about his body it's the role of responsible caring adults to investigate the cause and find ways to help him get over it, not pile on more confusion and misery. Elaborate language around abstract gender identity has no place in a young child's life. And sexist stereotypes can get in the bin.

I think a child of this age is expressing confusion about sex permanence and a preference for some of the perceived positive aspects of being the other sex. Different permitted toys/clothes/ family privileges etc

I know this is the explanation that feels intuitive to most but Really flies in the face of all the empirical evidence . This is not what gender incongruence is- it's not about stereotypes. People often have interests: prefer the cloths, enjoy the privileges of their birth sex , and yet their gender incongruence persists.

By the way- re phantom limbs- these can also occur in people who were born without the limb. It's not just about experiential development.

How does a child’s “body map” include parts that don’t exist? Eg a penis.

I can see how phantom limbs work in amputees - they developed a nervous system and neurocognitive body map of a whole body and this was not rewritten when they lost their limb.

But how does a young child develop from an embryo to a baby to a child of 4/5 years with a “neurocognitive” body map of the opposite sex? What is the actual mechanism for this developing?

I don’t think I buy this explanation without some actual scientific research evidence.

But perhaps this isn’t what Lacksie means either.

I think a child of this age is expressing confusion about sex permanence and a preference for some of the perceived positive aspects of being the other sex. Different permitted toys/clothes/ family privileges etc.

Either way, it seems very stupid and simplistic of an adult to take a young child’s pronouncements at literal face value.

Science and medicine need more evidence than 'you can't rule it out'.