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…

That's right, in 14 years we've never once discussed it. 😂

So? What did she say when you asked her why she supposed that how she felt was “like a boy”, when she couldn’t possibly imagine what being a boy would actually feel like?

Maybe she meant she wanted to be an adult? Adults shouldn’t put their own ideas into their child’s dialogue. Same as saying that you know what you dog is thinking when they, are having no thoughts at all.

Kids say loads of things that don’t make sense, and looking back your children will tell you things that made sense to them based on what they knew at the time, but their understand was very incorrect. they don’t have the cognitive abilities nor vocabulary at that age.

If the significant adults in her life all hold a belief that we all have a gender identity, it would make sense that you have discussed it through this lens.

Looping back to George and the Famous Five: through the lens of gender identity belief, George is probably not a girl. Without this lens, George is.

If someone genuinely believes that everyone has a gender identity, it makes sense that George is a boy because George identifies as a boy (by telling Julian, Dick and Anne to see George as a boy instead of like Anne).

Obviously the belief that we all have a gender identity was nowhere near as widespread as it is now. It's positioned in schools, hospitals, workplaces etc as true. Lots of people actively believe it in their very core, others haven't really thought about it much but accept that it sort of makes sense.

We'll never know if George transitioned and was happy, desisted after puberty or transitioned and subsequently detransitioned. Five Go Down the Gender Clinic didn't get written but if it had been, I should imagine that George would have ended up there in distress.

Here's to all the Georges that didn't need signposting towards the belief that they weren't girls in the past. Here's hoping that today's Georges get a better approach than before if they end up at the gender clinic, after the Cass Report recommendations have been implemented. Also here's hoping that any clinical trials of puberty blockers get put through rigourous ethics scrutiny.

Was about to delurk to say exactly this!

I am sure that saying "I do not feel I am human" would make most parents worried and/or cautious of what might be going on with their child.

what does she think "being a girl" is?!

How is saying you "know what your dog is thinking", in any way like having a discussion with your child, and trying to elicit what it is they are trying to communicate? A ( responsible) adult's job is to help structure and direct a child's developing mental capacity: to provide a framework.

The way you have presented it so far is that "she told you" and "you believed her". You haven't mentioned any discussions or analysis at all.

I can't help but get a strong feeling that you are projecting your own isues, very strongly, onto your child.

Can I ask why you were put on puberty blockers?

I don't think anyone is saying her feelings are not real, but that they are not her reality.
There is nothing arrogant about that.

when I would feel extreme anxiety because I'd see myself as a fat girl/woman, my feelings were very real indeed. They were not my reality though.

I do struggle to understand how a very small child can "not feel like the sex they are". Surely the only reason for this can be that they've already noticed that boys and girls have different social roles, toys, clothes etc and prefer those associated with the one they're not.

I've yet to hear a definition of any of this that doesn't depend to some extent on gender stereotypes.

Also. It's a looong time since I've read the Famous Five, so I may be misremembering. But it always seemed to me George's desire to be a boy was mainly born out of a desire to not be treated like Anne. You don't have to be male to not want to be forced into domesticity and perceived as weak.

And?

Why does she not feel like a girl???

I'm not being funny, but I bet I'm gonna get she just doesn't, she doesn't identify with that, I don't know why.

And that was meant to say she just does!

I have a fleeting memory of being very young (2 or 3?) and my mum talking to me and my brother. She must have said ‘he is your brother’ and I said ‘I’m a brother too’. She said, ‘no, you’re a sister because you are a girl’, and that was that.

I misunderstood the terminology for different sex siblings, I wasn’t expressing that I wished to be a boy.

Maybe, @MrsSunshine2b , your SD had a similar linguistic confusion?

As a child I had some antique girls’ annuals from the 1920s-early 1930s. I think they had belonged to my grandmother?

They portrayed and exemplified a very specific lifestyle for girls, which was centred on girls’ boarding schools. The subculture of girls boarding schools, as portrayed in these books, appeared to have been modelled on boys’ boarding schools and the ‘muscular Christianity’ trend of the 19th century. These girls’ annuals contained stories about:

Cricket - stepping in to be ‘the eleventh man’ in a team
Hockey
Riding
Exploring in the country side
Saving the day via courage and pluck
Camping
Admiration (perhaps crushes) for older girls or school mistresses
Adventure
Being treated as an equal by adored brothers
I think maybe also some use of ‘masculine’ language in relation to girls: fellow? chap?*

I therefore perceive Enid Blyton’s George as the logical culmination of an earlier literary tradition portraying how to live as a girl, rather than a before-her-time manifestation of George being transgender.

*All of this was really rather mystifying to me, growing up in a suburb of London, with no brothers and attending an ordinary primary school where no cricket was played from one year to the next, but I accepted that this was how people must really live!

I believe SD when she says she doesn't feel that she is a girl.

That's fine. But it doesn't mean anything. She is a girl, regardless of how she feels about it. What does she think "feeling like a girl" is?

Sorry meant to quote @MrsSunshine2b

This is what I struggle with. Dd says she feels more male than female, I ask her to explain what feeling female/male feels like and she says “I can’t explain” 🙄.

Of course she can’t explain, because it’s clearly nonsense.
She could just as easily claim to feel more like a rabbit or a bear, she has just as much insight as to how that must feel.

Or she means 'I see other women and girls dressed in a particular way or acting in a particular way, and I don't want to look or act like that'. Doesn't mean she's not still a girl. She, like everyone, can only ever feel like herself.

The identity category of ‘transexual’ (whether child or adult) as known today only really emerged in public discourse in Britain in the post-war period (although there were a few pre-war precursors).

I’’m not familiar with the precise research methodologies of all the figures you mention, but generally speaking an identity is unlikely to be found if it is not mentally available to participants in research. Also, even if it had been which of these figures were actually looking at gender identity?

A parallel can be drawn with homosexuality. The homosexual as an identity is a construct of the late 19th century. That’s not to say there weren’t feelings and behaviours we today associate with homosexuality prior to then, it’s just that they described themselves and were described by others differently.

The OPs focus specifically on trans children thing is a bit of a red herring IMO. The same can be said about the emergence of a multitude of identity categories.