Impressive new article by Debbie Hayton.

[Umyeahnah]

I've not been Debbie's biggest fan, but this is changing my view. Thankyou Debbie for owning your autogynaphilia, and writing about it .

The irony is I'm not sure guidelines allow me to use that word?

quillette.com/2020/02/02/i-may-have-gender-dysphoria-but-i-still-prefer-to-base-my-life-on-biology-not-fantasy/

Which is to say that although it says that at the top of the header, that's not the full title of this part of the forum.

In any case, any ideology includes discussion of definitions etc as part of it. Feminism isn't all about supportive groups and discussions. Honestly, that idea is what has put academia, among other areas, into such trouble.

There are significant differences between a child wanting to be the opposite sex or presenting in stereotypical ways associated with the opposite sex and 'having a cross sex identity'

I wasn't talking about wanting to be the other sex, or wanting to do what they did.

From the article -
"the person’s physiology".

Is that how we have to refer to a person's biological sex, now that all the words we previously used have been redefined?

There are serious problems in all of this of taking typical developmental stages and re-framing them as anomalies. It's most odd.

It is indeed, & very concerning when adopted/promoted by people who should have an awareness of child development & Safeguarding.

*This is 'feminist chat'

It isn't, actually.*

It used to be

Honestly, that idea is what has put academia, among other areas, into such trouble.

I'm sure with both my and your contributions, no one is mistaking this chat forum with academia.

I was convinced as a kid I was in fact a boy. I thought I felt like, looked, and was a boy. Whatever that means when you unpack it from an adult standpoint, children at 4 can absolutely think of themselves that way, and it seems clear that some people who go on to various types of gender identity issues have sometimes felt that way from a young age and it influences their actions.

I didn't think that was controversial even from a GC perspective.

I thought it was extremely controversial. You say you thought you felt like a boy. What some men or transwomen are saying is 'I feel like a woman'. They're not saying 'I think I feel like a woman'. It's not possible to 'feel like' something you are not. Because you don't know what it feels like to be anyone other than yourself.

I don't even know what it feels like to be a woman. I only know how I feel - that may not be like any other women. I certainly don't know what it feels like to be a man, because I don't even have the single example of myself to draw on.

People, children in particular, might feel uncomfortable with the stereotypes which are imposed on them because of their sex. So a gentle boy who likes pretty clothes might think he doesn't feel like a real boy, and therefore he must feel like a girl. Similarly for a tomboyish girl. The idea that if they don't identify with the stereotypes for their sex, or identify with the stereotypes for the opposite sex, they must 'feel like' the opposite sex.

But why did you think you were a boy? What gave you that idea?

I wasn't talking about wanting to be the other sex, or wanting to do what they did.

Goose have you read the article by Dr Alcock about long accepted stages of child develpment? Its standard knowledge, the embedded video clips are good demonstrations.
(extract)
"By the time children are about 6 or 7 they are getting better at understanding that objects don’t change their real essence when they change their appearance but they still think that people change their sex when they change their appearance — this is known as sex (or gender, if you’re squeamish) constancy.

But at the same time — we’re talking 4, 5, 6 and even 7 — children do NOT understand that people’s genitals (and biology in general, but genitals are more obvious to small children) are what makes them boys or girls, men or women. Researchers think that earlier knowledge about biological differences between men and women does help children to understand at a younger age that people cannot change sex.
But it isn’t a complete answer — some children can understand that men have penises and women have vaginas, but still think that changing clothing makes a girl into a boy, if they also think that a cat wearing a dog mask has become a dog. In other words, to get to a mature understanding of sex constancy you need to understand what makes a boy and a girl, biologically, and also understand that the underlying essence of a thing isn’t dependent on its appearance."

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

Goosefoot you keep saying this place doesn’t have to be supportive. Is this a dig at trans widows because it feels like it?

(Thanks R0).

What is a cross-sex identity? It's not possible to 'identify as' or 'feel like' something you are not.

It is possible to ‘know’ if you’re a boy or girl. For some people that sense of what sex they are is different from the physical body. Whether in children this is based on nothing but stereotypes I don’t know.

It used to be said that the only point there need be concern about evidence of cross gender identity in children is if it involves distress or aversion to their biological sex characteristics. (Yes I know abuse can also cause that symptom).

Field How children develop an understanding of sex is explained in Dr Alcock's article.
This process is understood.

With regards discussion earlier in the thread about how the children in school were required to 'accomodate' Dr Hayton's AGP expression, this is described in Physics World EDUCATION AND OUTREACH OPINION AND REVIEWS article:
'Gender balance, one woman at a time'
29 Sep 2016
(extract)
"When physics teacher Debbie Hayton transitioned from male to female, she conducted some “controlled social observations” in her classroom. In this article (originally published in Lateral Thoughts, Physics World’s regular column of humorous and offbeat essays about physics and physicists), she reflects on her experiences

What can be done to increase the number of women in physics? This question keeps committees busy and researchers funded, but the solution seems as elusive as squaring the circle. Four years ago, however, I did my bit: I transitioned from male to female. As this also meant that the number of men in physics was simultaneously reduced by one, it was, as they say in football, a “six-pointer" (continues)

"So, on 20 December 2012, the students in my school were sent home with letters to their parents informing them of an imminent and major change in my personal circumstances. Three weeks later they returned to school bright and eager, but probably with more than physics on their minds when they waited outside my lab. It was all very simple, I told them. Sir becomes Miss, he becomes she and – er – Dr Hayton becomes Dr Hayton. I knew that PhD would come in handy one day. From there life would go on pretty much as normal, as long as we all stood up straight (sometimes my classes even laugh at that joke)." (continues)

physicsworld.com/a/gender-balance-one-woman-at-a-time/

Teachers are called or referred to as Sir/Miss by children in school far more frequently than their full name including title is used.

Yes Alcock is quoting the work of Kohlberg, who made significant contribution to the understanding of the development of not only gender constancy but also ‘gender identity’, a concept often discredited here.

Anyway the research evidence for a link between the appreciation of gender constancy and gender-typing is not strong:

www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/childhood-youth/childhood-and-youth-studies/childhood/cognition-and-gender-development

(see reviews by Huston, 1983; Ruble and Martin, 1998). In fact, most of the evidence suggests that it is the most immature form of the gender concept – the accurate labelling of oneself as a boy or girl – that is often associated with gender-typed conduct and stereotyped beliefs. Bussey and Bandura (1999) note that “long before children have attained gender constancy, they prefer to play with toys traditionally associated with their gender, […] to model their behavior after same-sex models, […] and to reward peers for gender-appropriate behavior’ (p. 678)

Field you seem to have read an entirely different article or missed the points that Dr Alcock made.

In her speech (as referred to at the beginning of the article) the references to multiple studies cover a 100 year period:

"All the studies I’m going to talk about are really robust — well replicated — this means that lots of researchers have found the same thing time and time again. We have known about some related aspects of children’s thinking since the 1920s or earlier and some of the main, older studies in this area are from the 1960s."

More on Kohlberg's gender constancy

www.healthofchildren.com/G-H/Gender-Constancy.html

It is possible to ‘know’ if you’re a boy or girl.

Of course it is. Children with female bodies are girls, and children with male bodies are boys. Children learn this at quite a young age. Once they have learnt this of course they know it.

For some people that sense of what sex they are is different from the physical body.

What sex they are is based on the physical body. What else do you think it's based on?

What else do you think it's based on?

That is the subject of much debate amongst psychologists

www.healthofchildren.com/G-H/Gender-Identity.html

From your link Field

A child's realization that gender is fixed and does not change over time.

You do realise that they are using 'gender' to mean sex here, don't you?

an entirely different article

I’ve read the article. It’s a half baked pick and mix of various bits of people’s research and theories to attempt to justify the author’s own views.

Field what is that site you're linking to?

It’s the encyclopaedia of child health. I know my browser is saying not secure, I think it’s just an out of date security certificate.

I’ve read the article. It’s a half baked pick and mix of various bits of people’s research and theories to attempt to justify the author’s own views.

The Medium piece is, as it states at the beginning, a summary of a speech that Dr Alcock gave last year.
Katie Alcock is a senior lecturer at Lancaster University

Her research areas include,
Infancy and Early Development
Language and Cognition

www.lancaster.ac.uk/psychology/about-us/people/katie-alcock#research-groups

Or is it? Have I clicked on something bad?

Alcock writes:

"What this also means is that terminology has changed. When this area of research first started, everyone knew, and was clear, that they were talking about children’s knowledge of biological sex. The terms “sex identity” and “sex constancy” were used, to mean children’s knowledge of whether they were a boy or a girl, and whether they or others could change into the opposite sex. Around the 1990s everyone started getting squeamish about the word “sex” and started using “gender” as a euphemism. Researchers, however, still meant a child’s knowledge of biological sex."*