Brooklyn 99 sex reveal

[bluebeardswife7]

I am watching Brooklyn 99 with ds. It already ticks all the boxes with its lack of stereotypes and super modern and very interesting comedy. One of the couple just said they were having a sex reveal party. I know mumsnetters are not a big fan of a gender reveal party bet they can get on board with a sex reveal. Even though it sounds

3-4 is also the time that a lot of kids start to spend extended amounts of time around other children at nursery and school, who have their own ideas of gender as a result of their upbringing.

My DD didn’t give a shit about ponies and pink stuff (which were never discouraged, btw, just not pushed on her) until she went to nursery and saw it was what all the other little girls liked.

It’s amazing how studies validating this supposedly quasi religious nonsense have been published for years in reputable journals and backed by pretty much every medical and psychological body.

The studies don't validate "gender identity" in the way gender zealots use the term. In young children it is the understanding that they and either Mummy or Daddy are one type of human and not the other type. It's actually an understanding of what sex they are. It's not an internal feeling, it's realising that little boys and little girls are physically different and that either Mummy/Daddy is a grown up version of them, depending on their sex.

Genderists trying to impose give a special, new meaning to a previously well understood word or phrase. Again.

Backed by people who make money off the trans ideology gravy train.

No such thing as a lady brain.
You can't be 'born in the wrong body'
Just sex role stereotypes and a lot of homophobia.

It's interesting because I see a lot of misinterpretation of normal, healthy milestones from people looking for proof of gender ideology.

For example, (collating a few 'my trans toddler' cases) cited their child as trans because of pulling off baby grows or bows, gravitating towards certain textures toys or clothes as proof their child is trans and therefore special. Wanting to imitate a different sex parent etc. Being rough and tumble (gross motor) or good at quiet craft (fine motor)

All very, very normal and marked by milestones that reflect the above and are actually used to measure whether there are any developmental concerns.

The vast, vast majority of children show these behaviours. We know them, look for them they're as old as the hills. The fact that people attribute them to being trans shows a misunderstanding of appropriate development and failing to recognise that whilst all children are unique and special, such behaviour is not an indication of anything other than timely development, which is common to most children.

Professionals don't label this behaviour or make children feel 'othered'. They use their knowledge to build on interests and skills to reach the next steps in development.

Attributing such behaviour to being trans strikes me as the opposite, very much wanting the child to 'stand still' in both interests and skills, which is not what is needed. Following children's interests means helping them build and grow, which is what it should look like and why we understand that the child is on a journey and not 'whole' at whichever age is convenient for arguing a toddler trans identity or puberty blockers etc.

I know trans children are really important to the movement to make it more palatable, but with years of experience in child development and education, would need more evidence than 'random adult with no experience says X so must be true' to change my mind.

What I have seen that's rather disquieting is previous studies being misrepresented to show genderist desires.

Attributing such behaviour to being trans strikes me as the opposite, very much wanting the child to 'stand still' in both interests and skills, which is not what is needed.

Such a good point. So harmful.

That's a good example of overextension.
Many of us see it first when children first learn to speak. Child learns word Doggy. Parent delighted. Child overextends. Every four legged furry animal now doggy. Adult job to guide and correct. Cat, rabbit, mouse added to repertoire. Adult does not affirm child's incorrect assessment of world as would stunt development.

In your example.
Many girls in class like pink and ponies. Maybe one boy. Child overextends. Girls like pink and ponies. Tom is therefore a girl. Adults job is to correct and expand understanding not to reinforce misconceptions.

It's very simple. It should be the same pattern for every area of understanding. Explain. Add. Build. Expand.

The studies don't validate "gender identity" in the way gender zealots use the term. In young children it is the understanding that they and either Mummy or Daddy are one type of human and not the other type. It's actually an understanding of what sex they are. It's not an internal feeling, it's realising that little boys and little girls are physically different and that either Mummy/Daddy is a grown up version of them, depending on their sex.

Genderists trying to impose give a special, new meaning to a previously well understood word or phrase. Again.

This. I note with interest that DadJoke has not addressed my point that if sex was "assigned at birth" it would not actually be possible to have a "sex reveal party" while the baby was in the womb because the "assigning" would not have happened.

This is because sex is not actually assigned at birth, it is decided at the moment of conception and observed at birth, and often before on an ultrasound scan. Because biological sex is a real, tangible thing, not a social construct.

I'm not sure why genderists don't think gender critical feminists appreciate a distinction being made between sex and gender identity. Sex is real, gender identity is based on sex stereotypes.

DadJoke always disappears from threads when actually informed, intelligent posters show up and expose his arguments as completely asinine.

I agree with you that for most people, gender and sex are synonymous, so they don't understand the fuss when people insist on using the term 'sex' correctly.

The problem is that in the last few years, the word 'gender' has come to mean something else entirely - sort of like a sexed soul, that can be altered depending on your mood. So apparently some children are being taught there are 72 genders, and you can be agender, and demi-gender etc. etc.

So the original terminology has been corrupted, which is why some of us are trying to partition off 'sex' and maintain it's correct meaning.

Its original meaning was simply 'sort' as in genre (medieval usage) or a grammatical term.

Gender was never a word applied to people (except facetiously) until the QT mob started to push it in the 1990s, presumably because they hoped the gullible would start confusing it with sex and get sucked in. As has happened. Having lived up to that time (more than 25 years) without ever using or encountering the word gender to describe a human, I'm baffled by people who seem to imagine it is a legitimate and respectable word - it is hugely loaded. I remember the first time I heard it used that way, by a sociologist colleague - a rather silly woman

Brooklyn 99 managed 8 seasons without using it. Good for them (season 8 was a bit disappointing imo).