So ... Does this indicate that you CAN be 'born the wrong gender'?

[Garrick]

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/im-girl-meet-twin-boy-6348318?

Summary: Twins Alfie and Logan, 4yo, are both boys. Logan has insisted on wearing girly clothes, doing girly things, and that he is a girl since the age of two. His mother, who sounds brilliant, reports him wishing his willy would fall off.

I'm somewhat flummoxed. When I were a lass, little boys like this were described as camp (behind their fathers' backs) and, as far as I know, mostly grew up to be camp and fulfilled their rightful destinies. Rather like Ugly Betty's brother.

But this is what some transwomen say they felt like as children, isn't it? And I have rubbished it because I find it hard to believe in gender as an innate feeling. I'm not sure whether I think little Logan proves me wrong

So yes. (Sorry posted too soon before)

Not to mention that a sample size of 14 is so small it is ludicrous. You can;t draw any conclusions from that - people stating that it "worked" for five people are just as valid as stating that it "failed" for eight. It's far too small - individual circumstances massively skew the results, and you can't generalise. In addition, even with a larger number this was not a randomised sample of the population, it begins with intersex persons which might also affect the results.

I don't think that you can argue any kind of study at all, TBH. The few that ever existed were small in scope and ethically and methodologically dubious. Ethical concerns now prevent scientists from repeating any similar experiments so it will have to remain a mystery. The study shows nothing more than confirmation bias, really. As you can see on this thread two separate people have drawn entirely different conclusions from it.

THanks demented. I think so too, but somehow (I'm not sure why - there's certainly no basis for this belief!) I think the distress would be less...

I think trans people would still exist in a gender equal society, yes.

I don't agree with labelling children as "trans" "other" or whatever because the don't stick rigidly to societies gender roles.

If society was more gender fluid children could explore their interests and likes without thinking if they like girl things then they must be a girl.

I wanted to be a boy for a long time. In reality it was because I didn't want to wear dresses, be pretty, draw, play with dolls etc. I honestly thought in my 4 year old brain the only way I'd get to do fun stuff like climb trees, wear trousers, wrestle, ride a bmx etc was if I were a boy.

garrick obviously there's no control group. To do any work with control groups you need to look at animal studies.
There's loads of data on this.

flora Ok I'll admit I'm not getting it.

It sounds like you have no issue with a person feeling like a male or a female (I think I called this gender identity, not really sure what to call it) being mostly biologically based.

But at the same time you don't think it really exists?

Sorry I'm not putting that across very well (it's late and the toddler is sick and watch wall to wall Peppa Pig is sapping my strength).

bertie it's a small sample size because the condition is extremely rare.
If you want to look at other cases just look up the references listed at the end of the study.

Also the condition these boys suffered from is not an intersex condition. It's an abnormality of development.

• oops should have said boys & girls or children.

It sounds like you have no issue with a person feeling like a male or a female (I think I called this gender identity, not really sure what to call it) being mostly biologically based. But at the same time you don't think it really exists?

I'm not Flora - but what Cote said, more or less. Most posters on this thread are saying GENDER doesn't exist as a biological reality. Therefore, there can be no biological gender identity to have a crisis with.

You would have to have the brain of a dead twig to assert that we are not a sexually dimorphic species. Biological SEX is part of a human's identity. Nature doing what it does so well, there will always be random anomalies and we will never be able to predict or explain them all. Humans with a sexual bimorphism anomaly would logically have a sex identity crisis.

The vast majority of what transwomen tell us about their identity is described in terms of gender. This means they're having a problem with gender roles, which are not a biological reality but a social construct.

It is unnecessary to argue that gender is a biological fact. It's also arrant nonsense, given that gender means so many different things in different cultures and different times. The only people with an interest in arguing this nonsensical theory are those who wish to reinforce gender differences, generally for personal advantage.

It makes me very sad to notice that many transwomen appear to have acquired problems with their biological sex due to perceived rigidities around gender. How many of them would've been perfectly happy as men acting 'feminine' gender roles, if society was happy for them to do so?

Well I can certainly see that liking dresses and pink is clearly socialised.

But why would it follow that gender identity doesn't exist?
Clearly feeling that you are male when you are in a female body does cause issues for those it affects.

I do agree with micah that a more gender fluid society would be a good thing

toddler is still awake and we are on the 12th episode of Pepper Pig, sob

Oh, no, poor you! Hope you & Peppa get to sleep soon.

Thanks

Fascinating debate.

Very sad to read about those poor boys who suffered with Cloacal Exstrophy. But surely they were/are male. It was not just a penis that made them male, however small that penis was, and the lack of penis did not make them female. They were were born male. Being male or female is not a construct it is a fact. So I don't see it as unusual that any of them may feel male, even without a penis.

I'm really struggling with this topic myself, not personally but just getting my head around it. I am very much a live and let live person, and I can see the suffering that people go through with issues of identity etc.

I think there are probably a variety of reasons why people identify as trans, there is not just one narrative. But I just not sure that these boys, male children with Cloacal Exstrophy, who did not identify themselves as females independently but were 'forced' to be 'girls' due to a sad fact of nature and the ignorance of doctors is much of a help. It's a bit like bringing in intersex people into a debate about trans. It's not comparing like for like.

At this age, lots of children decide they want to be cats, dogs or other animals, and sometimes insist to their parents that they are that animal, sometimes for a long time.
Under 5s who are identified as trans, do seem to get a lot of attention for it. I am sure this boy does naturally like things labelled as for girls, but the attention he is getting will also be a pay off. Many people underestimate under 5s and how they respond to their environment.

"He was a boy and knew it - because his brain told him so."

Every cell in his body, including his brain, was developed from XY chromosomes - he was a biological male, just as a grown man with an amputated penis would be.

"ou know, not that long ago the same sort of arguments could have been put forward about gay people. Just a phase. They will grow out of it."

Coco, that's not what people are saying. This child may grow up to be trans or not; indeed, his twin may be the one who does, or neither, or both. No doubt many adults who are gay went through a phase of playing at opposite sex marriage etc. To use the word phase about a child of this age is not judgemental - I agree to use it about an adult is more likely to be patronising.

4yos are just as likely to insist they are a cat or a dog or a horse as they are a boy or a girl.

My niece was a dog for about 2 years, mostly a dalmatian.

I wonder how many times this little boy was told, "no that's for girls"nbefore he decided to be one?

Gender as in "Girls love pink and play tea party games, they are soft and gentle, then they grow up and cook/clean" etc is entirely socially constructed.

This ^^

I wanted to be a boy so that I didn't have to wear dresses, could climb trees, do more exciting things. Then I worked out I could do those things anyway.

Kids get such strange obsessions and worries, it's not hard to imagine that you can guide the outcome a bit with nurture.

When I think back to my teenage years I was just a bundle of dysfunction - concerned about my height as I said before, body shape, school, my glasses, my fitness, money, where my life was going etc.

I can completely imagine that if doctors, and online communities had seemed welcoming, told me that this was my problem and they could solve it with some pills and surgery, then perhaps I would have gone for it and not had the lovely life I have now.

Gay people don't ask for hormones or surgery to be themselves. It is nothing like being gay.

Gay people also don't require other people to participate in their being gay.

I understand why the sample size is small, just saying you can't use that study for any kind of proof. If you personally feel that it backs up your gut feeling then fine, but that is confirmation bias, nothing else.

Somebody put it so much better on the other thread, perhaps I can find it.

I can't find the quote now. But basically it boils down to whether you see gender as a form of self-expression, which clearly comes from the person themselves, ie, it's innate, and also means that different activities and identities can legitimately be classed as masculine or feminine. With this viewpoint it makes sense that gender would be on a spectrum and it's still okay for people to move or flip between gender roles. I don't know what this POV is called, I used gender activists earlier but was told that was definitely wrong.

The other POV in the debate is that you see gender as a tool used to oppress, police and restrict people, ie, it's external, and possibly non-existent. Biological sex clearly exists but there is no such thing as a masculine/feminine activity other than those restricted by biology, e.g. childbirth. Cooking, engineering, fairies, gardening, music, make up are all just interests that people might have and have no relevance to their sex. This is the Radical Feminist position.

Then there is the conservative POV which is that biological sex and gender are inextricably linked and should never be broken, but I don't think we are talking about that at all (though sometimes I think the RadFem POV is mistaken for this one, which it absolutely is not).

As I understand it, the first two views are totally incompatible. You can't hold both at once. The problem with talking about the issue is that we use the same words to denote biological sex as those we use to denote gender, so you get people talking at cross purposes and thinking that the other person is being totally ridiculous when actually you just aren't respecting where the other is coming from.

It might be useful on these debates to specify whether we are talking about biological sex or gender when we mention "men" "women" "boys" or "girls". For example, the part of the RadFem argument which often appears to be anti-trans is concern that issues which disproportionately affect bio-women are becoming more difficult to talk about because of either laws which allow people to change their legally recognised gender, which in everyday life does translate to sex, or language issues, for instance stating that both men and women can have wombs and so face the issue of abortion. Well, perhaps people of a male gender and people of a female gender might both have wombs, but it's not true that bio-men have wombs, only bio-women. It's not anti anybody living any lifestyle they wish, it's anti minimising of women's issues.

I find it very difficult because I do think that there is some common ground but both sides are so very offended by the others' point of view that it's very difficult to arrive at that place where we can work together and so it's become some sort of battleground.

I think that was Buffy - on the first page of www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2456630-Can-we-please-talk-about-Gender-I-seem-to-find-myself-in-a-muddle-thinking-about-it

Yep I paraphrased from Buffy (should have said, sorry ) but there was another quote about the incompatability of the two PsOV which was brilliant but I can't find it now. I was reading the two threads side by side on a rubbish connection so got them a bit confused.