Unless we use our reason, we`re done for

[prudencepuffin]

Just been listening to Jon Ronson on radio 4 - an episode about a conspiracy theory in US in the 80s claiming that satanists were abusing children in daycare services. A woman who had worked within daycare was charged and faced 47 years before being acquitted after completely ridiculous, fantasy claims were made against her. She said: (slightly paraphrased), these were educated liberal people who believed this and thought: "Perhaps if I dont go along with this they will come for me", and summed up: "Youre steamrolling over reality (when you believe this), doing enormous damage". And finally: Unless we use the better part of our brain, our reason, were done for".
Does this remind us of anything?!
Heres a link if anyones interested: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00120vp

This is another factor

(Obviously not disease, but people want to believe in this.)

There are only two ways the claim that we all have a gender identity can be true - either male and female brains, encoding preferences for sex stereotypes from conception, or male and female souls.

I'm not so sure those are the only possibilities. It could also we that we have an inherent capacity to form identities, including related to our sex. They would presumably be formed around all the ways patterns of sex based behaviours and cultural elements of them interact in a given culture.

I think there are some good arguments that issues with identity formation can result in a variety of psychological problems.

I'm not so sure those are the only possibilities. It could also we that we have an inherent capacity to form identities, including related to our sex. They would presumably be formed around all the ways patterns of sex based behaviours and cultural elements of them interact in a given culture.

I think there are some good arguments that issues with identity formation can result in a variety of psychological problems.

You are right in that. But that was the old way of understanding this issue. It has been rejected by proponents of the doctrine of gender identity because it correctly identifies a disruption in normal development as the cause of gender dysphoria.

If you read the last 120 years' worth of the literature into early childhood development, that's exactly what it showed. The same pattern present in all children - developing an understanding of one's sexed body, developing an understanding of where that places one in the world, developing an understanding of the norms and expectations placed upon each sex by one's society, developing an understanding of the possibility of not conforming to these stereotypes, developing an understanding that these are stereotypes and not inborn traits.

Once this development has reached the middle stage, kids police each other relentlessly, seeking to enforce the stereotypes. A perfectly normal stage that sees girls refusing to play with boys and vice versa. But that becomes far less pronounced before the children hit puberty.

What the research also showed is that where the early stages of this development are disrupted, this can lead to problems in the formation of the child's personality. Certainly if you read the autobiographies of some of the most prominent members of the trans community this disruption is not difficult to see. They often point it out themselves.

But those are old school transsexuals. Proponents of the doctrine of gender identity claim that it has nothing to do with one's sexed body and exists independently of it. And that is only possible if we have ladybrains or a female essence.

Once this development has reached the middle stage, kids police each other relentlessly, seeking to enforce the stereotypes. A perfectly normal stage that sees girls refusing to play with boys and vice versa. But that becomes far less pronounced before the children hit puberty.

As most children on the autistic spectrum either don't conform to this stage or may do so much later, due to difficulties with social interaction and understanding social communication, they're less likely to be influenced by peers. (Obviously this is an extreme generalisation.)

In my setting for example many pupils still thoroughly enjoy programmes and characters that "neurotypical " peers have moved on from several years previously, or, relatively rarely, are only interested in the stereotypes of the opposite sex. Some of this starts early on through sensory enjoyment or avoidance.

I remember that both my sons started tuning into what's "for boys and girls" from as young as 2.5/3. (Challenged of course!) 3,5 year old now got it but gets confused / adamant if I challenge the stereotypes.

One of mine went through a week of "anxiety about the weather affecting plans" at around 2.5-3; Ive taught children on the autistic spectrum who go through the same stage when much older, around y2-3, and lasts longer (7-8) . There are so many of these social communication / awareness stages that we just miss and/or take for granted with neurotypical children.

To me this is why there is a larger number of trans identifying children referred to GIDS than in the general population. But it would apparently be very wrong of me to say so.

It is in German but maybe the browser translation works:

www.grenzecho.net/65018/artikel/2021-11-11/dummheit-ein-buch-uber-blodheit

She is a neurologist/psychologist who is basically saying stupidity is at an all time high. And is defining stupidity as essentially making up your own facts to suit your beliefs. And that dialogue in principle is important but not when it isn't wanted on both sides.

But those are old school transsexuals. Proponents of the doctrine of gender identity claim that it has nothing to do with one's sexed body and exists independently of it. And that is only possible if we have ladybrains or a female essence.

I don't think we can reject the possibility that functionally there are some differences between male and female cognition. Especially once you include hormones. It's dangerous, IMO, to hang to much on the rejection of any differences of that type between men and women.

The fact is though that nothing like that has been found that accounts for gender dysphoria, so it simply isn't empirically supported, and it still would not necessarily tell us that someone was "really" the opposite sex. This is something that needs to be emphasized in the general public, because there are still hoards of people whose support of gender ideology is almost entirely based on a belief that it is scientifically supported.

The soul thing is interesting. It might work in eastern religions, but not in western ones, because the soul is essentially understood as the form of the body. They couldn't be at odds in that way. Which is why people into New Age type stuff will go for it but the Catholic Church, or the EO, for example, don't.

Warrior

One of the things I've noticed in general about this is that many of the people pushing the idea of trans children don't have much understanding of childhood development. With regards to any children, their judgments are just way out there.

I used to belong to a parenting group, which I left in the end because they were making me crazy - they were among other things very pro-gender. But another incident that was illuminating was when one mum was upset by what her child's pre-school (so age 3 to 4) was doing for the month when they were focusing on Native American culture. Which was stuff like little art projects which she felt infantalized the culture. She felt they should learn, in an age appropriate way of course, how the whites had tried to commit genocide against the native people, and that it would be a good idea to talk about things like the Trail of Tears.

And lots of the mums agreed with her. It didn't seem to occur to the that what four year olds might get out of that would not be especially good for them.

"I used to belong to a parenting group, which I left in the end because they were making me crazy - they were among other things very pro-gender. But another incident that was illuminating was when one mum was upset by what her child's pre-school (so age 3 to 4) was doing for the month when they were focusing on Native American culture. Which was stuff like little art projects which she felt infantalized the culture. She felt they should learn, in an age appropriate way of course, how the whites had tried to commit genocide against the native people, and that it would be a good idea to talk about things like the Trail of Tears."

meant to bold "age 3 to 4" and "how the whites had tried to commit genocide against the native people"

Warrior - your extract about people believing what friends and family say (and that the internet replicates this) rather than "experts" is interesting. I remember I think it was Gove but others in government have done it - telling us not to trust "experts". And in a situation where rumour spreads from person to person in those situations, its particularly potent. Referring to other posts on genderism, of course some of those telling us what to think, try and position themselves as experts but maybe the power of the message comes more from their disciples.

I don't think we can reject the possibility that functionally there are some differences between male and female cognition. Especially once you include hormones. It's dangerous, IMO, to hang to much on the rejection of any differences of that type between men and women.

Again, you're right and again that's not what proponents of the doctrine of gender identity claim.

Like you, I believe that there may be found to be some differences between men and women besides the obvious physiological ones, and I think the most promising research may be around aggression, its presence and the lack of it. We're not there yet, but I expect that we'll find some few differences are innate (on average). Many other differences have been found to be due to nature rather than nurture of course, and given that our brains are both plastic and elastic, there's typically no way to say whether an observed difference in the brains of male and female adults isn't due to nurture rather than nature.

Again however that is not what proponents of the doctrine of gender identity are concerned with. They claim that preferences for traits, behaviours and mannerisms associated with femininity or masculinity are innate. You are born with them and they don't develop, they emerge like a butterfly from a cocoon and the child merely becomes aware of them.

That's clearly bollocks. As is the often found idea that a man becomes unable to do certain things once he identifies as a woman, because those are not womanly things.

Ladybrain = unable to do DIY, to read a map, to assert oneself, likes to watch chickflicks and cry, wear makeup and high heels etc etc basically it's a neat package of the most sexist stereotypes bundled up and projected onto the concept of male and female brains.

And there is no evidence for that kind of innate binary in neurological research. There cannot be since sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes vary between places and times.