Young Children, Reality, Sex and Gender.

[GarlandsAndPosies]

This is a blog by a psychologist Katie Alcock, about how children learn what sex they are. It raises important points about children who say they are the opposite sex. It's based on a talk she gave at recent event organised by For Women Lancashire. I heard the talk and it was really insightful, so please do read and share.

The blog
medium.com/@katieja/young-children-reality-sex-and-gender-3421f4f165f1

Facebook page with other talks from the same event
www.facebook.com/pg/For-Women-Lancashire-2169280420068746/posts/?ref=page_internal

fascinating
if your computer (like mine) doesn't want you to look at the videos, ignore it, they are very well worth watching, it's eye-opening stuff for anyone who's ever been told a child 'always knew they were really a boy/girl'

I teach psychology and made videos like the ones in the article using Kohlberg's methods with my own children.
DD1 when she was 3 clearly demonstrated no understanding of gender consistency as when asked the question 'when you grow up, will you be a daddy or a mummy? replied 'daddy'. i did several questions and they all confirmed she had gender identity but no understanding of gender consistency (which is in agreement with Kohlberg's theory)
Obviously according to mermaids I should have known then she was clearly really a boy especially as she loved dinosaurs, loved rough and tumble play. I should have changed her name, dressed her in boys clothing and should have pushed for puberty blockers.
Luckily for my dd, I wasn't a complete numpty and she is growing up to be a fine if slightly gender non - conforming women.
However, I saved the video and use it regularly in my classes when teaching gender (she's very cute in it) and plan to embarrass her with it in father's speech if/when she gets married.
I seriously don't get how anybody can make conclusions that their children are trans at age 3. That is just crazy.

Great find, Garlands! Those of us who are parents know that this is the reality of children's development, but I for one didn't have the technical language or references to describe it. This is very useful.

I used gender as the topic is gender development with gender being defined as 'a person's sense of maleness or femaleness, as psychological/social construct'
I teach Kohlberg's cognitive explanation of gender development (1966) which discusses how children acquire their gender.

I make it quite clear how they acquire their sex!!

I used gender as the topic is gender development with gender being defined as 'a person's sense of maleness or femaleness, as psychological/social construct'

I just looked this up, as I'm not familiar with Kohlberg. This is what wikipedia says (yes, I know that's not the best source, but it's easily accessible).

This idea of gender consistency, similar to Piaget's concrete-operational stage, is represented by three stages:
1. gender identity: the child recognizes that they are either a boy or a girl and possesses the ability to label others.
2. gender stability: the identity in which they recognizes themselves as does not change
3. gender consistency: the acceptance that gender does not change regardless of changes in gender-typed appearance, activities, and traits.

Although the word gender is used here, what is meant in each case is sex, not gender, apart from where it mentions 'gender-typed appearance'.

That seems slightly different from what you said.

in the article above, some of the clips shown are testing Kohlberg's theory. The research was originally done by Slaby and Frey in 1975 and they asked a series of questions such as 'when you grow up, will you be a mummy or daddy' and gave them dolls and asked them which gender they thought they were using a series of other questions.
Kohlberg used the word gender hence that's why I referred to his theory being Kohlberg's theory of gender development. As he wrote this theory in 1966 I doubt he would have imagined the type of discussion we are having today. I should think that back in his day nobody was confusing gender and sex even if the words being being used interchangeably.

OldCrone

I think the idea of gender there is actually the mental construction of a sense of having a sex. They aren't talking about the sexed body itself but the way that the mind conceptualises it.

I always wonder with this stuff, do people that think small kids can be trans not know any kids at all? That is possible these days, but do they not remember being a child?

Most of the people pushing it have a vested interest. Ether they are financially benefiting and have no children of their own (Olson-Kennedys, Webberleys) or they have children that they have transitioned (Green, Islan).

And there are still others who I won't name who are interested in keeping young people in a state of perpetual childhood

The article states that children under 7 believe that appearance changes material reality (the playdoh experiment). I'd just like to add that autistic children continue to believe this at a much later age or even for life as shown repeatedly by Baron Cohen in numerous theory of mind experiments.

That's a great article

I think the idea of gender there is actually the mental construction of a sense of having a sex. They aren't talking about the sexed body itself but the way that the mind conceptualises it.

Surely this is simply knowing it exists, and recognising it in oneself and others.

But veryboredtoday said:

gender being defined as 'a person's sense of maleness or femaleness, as psychological/social construct'

This seems like something more - like a 'gender identity', which I don't think was something that was talked about in the 60s.

As he wrote this theory in 1966 I doubt he would have imagined the type of discussion we are having today. I should think that back in his day nobody was confusing gender and sex even if the words being being used interchangeably.

Exactly. I don't imagine anyone then was using 'gender identity' to suggest that people might be 'born in the wrong body'. It was just a way of describing a child's recognition of their own sex and that of others.

Ether they are financially benefiting and have no children of their own (Olson-Kennedys, Webberleys) or they have children that they have transitioned (Green, Islan).

Johanna Olson-Kennedy is married to a trans man. And are you sure that the Webberleys have no children? I've been wondering if their evangelism on this is down to having a trans child, like Susie Green. But the pursuit of financial gain could be a simpler explanation.

Sorry for the derail there. This is a very good article which should be read by anyone who wants to understand about how children learn about their sex.

Surely this is simply knowing it exists, and recognising it in oneself and others.

No, not really. That's the point of the article, it's a concept that develops over time and goes through various stages. It's an element of cognitive development. Just like children's cognition of mathematical concepts, or the physical world develops. If you want to talk about the cognitive development around recognising how fluids change shape in different containers, you are not talking about the physics of fluids.

That's the point of the article, it's a concept that develops over time and goes through various stages. It's an element of cognitive development.

Yes. Not sure what your point is.