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…

There's a bit of this even in Wodehouse. If you think of the women Bertie Wooster becomes involved with, the tomboyish Bobbie Wickham, though she may be a menace to society, seems really cool. You might regret hanging out with her, but it would be fun at the time.

Drippy, girly Madeline Bassett will never be cool.

It probably helps that Bertie isn't any kind of traditional masculine protagonist, but a rather soft and passive character who just wants a quiet life but is always being put in peril by his domineering aunts.

But George would only fit the definition of a trans child now that the definition has been changed.

Would she? So she needs her breasts cut off, and goes on to commit suicide due to lack of puberty blockers?

The problem is there is no single definition - it switches between "every single non gender-confirming person ever" and "people born in the wrong body who need drugs and surgery to correct it".

The former clearly aren't the latter, as they all did fine without the drugs and surgery. So where are the group that need the drugs and surgery?

So where are the group that need the drugs and surgery?

Quite.

Delurking to say this represents today's key issue in a nutshell when it comes to the confusion that has taken hold at a sufficiently high level in the public discourse.

Everyone who wanted to challenge sex-based stereotypes "got it" when they read the Famous Five. Thankfully there was nobody telling the Georges of the real world that in order to live "authentically" (having adventures instead of making sandwiches, perhaps also meeting the girl of your dreams rather than the boy) they needed to take blockers that had an unknown impact on their brain, testosterone that put them at risk of heart failure and then eventually chop off their breasts and potentially use a piece of their arm/leg to mimic a penis. Instead, if they felt distress about their place in the world (as many teenagers do) they could enjoy just being George.

OK, so you've picked up on one particular sentence to dismiss the whole OP. I agree that for a very small number of children, their distress at their sex can be very real. It seems likely to me that the reasons for this fall into two categories:

1. They are living in an environment in which gender stereotypes are rigidly enforced, and they come to believe that the only way to escape this would be to be the opposite sex.
2. They have an intense hatred of their sexual organs, possibly due to abuse or trauma.

If you believe there are other reasons for this, I would be interested to know what they are.

I don't think your disagreement that pretending to be or wanting to be the opposite sex is not always 'playful' is enough to dismiss the entire OP, which says that before very recently, there were no transsexual children.

The definition that I am using is the one for self ID.
If you say you are the opposite sex then you are the opposite sex.

I didn't mention breasts being cut off or puberty blockers because under this definition it isn't required.

That isn't to say that I don't find either wrong.

Yes, but saying you are the opposite sex and magically becoming that sex is only for adults (also, possibly, for very young children).

We are told that trans-identifying children who are approaching or going through puberty need to have puberty blockers to prevent their natural development otherwise they will all kill themselves.

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.

The problem is, they can't describe what they mean by a 'trans child' with a clear and unambiguous definition.

Continuing the slight tangent, I wonder if there's been a collapse in storytelling as it relates to sex stereotypes.

There's an annoying thing that happens when they introduce a new Bond girl or Doctor Who companion, where they're billed as smart and capable, unlike all the damsels in distress that came before them. It's annoying because these very male centric franchises have had smart and capable female characters since the 1960s who deserve better than to be airbrushed. Even that old misogynist Sean Connery was saved by a woman once or twice.

Princess Leia is not just Han Solo's girlfriend. She's a great character in her own right. She's clever and resourceful and brave, and none of that makes her any less female. In some ways she's more formidable than her male counterparts because she's got more emotional intelligence. But sometimes I imagine Disney remaking Star Wars from scratch today, and giving Leia he/they pronouns and a "queer" relationship with Han.

Purely anecdotal but relevant: the Doctor Who fan I know who was most upset with the female Doctor experiment was a gay man who said there were very few male heroes who are non-macho and thoughtful and kind, and felt he'd lost something valuable.

Kids are very influenced by the stories they consume. It seems to me there's been a decline in stories telling them that you are your sex, but your sex is not your personality and it doesn't have to limit what you can achieve.

I am first going to point out that I am against self ID, puberty blockers and those saying that they can change sex either by just saying so or by medication or surgery.

I find those that say 'Would you prefer a dead son or a live Trans daughter' abhorrent.

I have spent years as a teacher trying to breakdown gender stereotypes so find this push towards them beyond reproach.

Secondly I find those that say that children need to go on puberty blockers again abhorrent. Not only because they are ignoring the very real issues that they they cause but also because if someone truly had gender dysphoria and they want surgery later on they are causing them no end of medical issues as you require a fully grown penis to be able to 'successfully' (and I use that term because there are still many complication) complete the surgery.

and Finally on another thread (sorry for the breaking rules) a parent is "being led" by their 3 year old daughter about being trans, and I say this with my hand on heart. WTAF!!

Not read the full thread, but I was a primary teacher for the whole of the noughties (including at a school a few miles away from The Tavistock; some children were receiving CAMHS support at the clinic). I taught children from very deprived backgrounds, immigrant backgrounds and from wealthy backgrounds. I held school management roles where I was aware of the needs of children beyond my own class; I also engaged in CPD projects with other schools so was talking and interacting widely with other teachers. I also worked for a local authority for a period of time, where I was going from school to school in the course of my work.

I can confidently say that not one single case of gender dysphoria was made known to me in all that time. There were of course a couple of young children who could have been described as slightly gender non-conforming in their appearance, but for a young child it was often much more to do with how their parents had chosen to cut their hair (girls would sometimes have a drastic haircut if nits were going around!) or the clothes the parent had chosen to buy or pass down from an older sibling of the opposite sex (I taught in one school that had no uniform).

So if late teenagers were ‘knowing that they had been born in the wrong body’ by about 2018, how is it that they weren’t expressing this as primary-age children in the period 2005-2009? As I said, I worked very close to the Tavi and would surely have seen or heard some signs of the huge increase in transgender children…

Absolutely. That was part of my (long winded!) point. It feels like every discussion has foundations of sand. Which is why there is never never a logical riposte to 'but sex is binary and gender is a construct, so what are people transing from and to?'
I find the whole thing hugely frustrating but wondered whether a thread like this one (ie not being trolled by mens' rights activists) was a calmer place to look at the language issue than some of the others which immediately get taken over by the 'but you're phobic of the trans folk' crew. Which reminds me, why are trans people so often described as 'folk'? I'm sure it's meant to be kind of safe and friendly-sounding, but every time I see it now, I know that I'm also going to see 'just let them pee in peace' 🙄

Yes, agree about the Doctor Who thing - so annoying when they introduce a new female companion who's advertised as "strong and capable, unlike her shrieking, ankle-twisting predecessors" when they've always been that way. They've been scientists, teachers, journalists, doctors....

Love this post 😄

Wodehouse is still my comfort reading.

Sticking with George from the Famous Five (and all the many Georges of every decade before or since), what if someone had said "We know you were assigned girl at birth but could this have been a mistake? Do you think you might be a boy? You're nothing like Anne." It's pretty obvious that George would have readily identified as a boy. The power of suggestion is very strong if you're given the option of a label that fits better than the one you think you're being forced into.

'Sex assigned at birth' means... what?

That George was given the wrong body parts for George's boy brain? Or perhaps the body parts aren't the problem (so no need for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgery then. Good news 👍) but George is simply saying that she doesn't want to be making the sandwiches just because she's a girl. That she objects to Julian and Dick assuming that she'll just get on with it because she was "assigned girl at birth".

If George now has the liberating words (thanks to today's society) to explain that "he" is actually a trans boy, rather than a girl who prefers adventures to homemaking, we've forclosed on how George will now see "himself" in everything that happens from now on in George's life. If George is acknowledged as a trans boy pre-puberty, puberty itself will be very distressing because George will think it's the wrong puberty. The distress will grow as George's breasts grow and periods start. George will be even more convinced that George is trans, even if it felt like a slow and steady exploration at the beginning.

Great point @StainlessSteelMouse about storylines today. Same with role models IRL: everything is about "identifying as" rather than just "being". Gender-fluid and non-binary are the nearest you get to just being, but even those are now identities under the belief that we all have a gender identity.

So back to the OP: where were all the trans children? As many PPs have said on this thread, perhaps they were just the children that pushed against the limitations and expectations that society pushed on to them owing to their sex.

Can't we just let George be George, without all this pressure to identify as something?

Back in the real world, here's David Bell on the impact labelling a child as trans (screenshots below)....

In fictional storytelling … characters need to be diverse in terms of personality, appearance, clothing style … to fit with what their role is in the story. They need to fit within the norms of the day, esp if children’s books.

If they need an action oriented sister, who will climb a tree, skin a squirrel and get in a fight … she will be wearing trousers, have dirty fingernails, a bob and brave eyes. If they need a boy, who knows the physics to build a catapult, knows Greek mythology and the science of invisible ink - he’s going to be bookish, soft clean hands and be wearing proper clothes.
Just his storytelling works - esp in old days.

HitchhikersGuide

"folx" used especially to explicitly signal the inclusion of groups commonly marginalized.

Not that many of the marginalised groups have been asked.

there was, as you can imagine, a big push to use "folx" in schools.

I think "folks" became popular in online wokelord circles the same way as "y'all" did. It's privileged people trying to appear less privileged by aping the way they think underprivileged groups talk. It's cringe when Americans do it and ten times more cringe when Brits do it.

The "folx" version goes along with "Latinx". Every poll that's been done in the States shows that Hispanic people HATE privileged white people calling them by that dumb ass made up term.

I've even seen "Filipinx", which is too stupid for words.

Basically every time I see a redditor say "I would like to know y'all's opinion" it's a fairly good bet that this is a humanities graduate from an elite university.

Aw transfolk sounds like someone you'd leave a saucer of bread & milk out for. The wee transfolk.

In my view, society is now interpreting girls and boys who don’t conform to the more rigid sex stereotypes of the last two decades through the new cultural lens of ‘trans’. This couldn’t have been done before because that concept didn’t exist in the culture and also because, unlike recent years, in various stages of history it has been viewed as acceptable for girls and boys to deviate from sex-based stereotypes (at least until adulthood - the fight for woman’s liberation is another story that continues on from this).

I think an additional element of the current paradigm is a culture-bound syndrome that is being used to express and describe hatred of/alienation from the body in ways that conditions such as anorexia and cutting would have been the expression of these feelings in previous decades.

And the third element is children who will likely be gay in adulthood. It’s been well described in the literature, and from personal accounts, that a stage in figuring out their sexual orientation is for these children to think they are the opposite sex. It helps them to understand in some way their differences from their peers. They don’t understand sexuality yet so they rationalise their feelings by thinking they must really be the opposite sex because they seem to run counter to what is expected of them in the dominant culture. When puberty happens the resultant changes generally help these children understand their latent attraction to their own sex and, in the past, they ceased opposite sex identification.

Our society knew all the above for decades but now, in favour of interpreting things via the sexist ideology of gender identity, there has been a ‘great forgetting’ and instead we’ve been making things worse for a lot of children who are being encouraged to damage bodies that they could have been taught to accept.

Another part of the great forgetting is, isn't it amazing that transvestism has disappeared from the culture? Ten years ago, it would not have been considered controversial to say that some men cross-dress for erotic purposes. Nowadays many people would see that as Hitler-level bigotry.

And it's relevant here too because men who have a taste for wearing women's knickers don't develop that taste at 30 years old. They start doing it as adolescent boys. Not all of those boys will end up at Malaga Airport, but quite a few will.

@UtopiaPlanitia and @StainlessSteelMouse

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️

Re the boys, they are sadly being coerced towards Málaga Airport by the older contingent. Particularly so those who are autistic and perhaps isolated from social peer groups.

Autism in girls obviously plays a role too, but this is more akin to the anorexia example above i.e. linked to the distress of puberty, changing body etc.

And sticking on the subject of Málaga Airport for a moment (anyone not familiar with this term, just look up the flight code for it - like GTW is London Gatwick), this is a great article which explains a lot:

https://archive.is/2pQIq

Linking it back to "where were the trans children?".... there wasn't the internet with anime etc pulling these adolesent boys in at the same rate as now. As Stainless says, many won't make it all the way to the airport, but unfortunately enough will, particularly if they are coerced/encouraged. Dr Az Hakeem talks about those who go on to remove their penis and testicles only to then lose the drive/urge that brought them there - they only discover this about themselves when they detransition. They are effectively victims and perpetrators.

I never thought I'd say this, but that's an interesting article from a man who is AGP.

Well written, quite funny, but also, far more self honest that the disingenuous, self denying bollocks you get from men like Debbie Hayton.

Well worth a read.

It's hard to get accurate figures, but I've seen estimates (Lawrence 2011) that 3% of males may be autogynephilic to some degree. Now, that includes men whose AGP makes them 'bisexual' or 'asexual' or only attracted to men, and mild cases who are happy to just stick to cross-dressing without identifying as trans.
However, when you realise that lesbians only make up about 1-2% of the female population...
... in other words, the potential pool of AGP males outnumbers lesbians...
... and that a heterosexual male with AGP is quite likely to consider himself a 'trans lesbian' because he still wants sex with women...
... and that males tend to get their way at the expense of females...
... and that paraphilias often come in clusters, i.e. if you're AGP you may well also be into kink/BDSM or any number of other strange things ...
... and that pretty much anyone can identify as trans these days and be instantly believed and have their every whim catered to, without needing a diagnosis for dysphoria ...
... and that most people have no idea there are two distinct types, so that (for example) everyone holds up Georgie Stone as a figurehead for trans rights even though she's almost certainly HSTS rather than AGP...
... and that everybody knows being trans is all about gender identity and being 'trapped in the wrong body from birth', and has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, how dare you even suggest it, you transphobe...

I never thought I'd say this, but that's an interesting article from a man who is AGP.

Totally agree. I had been talking to a male friend about gender identity in general over a few conversations, centred around protecting autistic girls from conflating their feelings of distress about that changing body (and the sensory aspect of periods and breast development) with a belief that they had a non-binary or male gender identity. It was over a series of conversations and it got to a natural point where we would discuss AGP. He had never heard of it and I thought this was the most accessible article in my library of useful stuff for him. The mix of wit, facts and self assessment keeps the reader engaged in a way that some other articles may not, unless you already had a knowledge of or an active interest in feminism.

..far more self honest that the disingenuous, self denying bollocks you get from men like..

There are a few names that could finish this sentence. All of whom are honest about some things in (e.g. that men who identify as women shouldn't play in women's sports) but this article covers the elephant in the room that many others avoid or only cover in brief.