Parents with inconvenient truths about trans

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This article was posted earlier today but the thread was deleted with the invitation to "feel free to discuss the article but avoid sweeping generalisations based on that"

The article raises all sorts of important questions about the nature of public discourse in relation to "trans" children and (according to the lesbian mother writer) details the hazards of social transitioning very young children which she now sees as "an intentional process of concretizing transgender identity in children as young as 3 years old - the age of the youngest child in this group. When identity is concretized at this young of age, children will grow up actually believing they are the opposite sex. How could medicalization not follow?"

I'm not sure if it's possible to discuss this powerful piece without drawing conclusions and there's evidently a lot of unease about the words of this lesbian parent being openly heard. Which perhaps makes it even more important to ensure a site "by parents, for parents" allows this important discussion? Maybe we can try another discussion and keep within the talk guidelines - or just have the freedom to read her words?

pitt.substack.com/p/true-believer

It's all about gender stereotypes. While they say it's not all about stereotypes but the only things they ever seem to point out are stereotypes. I mean, basically, their other son couldn't possible be trans because he was masculine and liked boy things. Yet because the other kid was sensitive etc he was? But it's not about stereotypes?

Is that the generalisation that's been made?

So sorry Anonymum263 about your daughter. I hope you've found support from other parents in the same situation? Faced with our children self harming and (so often) in the grip of social contagion, we often have to make difficult decisions.
Do you know of genspect ? Or other organisations that support parents?

genspect.org/

It is brave of her to admit her mistakes but I only grudgingly want to recognise this.

It only hit home when SHE was personally affected. Only when SHE could see the harm without the shadow of a doubt.

I know first hand that cult thinking (her words) is difficult to see through but my sympathy for those who only see through near-misses is also difficult to rouse.

One of my work colleagues told the catering staff she was gluten intolerant then found out she wasn't, but was too embarrassed to admit it, so now eats nothing but gluten free food at work. People struggle with reversing positions far less drastic than this one.

@Blister agree, my sympathy is for the children. Not a word of concern from the author about the other children mentioned in the article. Still, at least they came back from it, hopefully before too much damage was done.

I expect they're afraid. Or recognise they'd be wasting their time.

That article! OMFG. So misguided and also rather controlling even if wrapped up in all that attachment stuff. I wonder if the author of the article is also autistic, it's odd this clinging onto schemata, if its' not the social justice stuff, it's the attachment philosophy. Her parenting doesn't seem intuitive and instinctive but all led by theories and trendy philosophies. Poor children, I'm sorry to say that the parents can't be terribly bright and I think that based on her writing she is incredibly navel gazing and self-centred. Ultimately the parents have no common sense whatsoever.

I think that's very harsh and not really fair. It's difficult to walk back from this and she's brave to admit her mistakes. Is she supposed to performatively self-flagellate for you? Be glad that she's changed her mind and hope that you have the same humility and courage if it comes to it.

For me this shows the importance of open debate.

Everything about this woman's identity - her friend group, her political beliefs - required her full belief in gender ideology. She and her partner were celebrated for announcing their child was trans, and told to remove anybody who questioned this new trans identity from their lives.

It took courage for her and her partner to admit their mistake. But it doesn't look like she actively looked for other information or opinions that contradicted gender ideology until her three year old told her no. If those dissenting voices hadn't been suppressed by everybody in her echo chamber, if it had been ok to question this, then maybe her son would not have had to go through this experience.

So despite their claim that social contagion doesn't exist, and you can't make someone trans if they're not 'really trans', they believe that you can make someone who is 'really trans' not trans if they aren't constantly affirmed.
It's all a bit inconsistent. Like everything else about gender ideology.

Ain't that the truth, they contradict themselves every time they open their mouths.

we were also told that transgender identity takes a few years to develop in children. They told us that during this period, it is very important to protect the child's transgender identity, and therefore, you must eliminate contact with any family or friends who do not support this identity or go along with it."

Which is treating this as the most important thing in the world. What if the person who is 'eliminated' is a source of comfort, advice, healthy relationships, what if they are warm and kind, what if they help and support in myriad other ways?

This demand for perfection and adherence isn't conducive to children learning about diverse opinions and positions. There's no critical thinking any more.

Obviously we can't really engage with or discuss the article because it contains some very, very uncomfortable and unwanted evidence.

I respect this poor woman's own terms for her experience, since lived experience and people's voices are supposed to matter. And deleting their voices does not make the issues go away.

I find this the hardest - the deliberate alienation of parents / family. We know from all our safeguarding knowledge and understanding of children's wellbeing the importance of family connections. The law is absolutely clear that authorities must work with parents - removing them from a child's life must be the exception and children do very poorly in the care of the state on almost every life measure.
Yet society has stood by and watched while that principle has been openly undermined by adherents of this ideology.

I've seen the same thing with this too. A person I know through a family connection - a child psychologist - asks her daughter every day whether she feels like a girl or boy.

How the daughter is meant to know what a girl or boy sounds like isn't questioned.

I hear you, I do.
I know it's not fair. She's exposed her experience. That's more than enough! We can only parent with the information we have and she's got one up on my parents for even admitting she's not perfect! All parents make mistakes.

But there are so many things that people just don't get until it comes really, really, close to home and I really wish this wasn't the case.
But that's a discussion for another thread.

One aspect of the current thinking that alarms me is that had I been a young child of today is that if I’d been asked as a 3 year old if I wanted to be a boy I would absolutely have said yes. Because I was more into army, cowboys and Indians, climbing trees, etc. and not interested in dolls, dresses or arty stuff.
As a teenager I was frequently misgendered as I had short hair (cut at the barber’s because it was substantially cheaper), wore ‘boy’ clothes and covered up my female body as much as possible. I didn’t care 🤷‍♀️ I was the one who didn’t ‘conform’ to the stereotypes. No one did it maliciously. And why the fuck do I care if some random person made a genuine mistake when they are of no importance to my life?
However, this was in no way related to my sex. I’d always got on well with younger children and was very maternal. By 15 my main ambition in life was to become a mum!

So, why did I hide my body? Because that brought unwanted attention from men. Boys? Yes, please 😜 Men? No thanks!* *

I have not been sexually assaulted but as a school girl was regularly flashed at, once approached by someone in a car and was fully aware that it was just because I was female. If I didn’t ‘look the part’ I was left alone.

All of this would have put my parents (who didn’t care) and me under pressure to ‘be transgender’.

I am not and never have been anything other than a non-conforming female. I don’t identify as any gender but I do identify as female. It’s a combination of my biology and (hate the phrase but it is apt) my lived experience as a female.

Such an interesting article and brave of her to share this.

The thing that struck me was the need for children to know what their sex is.
They spent years tiptoeing around the issue of sex, telling him he could choose if he wanted to be a boy or girl, but when he said he was a girl there was a huge celebration and all of a sudden, being a girl was a key part of his identity. No wonder it became important to him, no wonder his brother jumped on the bandwagon. That's the social contagion we see in schools.

I'm so glad they were able to see their mistake.

This.

"My friends and I felt we were the cool kids, the vanguard of revolutionary work to change the world"

This seems to me to be part of the problem that's never spoken about. Where did this mentality come from? Why do certain people in Western societies believe they have the power, authority, or permission to "change the world?"

We are supposed to live in democracies. That means that legislation that governs lives is made by those elected by a majority of people within a geographical zone. Nowhere in this system is there supposed to be an allowance for radical oligarchy, which is essentially what a "revolutionary vanguard" is.

But that is what these people seem to want. Its what they believe is both valid and desirable. They want to make the rules and change society to suit what they believe. Who has led them to think this is acceptable? Why do they think it is acceptable? It's a recipe for tyranny.

I am not arguing against social change, it is organically inevitable, but I have to ask: who exactly do these people think they are? To assume they can ride roughshod over the hundreds/thousands/millions of people who share the same geographical territory as them?

Democracy is not about imposing an ideology; it is about delivering what the majority of people want through a process of compromise and consensus.

That article........

...........

!

Everything that @SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius said.

Genderism is regressive.

@Torunette Democracy is a very imprecise system though. Eg in Scotland there isn't public support for the very drastic changes being made due to the TRA movement, but it's happening anyway. Because all the SNP have to do to continue to be elected is to continue to be in favour of independence. The Conservative party have used Brexit in a similar way.

Yes, I often feel that way as well.

But we are well down that road. we see all kinds of lobby groups that try and influence the government directly, try and get their pet issues into schools, and so on. And to some extent that is clearly meant to be about influencing children to think differently than what their parents might teach them.

That sounds great when it's a cause you believe in, but when you step back, and think about it being done about an issue you don't agree with, it suddenly looks very different. But that applies as much to parents who object to the schools imposing their views on other contentious sexual behaviour or race theories as it does to schools imposing their views on gender. Schools would have to be far more conservative about their teaching to accommodate real intellectual and cultural pluralism.

It also goes a long way to explaining why the Labour Party struggles so much - they see themselves as activists rather than conduits to enact the public will.

This idea is why some people tie an element of this into an extension of a marxist framework - the World Spirit is moving in a particular direction, and we need to move it along or at least move along with it, to the future utopia (or close to it.)

It's really totally different from the model you are describing and it's incompatible with that democratic/representation model. Which is why education more and more is directed towards the creation of a good party member, rather than developing the qualities that make an effective citizen.

One thing that disturbed me was their attempt to control his language acquisition by banishing the words man and woman which meant he was missing the vocabulary to describe and crystalise into thought the idea of men or women. I saw that as a form of thought control. I would be interested to know more about why they changed their minds as they seemed to be very deeply into this.

Bumping.

Because if this very important story and all the evidence and information it contains is being targeted for censorship, then the more people who read it the better.

Agree. Deny the child access to the concept, then ask him to decide.

Also this idea people with autism are aware of their gender identity earlier... more likely they are less likely to have caught the prevailing understanding of boy/girl, surely? They are later to realise they are a boy, rather than earlier to realise the aren't!