Where were all the 'transchildren'?

[Mmmnotsure]

For those not on Twitter/X - a brilliant summary by
Read some Piaget please!
@ prof_curiosity1:

A question transactivism cannot answer.

Where were all the 'transchildren' from 1920-2000 when Piaget, Kohlberg, Bandura, Vygotsky, Erikson, Bowlby, Steiner etc along with their students (and their vociferous critics) were spending tens of thousands of hours doing empirical research on children?

Research that involved studying children at home, in nursery and at school. Studies that involved writing down every action, statement, or question that the child asked. And then analysing these recordings for patterns and insights.

Not one of them observed a 'transchild' in all this time.

So where were all the 'transchildren'?

The logical answer is, of course, nowhere, as they were not yet required. They were not invented as a typology until the 2000s when the trans movement needed children to validate the sexual fetishes of autogynephiles and make transgenderism palatable for the public.

The other answer is a conspiracy theory. That research showing transchildren existed was suppressed; rather like alien conspiracy theorists talk about Area 51 in Nevada USA.

If we ignore the conspiracy theory, we are left with the answer that no child was trans until the 'transchild' was needed, in the 2000s, to demonstrate the universality of 'gender identity'.

Children, sadly, were the logical choice due to their undeveloped brains/thinking and their vulnerability. It is not hard to persuade children that Santa exists or even that sexual abuse is a normal part of family life. 'Gender identity' can easily be packaged to appeal to the magical thinking of children.

'Transchildren' have thus become the main focus of transgenderism. For the activists know that without the winsome, photogenic 'transchild', groomed to repeat adult phrases about 'gender identity' the movement consists in the main of adult males with a fetish for dressing up as women.

Transgender ideology needs 'transchildren' to survive. It needs them to harm themselves and kill themselves to demonstrate that the ideology is real.

We need to protect our children. And we can start by debunking the idea and existence of the 'transchild'.

And yes transsexualism and transvestitism did exist through history. What is extraordinary is how these historic identities have been erased by the modern blokes who wear dresses and call themselves transwomen. Where are the transvestites and transsexuals now?

And yes again...
Children experimenting with sex roles and pretending to be the opposite sex is well documented.

This was always historically regarded as a playful phase of experimentation and growing up. It was ignored just as children pretending to be dinosaurs, horses, airplanes etc

What is new is adults stepping into the playful pretences and pathologising them for their own gratification. And insisting that one particular iteration of pretend play is an adult 'gender identity'.

This is child abuse.

And another question that cannot be answered by transactivism.

Where are all the children pre 2000 who killed themselves because their 'gender identity' was not affirmed?

(As we are frequently told "better a live son than a dead daughter" in order to bully parents into allowing their children to be prescribed puberty blockers. Parents are terrified into allowing transition.)

So what happened before the advent of 'gender affirmative care'? According to the current transgender narrative, there would be thousands of children from 1920-2000s who had killed themselves because they were misgendered - and btw what a historic scandal that would have been. But there are no records of these deaths. Mass suicide by misgendered children is yet another transactivists fabrication unless, of course, you believe conspiracy theories and believe all these deaths of 'transchildren' were hidden.

There is no part of scaffolding that supports the 'transchild' fabrication that can stand up to the remotest scrutiny.

And if you are thinking what additional force apart from transgenderism is driving the transing of children, look at this link. Transing children and young people is a highly profitable business with revenue forecast to double by 2030. https://grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market…

And what? It doesn't alter the fact she makes herself look as much like a "boy" as possible and is very happy when people think she is one. @OldCrone no-one (including SD) has at any point suggested puberty blockers or suicide. Not in relation to her or anyone else.

So you agree that it's all about stereotypes.

Your SD doesn't like the stereotypes that go with being female, so she pretends not to be a girl.

The question isn't remotely "disingenuous." Disingenuous means that there's some attempted gaslighting. It's a genuine question and we're asking for a definition or an answer. Because definitions are pretty important when we're talking about this.

The reason being that if you use the terminology "trans" it is an ideological terminology with a whole belief system around it, including the idea of "born in the wrong body" requiring medicalisation, which is absolutely not the only way of looking at people who don't fit or want to fit society's rigid gender norms. For instance, us old-school feminists were not known for fitting sexist society's rigid gender norms of "femininity". The idea that we should medicalise girls and say that they're not really female for not fitting some people's idea of "femininity" and that it needs medical "correcting" goes against every feminist belief there is. It's deeply, deeply conservative and regressive. And I and many of us will fight that shit until our last breaths.

@MrsSunshine2b

Rather like George, then, and countless other girls before her.

Who cares, if at some point in the future she goes back to a more feminine presentation? I shouldn’t think anyone would bat an eyelid - it is, after all, a familiar progression through childhood and adolescence for females.

You might care, though, if she starts accessing testosterone behind your back, or wrecks her breasts by wearing a binder.

I am glad, for your sake and hers, that for your SD this appears to be the limit of her actions. But to liken girls risking their future fertility/cutting their breasts off to girls wearing skinny jeans is pretty shocking.

So she's a girl who likes masculine stuff. Half the women on this thread are identical to that.

The sexism kicks in when girls who like masculine things are told they must be boys. Because God forbid that girls might like to do or wear something masculine.

Do you not understand this?

What part of a girl wanting to wear 'men's clothes', 'do a man's job', have 'male hobbies' isn't sexist?

What makes them men's clothes, men's jobs, men's hobbies?

You're talking to feminists here. They don't subscribe to the notion that certain 'men's things' should be taboo for girls.

Do you know why your daughter wants to be considered male? What is it about being male that appeals to her?

Yes, me too.
I wanted to be a boy but I knew magic wasn't real and it was impossible to turn into a boy or a warrior princess or dragon rider. If someone had told kid me it was actually possible to turn into a boy, I really would have wanted to believe them.

Yeah, I used to be happy when people thought I was a boy too.

It didn't change the fact that I went through a female puberty, grew breasts and had to deal with multiple instances of misogyny in our patriarchal society as I got older. Unfortunately, wanting to be a boy and have all the freedoms I thought they were offered didn't change the reality of me not being male one bit. I could cut my hair short, refuse to wear dresses; none of it made a blind bit of difference.

You know why? Because misogynists always know who the real girls are and what they think their role is meant to be. It's not about how you identify. You can't identify out of it - just ask a transman. It's about BEING the female people.Males who don't fit the equivalent "male" universe stereotypes will not ever experience that; it's an entirely different experience, because they are judged on their "maleness" by the male world. And every law that had to be fought for in not too far away history to protect us females (who were treated as property, not allowed educations, property, jobs, equal pay, bank accounts, or to be seen as any more than "helpers" to the real humans who were male) was fought for on that basis. Sex matters. It is politically salient and pretending it isn't or sticking fingers in ears because we'd rather it wasn't wasn't that way doesn't make that reality go away.

no-one (including SD) has at any point suggested puberty blockers or suicide. Not in relation to her or anyone else.

You've obviously never heard of Jolyon Maugham or any of the other transactivists who insist that so-called 'trans children' are constantly at high risk of suicide if they can't get their hands on puberty blockers.

Yes yes! There is defo a fantasy stage many kids go thru pre puberty … many books, if kids still read … have a main character who realises he/she has powers or changes to animal, person in another place or time. Kids want to do this, if you can kiss your elbow you turn magical, special place in garden you become a pastel colored horse … never mind Twilight !!!

I suppose TRANSitioning give the impression that it’s really possible.

Exactly. Apart from the irreversible medical treatment, the surgery to cut your breasts/balls and dick off, the sterilisation, zero sexual functioning, and serious medical aftereffects, the early onset osteoporosis/micropenises etc etc that is.

All because these kids failed to "play with the right toys", be gay, or like the things that extremely socially conservative people think girls and boys should do.

And people who object to this are the baddies? FFS.

What the HELL is wrong with people? These are KIDS. This is not healthcare. It's abuse, irreversible results, all to prop up regressively sexist, dysfunctional adult ideologies.

Absolutely sick.

No-one is performing surgery on children.

It sounds so absurd it's hard to believe it's happening, but it is. You must have missed this thread last month.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5140837-major-american-society-of-plastic-surgeons-evidence-for-gender-surgery-on-children-low-quality

Third post down on that Link, a 13-year-old gets a double mastectomy.

You may not consider 13-year-olds children, of course.

*MrsSunshine2b

Plus, of course, puberty blockers are administered just after the onset of puberty. Frequently way younger than 13. And 98% of children on puberty blockers go onto cross sex hormones.

Ignorant bullcrap. I suggest you look at what's going on in the States. Girls of as young as 13 have been operated on.

(oh, and have a think about what happens when you give puberty blockers to pre-adolescents, and later, opposite sex hormones. And the fact it's a pathway. Suggest you look at Suzy Green's video of her laughing when she said the Thai surgeons operating using the small amount of material that her 16 year old son's penis consisted of because of it and that they 'didn't have much to work with' in order to turn it into a version of a female vagina. Why might that be, do you think? What happens to boys during their puberty?)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4354711-times-scotland-article-16-and-17-year-olds-referred-for-surgery

The ignorance displayed here enrages me.

Anyone supporting this through their ignorance is a child abuse enabler. These kids had their whole lives and futures ahead of them. And all because often homophobic ADULTS can't cope with some young people's non-conformity to sexist, conservative adult "gender" (sex stereotype) norms, these young people had irreversible surgery to prop that up and fit into the adults' rigid ideas. This surgery has numerous detrimental side effects.

Sick, sick, sick. Shame on anyone still handwaving this away.

Just caught up. Some v interesting points raised.

I welcome the viewpoint of a parent of someone who identifies as non-binary (just as I welcome learning about the difference between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception), so thank you for sharing.

I do not believe that giving children hormone blockers because they're playing with the concept of gender is happening on any grand scale, so I'm not impressed by all the hand-wringing about it.

There have been tens of thousands of children globally who have been given puberty blockers. I don't have the Hannah Barnes article to hand right now but I think it's approx 2000 in the UK (and definitely not the 100 that has been in accurately reported). It is happening at scale and it is indisputable that the impact on the developing teenage brain is unknown (except for some concerning small studies that aren't large enough to be statistically viable)

@DeanElderberry I apologise for laughing at what I thought was a typo. Again showing my ignorance of what used to be my Christian faith 🤦‍♀️ Although in my defence, I was a protestant and Mary barely featured. I'm aware that the Catholic faith is much more centred around Mary. I stand by what I said though about marsupial births being a great idea for humans 😁

I hope it's OK but I have a few questions for @DeanElderberry and @MrsSunshine2b. I also hope that they will be taken in the spirit in which I intend - good faith. It is not my intention to cause offence regarding your respective beliefs.

1. If someone says they think it's all nonsense, every last bit of it, is this blasphemous/transphobic?

2. If they go one step further and try and pick holes in it using logic, are they also being blasphemous/transphobic?
   E.g. "Marsupial births are impossible. What was Mary up to 9 months before the birth if Joseph wasn't around?" or "No child is non-binary because no such thing exists. This is undoubtedly a mental health condition/delusion in response to something like puberty distress/autism conflation/trauma response/internalised homophobia"

3. If this is blasphemous/transphobic, where should this matter in law? Can it be said online? In public? Should it be a hate crime to say it? Or a non-crime hate incident?

4. Is point 2 worse than point 1 or does that not matter (in reference to point 3)?

To clarify, I don't say these things re Christianity or gender identity belief so unequivocally or pointedly. I just state that I don't believe in it (I don't believe in god and I don't believe that everyone has a gender identity) and that I oppose it being written and used/taught as fact in education, healthcare and any other legislation. Yes, I will offer my own explanation for how I understand things but I don't directly challenge anyone's belief.

Just seen this too:

No-one is performing surgery on children.

Wrong. This medical scandal is much bigger than in the UK. There are many children having surgeries in other countries.

Why is it a medical scandal? Irrespective of belief (nobody will ever agree on what is "fact" re gender identity) children and young people are undergoing medical interventions built on "shaky foundations", as demonstrated in the Cass Report and the WPATH files.

Plus the pocket would come in handy later too when trying to multitask or carry back shopping with the counterbalance of a baby in a sling on your back.

Now you see I would put the baby in the pouch and the shopping in a back pack.

It doesn't seem to be a phase since she started saying she didn't want to be a girl pretty much when she learned to talk.

Babies will often learn to talk before they can even walk.

Why the bloody hell is a 12 or 18 month old saying they don't want to be a girl anymore?

The backache would get too much I reckon. Far better to have them on the back with the shopping in the front. Except if there are sugary goods as these would likely rot in the pouch and make it smelly (see earlier advice on marsupial pouches). Instead, I'd eat the sugary goods on the way back from the shops. Sorted 👍

Hmmm I haven't thought this through. The shopping might be heavier. Damn.

There seems to be a huge moral panic about puberty blockers. I was actually on them for a while for unrelated medical issues. Then I came off them and went through puberty. Aside from it being a bit weird to go through puberty at 17 there wasn't any issues. Not sure what all the fuss is about. It's certainly not relevant to our lives or something that's ever been discussed with relation to any child we know, despite SD having found a lot of gender non-conforming friends.

I don't think saying it's nonsense or doesn't exist should be illegal. However, I do think it's not really any of anyone else's business what other people do or identify as. It's caused friction in the past when my mother (not SD's grandmother) has felt the need to stick her oar in and criticise SD for presenting as a boy.

At that age . Not even a girl long enough to know what one wants …. Probs not still wetting the bed!!!

Its one thing for a child to say “I want to be like daddy”
and
another to say “I don’t want to be a girl anymore”

You really want to know WHY.

Did someone say “only boys do that?”
They want to pee standing up?
They think shaving face looks cool?
or only for girls -
Child wants to wear sparky clothes
long hair
people fussy and complimenting .