^hanks for the article and the references. Could you clarify your thinking on something for me?
From what I understand, many trans people say their preference for socially constructed choices, i.e. pink, blue, etc, isn't from intrinsic partiality to that particular item/colour, but from a learnt association of that item with either femininity or masculinity.
So it makes perfect sense to express a preference based on what they see as the consensus.
It's consistent with both the gender preference being socially constructed, but also an innate need to identify with that construction. i.e. the fact that these preferences change over time and culture does not appear to be inconsistent with the assertion that gender identity is innate. The colour/toy preferences being merely an expression of the innate persona.
I'm not sure I've expressed that as effectively as it sounded in my head!^
Thanks for the question Datun. I may have misunderstood what you are saying so please forgive me if I'm wrong.
I'm thinking if attachment to cultural behaviour and artefacts is based on an association with a particular type of behaviour, e.g. Masculinity or feminity, so people are, dependent on innate personal preferences, attracted to things that we see as culturally masculine or feminine, then it supports what I'm trying to say, which is in essence personality is being used as evidence for a child's mind/body being incongruent. Anyone can like things culturally coded as feminine, and likewise masculine, and we'd be better off allowing people of all sexes access to these.
Or have I misunderstood?
Thanks!