Unlimited potential: Report of the Commission on Gender Stereotypes and Early Childhood

[HecatesCatsInXmasHats]

From the Fawcett Society:

UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON GENDER STEREOTYPES AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

Society teaches our children life-limiting stereotypes from the moment they are born. Our expert Commission on Gender Stereotypes in Early Childhood came together in 2019 to build a new consensus on the impact gender stereotypes and intersecting inequalities have in our children’s formative years and how, together, we can end them.

On the 15th December we are publishing our final report. We set out the case for change, the evidence about how gender stereotypes are perpetuated, and promote practical solutions to change childhood and change lives.

Speakers include:

Gillian Keegan MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Apprenticeships and Skills at the Department for Education

Professor Becky Francis, Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Fund

Jess Day, Campaigner with Let Toys Be Toys

Owen Thomas, Future Men

Janeen Hayat, Co-Founder of You Be You

Chair: Sam Smethers, Fawcett Society Chief Executive

www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Event/unlimited-potential-report-of-the-commission-on-gender-stereotypes-in-early-childhood

What I am saying is that you have misunderstood the basis for rational arguments between atheists and theists.

Actually you illustrated my point. There are some aspects of theism where the theist and the atheist can't have a fair "rational" arguement, because the atheist has already defined "rational" to exclude the subjective experience of the theist not based on knowledge that it cannot be true but on the grounds that it cannot be proved which is not quite the same thing. The theist is playing a rigged game.

I entirely agree that feeling of unprovable identity are not a safe basis for women's rights.

It isn’t a rigged game. People have been arguing over whether God exists for thousands of years. Both sides have a series of arguments for their beliefs which are widely accepted as being rational opinions. Atheists have never ‘won’ this argument. Both standpoints are considered credible in philosophy.

Requiring people to put forward rational arguments not accounts of subjective experiences is considered the basis of serious debate by both atheists and theists, and indeed until recently all intelligent people who believed in enlightenment values.

If people who believe in transgenderism had put forward a range of rational arguments about the nature and existence of God in the way that theists have, we would be in a much better position to debate whether or not the whole of society was required to believe it themselves or at least accommodate the belief.

Obviously in that post transgenderists would argue for gender identity not God! Sorry.

Requiring people to put forward rational arguments not accounts of subjective experiences is considered the basis of serious debate by both atheists and theists, and indeed until recently all intelligent people who believed in enlightenment values.

I don't disagree. But it still removes a whole class of things that may be true but are also unknowable outside the subjective experience. For the atheist/GC position that's a feature not a bug...it tilts the ground in their favour by excluding arguments rather than disproving them.

Also, rational arguments can be made about subjective experiences. We don't dismiss rational discussions about love, for example, just because any one individual's knowledge of love is subjective and unproveable.

I’m trying to get your point, blibby, I really am, and I think I do, but I’m afraid at the end of the day, I just think that people arguing from that angle are further embedding stereotypes, whether they mean to or not.

Going back to the reliance in the diagnostic criteria on stereotypes...here’s the DSM V criteria. Use of stereotypes highlighted.

————————-

The DSM-5 defines gender dysphoria in children as a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, lasting at least 6 months, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be the first criterion):

1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire ; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
4. A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender

In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play ; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities

1. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
2. A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender

——————-

If we move beyond stereotypes, half the diagnostic criteria vanish. How can you play that both ways? I genuinely can’t fathom it. It should be absolutely fine for boys and girls to engage in any form of play without pigeon holing.

Yes, Blibby we do have rational arguments about subjective experiences, by comparing the subjective experiences of many people against a set of criteria.

In the case of God, knowledge of god though direct subjective experience is the argument between (small g) gnosticism and agnosticism. Belief in God is a different debate and is the argument between theism and atheism.

That these are separate arguments isn’t something that atheists imposed on theists. The distinction between belief and knowledge of the divine is core in religious apologetics and would exist even if there were no atheists.

The stereotypes we are referring to are masculinity and femininity.

There are psychological traits that are considered to be masculine and feminine by psychologists. There are also masculine and feminine interests.

We generally understand that what is masculine and feminine is culturally variable.

We accept people’s subjective assessments of whether they are masculine or feminine, as long as they fit with culturally understood criteria.

So an American boy can claim to be feminine because he enjoys soccer and a British boy can claim to be masculine because he enjoys soccer. All of that is absolutely fine including the subjective claim of preferences.

Referring however to a gender identity that is subjectively experienced but has no specific traits, not even culturally situated masculinity and femininity isn’t any kind of explanation. And that’s the situation we are in.

Yes, Blibby we do have rational arguments about subjective experiences, by comparing the subjective experiences of many people against a set of criteria.

But we, by which I mean FWR as a class, aren't doing that with people who claim they have a gender identity. We don't listen to many subjective experiences. We take each individual and demand they express their story and experience in a framework we predefined that takes our own beliefs as fact. That's my point about the GC stereotype "gotcha" being a failing of GC analysis.

@SophocIestheFox

I’m trying to get your point, blibby, I really am, and I think I do, but I’m afraid at the end of the day, I just think that people arguing from that angle are further embedding stereotypes, whether they mean to or not.

Going back to the reliance in the diagnostic criteria on stereotypes...here’s the DSM V criteria. Use of stereotypes highlighted.

————————-

The DSM-5 defines gender dysphoria in children as a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, lasting at least 6 months, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be the first criterion):

1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire ; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
4. A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender

In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play ; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities

1. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
2. A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender

——————-

If we move beyond stereotypes, half the diagnostic criteria vanish. How can you play that both ways? I genuinely can’t fathom it. It should be absolutely fine for boys and girls to engage in any form of play without pigeon holing.

Because you are ignoring the first criterion which the DSM V says MUST be present:

1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

So alignment with opposite sex stereotypes is only seen as an indicator of a tran identity in the case of a child who themselves claims to be trans. Without that, it's just a kid happy outside stereotypes. The diagnostic criteria absolutely don't say cross-gender behaviour is itself is an indicator of a trans identity.

I do get that in reality social responses and a child's simplistic world view could lead them to come to believe the first point is true BECAUSE they align to opposite sex stereotypes and it's entirely valid to challenge whether all that is happening is that the gender cart is getting put in front of the stereotype horse, but the diagnostic criteria in itself does not assume stereotypes == trans

If we move beyond stereotypes, half the diagnostic criteria vanish.

Yes they would. And without stereotypes perhaps there would be no trans people. There would certainly IMO be far far fewer. But here and now stereotypes do exist and have a huge influence on almost all of us, so it's hardly surprising that if there is such a thing as an innate trans identity, that would be expressed through stereotypes. Alignment to stereotypes is not proof that trans is purely a result of stereotypes.

I’m trying to get your point, blibby, I really am, and I think I do, but I’m afraid at the end of the day, I just think that people arguing from that angle are further embedding stereotypes, whether they mean to or not.

Sure, and we can address that case by case. But I think it's important that in our desire to challenge the social and legal sublimation of sex into gender, we don't fall into the trap of misrepresenting the genderist position into one that's easier to dismiss.

Blibby, one of the flaws in this argument is the assumption that children can know what they mean when they say they're the opposite sex and that they aren't being influenced by the highly stereotyped socialisation of their parents. Parents often talk about how they noticed the child liked to play with particular toys. Susie Green of Mermaids herself said she thought her child might be gay, there was a recent high profile case in the states where the family were mortified that their child who transgressed gender boundaries might be gay and were clearly much happier for that child to present as female than to transgress. This plays to the damaging stereotypes touched upon in the Fawcett society report, which constrain both children and adults. The more entrenched they become the more uncomfortable adults might feel about allowing their child to move outside society's clear boundaries. Walk into any toy shop (even supermarket) now and it's very clear which isle is for girls and which for boys, I don't believe it was this bad when I was a child. In a hyper-stereotyped society can be very uncomfortable about allowing their children to step outside the 'norm'.

OK, so if it’s only the first criteria that really counts, then what are the rest of them for? Are they necessary or not? Are they helpful or do they actually just confuse the issue? I also think it’s entirely possible for a child to express a desire to be the other sex, but not to have dysphoria. Then there’s the fact that it’s transphobic to think that dysphoria is a prerequisite for being trans...

I actually don’t doubt at all that dysphoria exists, that people desperately want to be the opposite sex, that distressed children do express that distress through vociferously resisting sex role sterotyping, and that for some people presenting as the opposite sex relieves that distress. No argument from here- it’s not for me to dispute any of that, and I don’t. I dontt think many gender critical feminists do (although we do disagree with any of that immediately overriding biological sex in public life).

But I do think that the increasingly pink and blue world we live in increases the amount of children who are distressed by the gendered expectations put upon them, and we are too keen to pathologise that, when in fact it’s a very normal part of childhood to resist sex role stereotyping. It certainly plays a part in the massive increases in young people identifying as trans or having difficulties around gender.

I’m sure I’ve wandered far off the point here...

@Blibbyblobby I was literally just thinking along the same lines as you. My analogy is a bit less intellectual : it's a chicken and egg situation, does a trans child choose the stereotypical activities/likes of the opposite gender because of an inner gender/body incongruence or does liking the stereotypes of the opposite sex make them think they must have a mismatched gender/body? Difficult to work out with small children who don't have the language, possibly more obvious with an AGP adult.
I still think stereotypes are bad and sex is real

[quote Wbeezer]@Blibbyblobby I was literally just thinking along the same lines as you. My analogy is a bit less intellectual : it's a chicken and egg situation, does a trans child choose the stereotypical activities/likes of the opposite gender because of an inner gender/body incongruence or does liking the stereotypes of the opposite sex make them think they must have a mismatched gender/body? Difficult to work out with small children who don't have the language, possibly more obvious with an AGP adult.
I still think stereotypes are bad and sex is real[/quote]
I’m not sure if I’m spectacularly missing the point here, I feel I must be, but what would the source of the sense of inner gender be, if not from looking at the stereotypical behaviours and presentation of the opposite sex? You can’t know how someone else feels inside, you can only imagine. It’s arguing for some sort of quasi mystical powers of insight, or the possibility of a male brain in a female body, which I just don’t think can exist. The sense of it existing, yes, but not the actual mismatch.

I feel like I’m missing something here 😭 and it’s frustrating me.

That's what I mean "the sense of it", I don't believe their is an inner sense of gender but I am intrigued about what the feeling that trans people ascribe to "gender feeling" actually is and where it comes from.
I don't think it's beyond the bound of possibility that theres a physical sense of belonging in your body that has an organic basis, a sense of embodiment and that it could go wrong like any other sense can but I can't see how it could be gendered (none of the other senses are). There are probably lots of people other than trans people who feel detached from their bodies to one degree or another but don't latch onto gender as an explanation. I'm starting to ramble now but making sense of this is a process...

I think I get where you’re coming from now. I think it’s impossible to generalise, though. A teenage girl would differ from a pre teen boy, would differ from a grown man etc. It just seems such a blunt tool, given the infinite possibilities of human expression and experience.

‘But we, by which I mean FWR as a class, aren't doing that with people who claim they have a gender identity. We don't listen to many subjective experiences. We take each individual and demand they express their story and experience in a framework we predefined that takes our own beliefs as fact. That's my point about the GC stereotype "gotcha" being a failing of GC analysis.’

I have been reading these debates for ten years and there have been no real explanations of what a gender identity actually is or what it feels like to have one. Very occasionally someone will go against the beliefs of trans activists and say it is about feeling innately feminine. But in general no explanation is given.

To go back to your analogy, there have been thousands of descriptions of what experiencing God is like. If you do along to the Catholic Church and claim to have had a vision, they have criteria from which to verify your claim. Similarly if you make claims of enlightenment the experience will have parameters in Buddhism.

Your experience of God may be subjective, but for it to be accepted by others your description of it would have to include certain characteristics. The problem with gender identity isn’t that people are experiencing it subjectively, it is that their descriptions of the experience include no characteristics.

Gender identity is an empty category. There is no explanation of what feeling like a girl entails.

If we are all supposed to be having some female gender identity that is shared, it must have some characteristics that we can agree we each subjectively experience. At the moment no characteristics are being given.

I understand that if I went and lived in another culture I would do different feminine things to fit in with other women, and I’d expect feminine gay men would do the same. But we keep getting told that gender identity is not about femininity.

Also, FWR is not a class. Nor are we a psychological research group capable of drawing up a set of criteria that would describe common characteristics of gender identity. I would love to see such research though.

This is an interesting discussion that gets to the heart of the issue - Blibbyblobby is mostly right and is putting forward a view that isn't seen on this board enough (at all?).

We have to be much finer in trying to explain how the ideas that underpin current trans rights can entrench sex stereotypes, especially the way they are sometimes (or often) explained to children - and that's serious - but that it's not as simple as the way the gc discourse often presents it - eg that they (the other side) believe that if you like pink/play with dolls then you are a girl.

Trans activists I follow on twitter are also about trying to free up what they call 'gender expression' for children they consider 'cis'. Ie boys should able to paint their nails or whatever. They hold both positions at the same time (some children are trans, and boys should be able to have long hair paint their nails) & they are not necessarily contradictory if you believe in gender identity as an integral component of a person. However - it's very easy for children to hear 'a boy who paints nails, likes dolls, is probably a trans girl, when they meet these ideas.

This is also true from stripesnomore:
there have been no real explanations of what a gender identity actually is or what it feels like to have one. Very occasionally someone will go against the beliefs of trans activists and say it is about feeling innately feminine. But in general no explanation is given.
which is why people end up here.

But, Fawcett's work on this is important, and the finding deserve to be acted on.

Really agree with your points @Blibbyblobby

I remember seeing a tweet ages ago from one of the Corbynistas - she was talking about the argument about whether some trans women play into sexist stereotypes by wearing a lot of make up or hyper-feminised clothing. And she pointed out that if you're a trans woman and just want to be accepted as a woman, wearing as much typically 'feminine' clothing as possible and wearing lots of make up is a logical and understandable approach. That it's not an aggressive pastiche, which I think we GCers can sometimes think it is, but an absolutely genuine desire to be seen as feminine.

Really helped me to look at it from a better perspective I think. God knows there have been times in my life where I've done typically 'feminine' things (hair removal, short skirts, high heels) purely because I wanted to fit an idea of what a feminine woman should look like.

I think the problem is that some male people believe there is any way at all that they can genuinely be seen as female, and that the rest of the world should accept it.

I don't have any truck with gender identity ideology at all. I don't think some MTF trans people have honorary womanhood, so their motivations are largely irrelevant to me.

wearing as much typically 'feminine' clothing as possible and wearing lots of make up is a logical and understandable approach

It's "typically feminine" through the male gaze. It's all about stereotypes and perceptions of sexual roles.

There are probably lots of people other than trans people who feel detached from their bodies to one degree or another but don't latch onto gender as an explanation. I'm starting to ramble now but making sense of this is a process...

Yes, I think we can look at psychological conditions like anorexia, BDD and BIID. Charles VII of France believed he was made of glass. The limited brain structure evidence there is supporting transgenderism suggests that there may be a difference in the part of the brain associated with bodily self perception in heterosexual MTF trans people, but they do not have any sex atypical similarities to females.

Trans activists I follow on twitter are also about trying to free up what they call 'gender expression' for children they consider 'cis'. Ie boys should able to paint their nails or whatever. They hold both positions at the same time (some children are trans, and boys should be able to have long hair paint their nails) & they are not necessarily contradictory if you believe in gender identity as an integral component of a person.

But this still doesn't answer the question about what a gender identity actually is. I've been trying to work this out for years, and I still feel no closer to understanding.

Isn't a gender identity based on 'gender' i.e. stereotypes? Otherwise, why call it a gender identity? And if it's not based on stereotypes, why is it called a gender identity and not just a personality?

How does a boy who is transgender different from a boy who just likes playing with girls and playing with toys which are marketed to girls and dressing 'like a girl'? Surely the only difference is inside their heads, and at what age should we start to believe that the child understands this better than educated adults like me who haven't got a clue what a gender identity feels like even though I've spent far too much time here reading about it over the last few years?