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 doesn't follow. A transwoman is male....therefore not a woman; but a child is a child regardless of how they 'identify.'

That's because 'trans' is entirely a mental construction /a framing device.

Most likely suggestive of nascent lesbianism/same sex attraction?

... and part of a belief (that some people genuinely hold and some people pretend to hold).

i.e. some people frame their understanding of male and female through the belief that we all have a gender identity. Someone can be trans under this belief.

Much like a Christian might believe that god created the world instead of the big bang.

As with Christianity (and other beliefs), there will always be a range of full-on belief no matter what science can now prove through to believing most but not all of the tenets. Both require a cognitive dissonance e.g. a Christian may fully embrace the big bang part of known science but is still highly likely to believe that human reproduction is possible without sperm if god performs the miracle of immaculate conception.

There is so much that is unknown about the human condition, even with modern day psychology, that there will always be space for beliefs that create a framing to explain it.

And just as with the Catholic priest scandal, there will always be bad actors who either feign a belief entirely or make use of it (even if they do believe it a bit) for their own gain.

Apologies for the typos. Hopefully it still makes sense. I didn't catch the edit button in time.

The Virgin birth is one thing, following the Annunciation 9 months before the nativity of Jesus, on 25th March. The Immaculate Conception is a different, separate thing, happening 9 months before the nativity of Mary, on 8th December.

Conception as in concept -God's idea of a human being without sin, fit to be his mother.

Obviously you are free to believe this is all a big heap of nonsense, but just as well to know what you aren't believing in.

I haven’t read the whole thread.

Of course there were trans people and even children but children were not given that choice before 2000, the seed wasn’t planted in their head that they could be what ever gender they chose. It’s now rammed in their faces at primary school.

I think I would have been a trans child if given that choice when I was at primary school. I’m not a trans adult because I’m 100% female. I was/am a Tom boy, I hung out with the boys (still do), I played football and wanted to have access to everything my brother had access too. If someone had waved the trans card in my face I would have happily been a boy.

I have several school friends that did transition as adults. As children it wasn’t that obvious they wanted to be the opposite sex but they would have probably fallen into the Neurodiverse category. I’m sure they knew at a early age but the options were not available to them as a child and it wasn’t really spoken about.

'Stefonknee' is a bloke who identifies as a little girl, so a 'transchild' used this way is definitley not an actual child. This use of transchild (an adult who identifies as a child) is more consistent with how transwoman and transman are used.

ETA. I fully accept that this is not the normal use of transchild/transchildren or how it has been used in the title of this thread.

I think that I'm not going to avoid using 'transchild' to refer to an actual child. It is an unhelpful term when used for children for all the reasons in this thread.

Fair enough!

(I'm confused though... if the immaculate conception is 9 months before the virgin birth, isn't that what I was saying? It was certainly what I had intended to say).

But yes, it does illustrate my point and also very much my approach in this whole "trans debate". I don't challenge the belief, any more than I would challenge a Christian's belief. Obviously, I'm free to think that all of it is nonsense.... but I can express this my own way: "I don't share this belief" works for me on both counts because by far the more important thing IMO is that a) laws aren't built on these beliefs being facts and b) the beliefs aren't taught as facts to children.

Children will believe what their parents and the other trusted adults around them tell them, whether it's that a virgin birth/immaculate conception is possible (despite what you're taught in science about human biology) or that it's possible to be "born in the wrong body" (despite what you're taught at school about human biology).

The key difference with Christianity is that everyone acknowledges it's a belief. That in order to manage the cognitive dissonance of science vs miracles, you need faith in God.

By contrast, if anyone rejects the idea that "we all have a gender identity" as fact, they're told they're simply ignorant because their own gender identity "aligns with your sex assigned at birth" (at best) or actively shut down as bigots/Nazis/fascists/transphobes etc (at worst). And the worst just gets worse because they get hounded out of jobs or reported to Social Services as a risk to their child etc if they demonstrate their lack of belief.

I was brought up a Catholic and a nun's explanation of the Immaculate Conception was the event that triggered my almost instant loss of faith, when I realised that necessary belief is shored up by convoluted reasoning.
Jesus, as the son of God (necessary belief) couldn't possibly have been given birth to by a woman tainted by original sin (necessary belief), so Mary must have been conceived immaculate, free from original sin - a new necessary belief.
It was at that point I realised that it was all made up nonsense. I see so many parallels with genderism. I also understand that intellectual ability is no proof against nonsensical belief. Faith comes from an entirely different place. In fact, clever people with good reasoning skills use their attributes to build the case for their beliefs, and as these people are often in positions of influence, their beliefs spread.

@BonfireLady thanks for the link. Lots to take from it. I will add 'get out of male free card' to my list of stuff that makes me laugh in the midst of the shitshow.

if the immaculate conception is 9 months before the virgin birth, isn't that what I was saying?

No, the immaculate conception was on December 8th, the virgin birth was on December 25th. Mary was conceived immaculate, not marsupial, and needed 9 months to gestate a fully formed baby.

A lot of male theologians through the Christian centuries managed to develop and embed a lot of very screwed-up ideas about sex which are not rooted in the actual bible. Men developing screwed up ideas about sex causes a whole heap of trouble.

That's interesting. I have a protestant perspective, and (not having looked that deeply into Catholic doctrine) I had assumed that the Immaculate Conception concept came from the veneration of Mary. Protestant theology doesn't require Mary to be sinless, but does (usually!) respect her as a very remarkable woman. As a bit of a Leftie, I love the Magnificat, Mary's manifesto for the downtrodden.

Mary was conceived immaculate, not marsupial

Marsupial!?

That has to be an autocorrect, but I can't work out what it should have been.

Or Christianity is even weirder than I thought ...

Got it. Thank you!

You're absolutely right that I should be informed on what I don't believe if I'm saying I don't believe it. Guilty as charged!

It's why I spent so much time learning about gender identity belief to validate my own journey from believer to agnostic to "gender identity atheist". There are lots of examples available on MN of me asking all sorts of questions when I didn't understand any of it (I just had a feeling that stuff didn't make sense to me). I happily engaged in and sought out good faith debates on this MN board. One of the most memorable was with a TW who was engaging reasonably on the thread that I was on (there were a few potential warning signs, called out as such by other MNers of course!) but equally enough ambiguity and engagement with the conversation that TW shouldn't use women's toilets (the TW agreed) to remain open-minded to it being "good faith" but obviously cautious. Meanwhile, the same TW was all over other threads (that I wasn't on) spouting.... well.... not nice stuff. Others told me in the thread I was on and I confirmed that I understood but hadn't seen it. Eventually the not nice stuff landed directly in the thread I was on too, delivered as a prison fantasy where the prison nurses were gentle with the prisoners 🤢

That said, I'm glad we have a corner of the internet where a) difficult conversations like this can take place from different viewpoints and b) there are plenty of knowledgeable women who've seen it all before so can and do hold the line. But yeah, that was grim. And also difficult for the many women that had been affected by TW like this in the past. Obviously nobody controls access to the internet, nor who joins in on MN (except MNHQ when guidelines are broken) and we all know that these people can see what we're saying at all times. Hi 👋

😂😂
I raised an eyebrow but skipped over it. Setting aside the thought that it would be sooooooo much easier if marsupial birth were the default for humans. 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.

Always thought marsupials were an evolutionary wonder. Apparently the pouches are (unsurprisingly) moist so you'd have to be careful with sugary & baked goods.😁

I was taught that virgin birth, baby found in a basket in the river …. Were common ways to explain why a person was extra special. If I could find my notebook I would be able to give the other ancient examples of virgin births and babies in baskets … the Prof didn’t say this were to debunk Jesus, it was just the way, at the time. To explain that a person was extraordinary and “chosen”
Mainly a lot in the Bible isn’t literal …

The Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception

www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

Disappointingly short of wombats.

I had a bit of gender dysphoria growing up, before trans identities were really accepted or encouraged. It was absolutely not something I would have shared with anybody. And perhaps more importantly, I think I probably had a sense from very early on that changing sex was not in fact a possibility. That enabled me not to take my feelings too seriously. (I also wanted to be a cat or be able to do magic; those things weren't possible either.) Children today are basically told they can change sex quite easily, and with that option on the table perhaps feelings that might otherwise have been minimised as impossible desires come to the fore.

If Mary had been a marsupial the flight to Egypt would have gone rather differently, with baby Jesus chucked at Herod's soldiers to allow Mary to escape.

Sounds like a motto to live by.

Yes, but I'd say that 'beliefs' come under the category mental construction/framing device. A belief system is our way of framing and giving structure to our feelings, thoughts and experiences. A belief system can provide a whole, paradigmatic world view - to which we retreat for explanation and security.

You get that sense of "not quite aligned" or a little bit odd/off/different...with people on the autistic spectrum.