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…

We must remember that not all trans are obvious blokes in a dress. There will be people you interact with and you just don’t know.

Thinking about it, if a transwoman is not a woman, then a trans child is not a child, so Stefonknee would be an example.

Yes! Consciousnesses is an emergent property that derives from and is integrated with the body, it’s not separate or distinct from the body.

When people are describing their ‘gender identity’ they always sound like they’re describing some sort of 'soul'; frankly, it always sounds like descriptions of metaphysics based on gender stereotypes or an ideology/philosophy based on outmoded and sexist stereotypes

Can those posters who believe in trans children explain the difference between say, a lesbian who thinks she must be a boy because she fancies girls and a 'trans child/teen'?

Or a girl who is suddenly attracting unwanted, upsetting male attention and wants to be a boy - and a 'trans child'.

Stephanie Davis Arai of Transgender Trend has said she's never come across a child who thinks they are trans who isn't either gay, autistic or has some past sexual trauma.

My question is, what makes these children transgender and not children who are suffering from either homophobia or PTSD, etc, who have been told that all their collective reactions means they have genuinely been born into the wrong body.

And why are children in care over represented in those showing up at gender clinics, along with the massive overrepresentation of autistic children, and, shockingly, children who have a parent who is a sex offender?

What is a 'trans child' other than a label pushed onto vulnerable, questioning children, with many and totally diverse issues?

I agree some pass relatively well but quite often there is a spider sense that something doesn't align. That is the unsettling bit until you know

And I don't mind people presenting as the opposite sex I just don't like them declaring they are actually the opposite sex and riding over sex based issues

It's because they're lying. The unsettling feeling is because, no matter how much that person wants to be the opposite sex, or even believes that they are the opposite sex, they are playing a role - pretending to be something they are not.

Absolutely this. I'm all for gender non-conforming- remember Layton on Strictly last year in skirts and sparkly eyeshadow, but nobody suggested he wasn't male. I used to think the same about Eddie Izzard until he decided he might in fact be a woman (but doesn't seem particularly sure about it). Which I suppose is convenient for still getting male acting roles.

I'm sure many of us remember these children, who first appeared in print in 1872, more than a century and a half ago. Johnnie's preference for 'boyish' toys and wild games is mentioned more than once in this and subsequent books, as is Dorry's quiet softness. Neither of them is regarded as in any way 'odd' or 'wrong' and by the end of five books both of them are contented adults, married and settled.

Dorry and Joanna sat on the two ends of the ridge-pole. Dorry was six years old; a pale, pudgy boy, with rather a solemn face, and smears of molasses on the sleeve of his jacket. Joanna, whom the children called "John," and "Johnnie," was a square, splendid child, a year younger than Dorry; she had big brave eyes, and a wide rosy mouth, which always looked ready to laugh. These two were great friends, though Dorry seemed like a girl who had got into boy's clothes by mistake, and Johnnie like a boy who, in a fit of fun, had borrowed his sister's frock.

Yes to everything you said, OP. I can understand parents being terrified by threats (from trans activists) that their child will become suicidal. But I have never understood why other adults, authorities, governments have bowed down to the trans ideology.

What Katy Did? I knew it sounded familiar but I had to think for a minute.

People who like writing about gender have written about how Katy learns to conform to feminine norms, but seem to ignore the way the text makes clear that not conforming to them was perfectly normal for pre-adolescents.

Great point @DeanElderberry

I suppose the OG "trans child" in children's fiction is George from the Famous Five, who explicitly wanted to be a boy, though who could blame her when being a girl meant being stuck with making the sandwiches and being left out of adventures.

No I don't because the OP suggests there weren't GNC children who had an enduring wish to be perceived as the opposite sex which would be classed as trans pre 2000. I disagree with this as I knew someone who felt like this as a child.

This wasn't playful, it was deep rooted and enduring.

I can certainly accept that there have always been people, including children, who, for whatever reason, have a strong identification with the opposite sex - though they wouldn't have been referred to as "trans children". However they were few in number, unlike today when my daughter's school has several teenagers (that I know of) identifying as trans - no idea how many overall.

Is GNC identifying with the other sex or is it just abandoning societies stereotypes?

Before all this, in an all boys school, a child in year 1 class dressed as female teacher on “dress as someone you admire day” — I can’t imagine this being done now without a discussion about gender.

Is this really a discussion about language? To say that there either were or weren't trans children is to make a political or philosophical, rather than factual, statement?
If someone believes to some extent in trans ideology, they will use the words 'trans children' to mean something different from 'gender non conforming' or some other such expression. Perhaps what that different thing is, is extremely difficult - probably impossible? - for non-believers to really understand. And also extremely difficult - perhaps impossible - for believers to explain.
Personally I think that that is because gender ideology is a belief system so to use a comparator (which may or may not work!): it's very difficult in my view to explain or understand the Christian belief in the trinity. As an agnostic, I just don't 'get' it, but presumably a person with Christian faith does?
It is impossible to have a discussion that can go anywhere if the basic belief system is not set out honestly. Trans ideology is faith-based (for those who truly believe; not for those just playing the system for financial, political or social gain) and there can't be any sensible discussion when the pretence is that it is fact-based.

Joanna, whom the children called "John," and "Johnnie," was a square, splendid child, a year younger than Dorry; she had big brave eyes

I love this passage. Girls so rarely get described as brave and splendid.

But George would only fit the definition of a trans child now that the definition has been changed. From memory George didn't have any issues with her body but with a society that wouldn't let her step outside of gender stereotypes.
If anything George was a feminist.

Maybe it's for a different thread, but it's fascinating to think about the representation of girls in children's literature over the years. I was a huge reader growing up (still am) and I definitely never gained the impression that as a girl I had to be a certain way - in fact it seemed rather preferable to be more of a "tomboy".

I'm not sure if there's something there about "male" characteristics being more valued than "female" ones, though. The "girlier" girls were often portrayed as the baddies. My daughter actually wrote an essay about this 😄

Gone a bit off topic - sorry.

It's a long long time since I've read them. She did expressly want to be a boy, but yes, IIRC this was generally to do with social roles and not wanting to be perceived as a weak female like poor Anne.

Between the ages of around 8-10 I was regularly, daily confused for a boy by strangers. I had short hair, and would have rather worn a straight jacket than a dress. I think a compromise was reached at a wedding where I was a stonewash denim jean dress and Adidas football boots!
The idea that I could have been labelled trans seems crazy to me. I of course never ever voiced that I wasn't female. I just looked like a boy! Kids who haven't hit puberty are so similar appearance wise you'd need to see them close up and naked to tell the difference anyway!
I guess it was clear from the start that I was hetero, but if I hadn't been clearly into boys then maybe that label could have been applied.
but it wouldn't have been as this was the 80s. The concept simply didn't exist. Not in the mainstream anyway.