For the statistics nerds

[pantsforteaagain]

The trans umbrella casts it's shadow over gender non-conformity
This article is a very plausible explanation of why there has been such a huge rise of teenage girls referring themselves to gender clinics.
Briefly, because 1) organizations have redefined transgender as expressions of behaviour that don't match the stereotypes of society for that gender - so transgender is now a huge category, and 2) there is long-standing evidence that girls are allowed to not fit stereotypes - so there are more of them.

An interesting article - thanks for the link pants!

1. is what we all know to be true and ia leading to a rise (anecdotally) in parents who are concerned about entirely normal gender conformity for fear of their child being told they are or might be trans. As for 2) it makes complete sense when you give it a second thought

Thank you. Colin Wright has written a great article. I'd be interested to read a (well intentioned) critical analysis of it.

V interesting.

It's a shame it's so difficult to question trans ideology without fearing for your life.

Stonewall’s glossary doesn’t include “gender non-conforming”. Presumably because that would pull the rug from under them.

rejection of the gender binary’s assumption that gender is strictly an either/or option of male/man/masculine or female/ woman/feminine based on sex assigned at birth.”

Do most people think that masculine and feminine is a 'binary'? Surely most people recognise it's a collection of traits that's more likely than not to be a mixture - I can't really think of many 100% feminine, non-masculine traited women and vice-versa.

I feel that shoving masculine and feminine in with female and male is another linguistic sleight of hand. Just because we might think that sex is binary doesn't mean we think that a person is either masculine or feminine.

And the Children’s Hospital of Chicago’s “Gender Development Program” says their patients include “gender expansive or gender non-conforming children,” which they define as “children and adolescents who exhibit behavior that is not typical of their assigned birth sex.”

This makes me so mad. Just read it.
And if lots of children are doing it then it's hardly atypical is it?
Oh noes they are 'expanding gender' !

Had this been written in the late 1950s it would have sounded more natural.

I do think that we have gone backwards in gender roles, rules and stereotypes, but can't understand why that has happened. It looks like future generations will have to do the feminist work again?