The kind of “girl” that a boy who identifies as a girl thinks he is

[MyAmpleSheep]

How do people who celebrate the transitioning of five year old children know that the kind of girl a boy who identities as a “girl” identifies as is the same kind of girl that a girl who identifies as a “girl” is?

Other than than from what he sees girls doing, how can a boy “know” what being a girl is, to be sure he is one?

is it posited that there is an innate sense of boy:girl that exists outside of the experience of seeing and being the presence of others?

If a child was “raised by wolves”, could they be trans? If that child had a male body and reached the age of 20 never having seen or met or known of the existence of women is it possible for them to grow up with dysphoria? When eventually discovering the other sex would they suddenly recognize “they had been born in the wrong body”?

So gender is the same as sex?

This was a reply to the first part of your post which you edited while I was typing.

I’ve never said that social learning plays no role in gender identity. I’ve explicitly acknowledged that children acquire the language and concepts of sex and gender through social interaction.

A social interaction that will include observations of behaviours, attitudes, norms, expectations and, yes, stereotypes relating to the categories 'boy' and 'girl'.
Halleluja, we are all on the same page.

Yes. Sex identification. Their growing understanding/ identification with sex categories.
That is exactly what gender identity is.

So sex and gender are the same thing?

For most children that identification corresponds unremarkably with their anatomy. For a very small minority of children it doesn't.

If sex identity is the same as gender identity, it's not possible for a child to have an opposite sex gender/sex identity. This makes no sense.

@Lacksie as you have said “That’s not my understanding of Ruble’s work. She distinguishes children’s developing identification with a gender category from their knowledge of the stereotypes and expectations associated with that category.
Her work draws on cognitive-developmental theories in which children’s emerging recognition of belonging to a gender category motivates them to explore its social meanings, norms and expectations. In other words, identification is understood as helping to drive the acquisition of gender stereotypes, rather than being the product of those stereotypes.
I’m not sure which particular articles you have drawn these conclusions from, I presume they may be posted on a different thread but she is fairly widely published and I think her work covers more than what you summarise as her work , so if you have more up to date article links that would be helpful. This is a really interesting review from 2010 she co authored about gender development that is very pertinent to the op’s original question but it really demonstrates the complexity and the multitude of influences on children ( it’s fairly astounding quite how early sex based preferences or awareness arise) and theories about how we develop these ideas of self .https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3747736/ . I would particularly note this comment “Perhaps, then, it would be productive to examine individual differences in gender typing as a developmentally malleable construct. Developmental factors may limit the extent to which biological predispositions can be expressed, change the way children are cognitively capable of thinking about gender, and expose them to varying social influences. Thus, the form of gender typing that is paramount may vary at different phases of life, and different combinations of biological, cognitive, and socialization processes could contribute to individual differences in gender typing at different times.”
and this. “It would be unreasonable to conclude that gender typing is strong and stable throughout life”
and this. “Gender socialization provides a good example of how both the child's and parents' cognitions are enacted in moment-to-moment interactions through the dynamic embodiment of gender. Parental expectations about what it means to have a child who is either a boy or girl (expectations colored by cultural values, etc.) become displayed as actions with the child (e.g., glances, touching, toy offering), and these embodied expectations interact with the child's phenotypic and early behavioral features. Thus, gender socialization involves parents and siblings, peers, other socialization agents, and the individual child, who all act and interact in varied contexts.”

I don't disagree with any of this.

I think the confusion is coming from a muddling of lots of different things here-

how we are socialised through gender - norms, learning, behaviours, etc etc, absolutely these are acquired through social learning and we are all subject to those processes/ dynamics. Parenting plays a strong role. We all actively participate in this learning ourselves.

What I have been trying to explain / discuss is something very specific- the neuro-cognitive process by which a child starts to identify themselves as belonging to / within a particular sex category. That happens very early in life and long before lots of the learning about gender/ gender stereotypes/ gender socialising happens. In fact- according to Ruble - it is this self identification which kick starts/ drives this broader social learning about gender . That is what I have been trying to explain, and what people are struggling to understand with regard to gender incongruence.

For the vast majority of children - this identification with a sex category corresponds completely unremarkably with their anatomy and what they are told by others based on this. For these children we don't assume they acquired this understanding "I am a girl" by learning about particular stereotypes (girls like dresses) and then deciding whether it fits - we assume they just learned what their sex is and that's that. After realising they are a girl, they become interested in exploring the idea that girls like dresses.

What I'm trying to explain is that for a small minority of children this development happens differently- their identification with sex does not align with their anatomy/ sex of rearing. Because the child's identifies themselves as being in the "wrong" category you are all assuming this "mismatch" must / can only logically have come from learning about gender stereotypes , and subtle parenting cues . But that doesn't follow and actually there's no good evidence to support that theory.

Oops I linked the wrong article ( but the other one is interesting too!)
This is the one intended https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3747736/

@Lacksie Because the child's identifies themselves as being in the "wrong" category you are all assuming that this must have come from learning about stereotypes and subtle parenting cues . But that doesn't follow and there's actually no evidence for it.

Where is the evidence that external influences have no effect?

@Lacksie you said “What I have been trying to explain / discuss is something very specific- the neuro-cognitive process by which a child starts to identify themselves as belonging to a particular sex category. That happens very early in life and long before lots of the learning about gender/ gender socialising happens. In fact- according to Ruble - it is this self identification which kick starts/ drives this learning. That is what I have been trying to explain, and what people are struggling to understand with regard to gender incongruence.”
”What I'm trying to explain is that for a small minority of children this development happens differently. Because the child's identifies themselves as being in the "wrong" category you are all assuming that this must have come from learning about stereotypes and subtle parenting cues . But that doesn't follow and there's actually no evidence for it”
please can you copy or link to any pieces of Rubles research that gives evidence for what you have just stated?

I think you have linked to the same article twice? Is there a second article worth reading? Thanks

I cited Ruble’s research to illustrate how classic cognitive-developmental theories have understood the development of gender identity and gender constancy.

These theories, which have focused on gender-typical children, distinguish between a child’s identification with a sex category and their knowledge of the stereotypes, norms and expectations associated with that category.

Importantly, they propose that children’s developing understanding of their own gender category motivates them to explore and learn about gender. In other words, a child doesn’t first learn that “girls like dresses” and then conclude, “I like dresses, so I must be a girl.” Rather, as she develops an understanding that she is a girl, she becomes increasingly interested in what being a girl means socially, including exploring the idea that girls wear dresses.

What I’m suggesting is that this framework also fits with empirical observations of very young children with gender incongruence. A child’s identification as a girl is not derived from / reducible to their preferences for particular clothes, toys or activities. Their identification with that category can be understood as distinct from the stereotypes they subsequently learn about and explore.

Now, the interesting question is where that identification comes from.

For gender-typical children, the answer might initially seem quite simple: they learn that they’re a boy or a girl because that’s what everyone tells them. This identification typically develops before they have much understanding of gender stereotypes, and/ or the anatomical differences between males and females. They’re told which category they belong to, and they come to recognise themselves as belonging to it.

But is social labelling alone sufficient to explain how powerful and meaningful that identification can typically become? How motivating it is for children in so much of their early social learning and relationship building?

And, more interestingly, how do we explain children who are consistently told that they’re boys, but who nonetheless persistently insist that everyone is wrong and that they’re girls?
I understand why you’re attributing this to parental influence. But what happens when you encounter family after family where that explanation simply doesn’t fit? Parents who are adamant that their child is a boy, who have never given much thought to transgender identities, and who are themselves confused, sometimes deeply distressed, by their child’s insistence that they’re a girl?

These aren’t parents encouraging their children to identify differently. Typically they’re doing precisely the opposite with all that they can.

So how do we explain the child’s identification in those circumstances? If gender identity were simply a matter of internalising the category we’re assigned by others, why doesn’t that explanation work for these children?

That’s the question I’m interested in, and why I favour a developmental framework that considers how underlying neurobiological processes might interact with social learning in shaping children’s identification as male or female. The language and concepts through which children understand that identification are socially acquired, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the identification itself is simply learned.

When someone has suspected leukaemia, you do a blood test, look at cells under the microscope, and do a few extra lab tests to confirm, before committing to a schedule of chemotherapy.

To sterilise children, remove their sexual function and cut off their breasts, you need to wade through pages and pages of Lacksie waffle to somehow understand how it is possibly justified.

Reader, I remain somehow unconvinced, as surprising as that might be.

One needs to believe that wrong-sex identity is writ in indelible ink on a child's soul before they are born, in order to justify ignoring any other possible explanation for a confusion about gender. Adults, schools and culture must be all be given a free pass. Child development specialists must have their work re-interpreted through the lens of the believer. The child's incongruence cannot be explained and cannot be undone. Society's role is to affirm and alleviate through medication and surgery.

These aren’t parents encouraging their children to identify differently. Typically they’re doing precisely the opposite with all that they can.

Im not sure that’s true for the youngest children.

And, more interestingly, how do we explain children who are consistently told that they’re boys, but who nonetheless persistently insist that everyone is wrong and that they’re girls?

Which brings us back to the question which you have been unwilling to answer.

If a boy is insisting that he is a girl, what meaning is he attaching to the word "girl"?

You can't know what he means by the statement "I'm a girl" unless you know what he thinks the word "girl" means.

How do we find out what he actually means by the statement "I'm a girl"? Surely this is necessary in order to find out what is actually going on

“I favour a developmental framework that considers how underlying neurobiological processes might interact with social learning in shaping children’s identification as male or female. The language and concepts through which children understand that identification are socially acquired, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the identification itself is simply learned.”

It is highly likely that neuro developmental differences such has children with autism (as one example) do process their experiences and their perceptions of what they conceptualise as being of the sex category their body belongs to differently. I don’t believe anyone on FWR has ever said differently.

What is disputed is whether children who come to believe that they are the opposite sex should be affirmed that they are the opposite sex or whether they are affirmed in being the sex they are with in a very wide range of acceptable states of being the sex they are.

This is the difference that can be described as philosophical belief. The belief that a child is who they say they are when there is no possible way for them to be what they say they are. Words such as ‘understanding’ and ‘recognition’ are used to attempt make this identification meaningful.

That this concept described as gender identity has reused the language of sex categories then causes the misuse of language. Gender identity is being used to destabilise policy and law because of that demand made by those people who believe in gender identity as a concept.

The point is and always has been, children will come to believe that they are many things that they are not. Society is being told that if a child has come to the conclusion that they are female when they are male that that child must be affirmed as being female. Even though it is impossible that the child is female in any way.

Rather than having it explained via societal modelling, family members modelling as well as that child hearing directly that being male is a very wide range of states of being and includes that child’s experiences as a ‘boy’, society is being told to allow the perpetuation of a child’s development leaving them to believe that they are something they are not.

It is being done in a way where this concept of ‘gender identity’ has been wedged open to allow male people to identify themselves as being female in someway that some people will find even barely credible. Other people
will embrace it fully if they hold strong philosophical beliefs that people are who they say they are and that what they say they are should never be questioned.

Yep.

This is where we cycle around.

A male person can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female person, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

And yet we are told that this concept is fully valid and should be treated as if it is exactly same validity as a female person understanding they have a female body, rather than what it materially is - simply a male person’s conceptualisation of how they, personally, would interact with the world if they had that female body.

Lots and lots or words from which I take - trans is a like a religion. A cult like religion. Lots of papers explaining not much we didn’t already know. Familial and social factors shape children. A neglected child will probably always have instincts as they mature that reflect perhaps never having had enough food for example.

Trans has become a trendy albeit terrifying trend of trying to shape young people before they learn who they truly are personality wise. Parents and HCP involved in this explosion should be ashamed of themselves.

Shameful and wilful ignorance of safeguarding.

I don't disagree with any of this.

From the post that you don't disagree with :

“It would be unreasonable to conclude that gender typing is strong and stable throughout life”

That statement contradicts everything you have said about trans children.

In support of your argument that these children are born trans and fixed for life, you've been selectively quoting the work of a person who has explicitly contradicted that point of view.

Because the child's identifies themselves as being in the "wrong" category you are all assuming this "mismatch" must / can only logically have come from learning about gender stereotypes , and subtle parenting cues . But that doesn't follow and actually there's no good evidence to support that theory.

That does follow and by denying it you show your lack of understanding of child psychology. There is good evidence to support that theory.

I did just one Google of "is there research into how parents influence their very young children with micro gestures"

and the response that I got is summarised below. The actual query follows with pointers to research papers that I suggest you follow and read.

Yes, there is extensive developmental and neurological research into how parents influence very young children through subtle nonverbal cues, often referred to in developmental psychology as micro-connections, micro-movements, or dyadic attunement.

Rather than viewing parenting solely through major milestones or grand lessons, researchers use microanalytic coding (analyzing video interactions frame-by-frame) to study how split-second movements shape an infant's brain, language development, and emotional security.

This is how care givers, wittingly or unwittingly, mould children into what they, consciously or subconsciously, want them to be.

Most kids that age can understand the difference between make-believe and reality. He might claim to be a dinosaur, a cat, or Spider-Man for a temporary period of time while playing, he might even go further and say he really is Spider-man and he only turns into him while everyone’s sleeping or something. But everyone knows, the 5 yo included, that everyone’s pretending. If he starts saying he’s a girl, a child who is really trans and not playing will be claiming that all the time, daily, and it will cause distress to them if they’re told they’re not. They may want to wear dresses out, which is not the same as wanting to wear a Spider-Man costume out - the first goes against every social norm for a boy and risks social embarrassment. The second is a completely normal and common outfit for a boy that age to wear. They may have distress about their penis and get very upset about having one. It’s way, way more serious and constant, and causes far more distress than insisting they’re Spider-Man. I have a friend with a trans kid who is a teenager now. She was born a boy but believed she was a girl as soon as she could understand the difference between the two - so about age 3. She couldn’t understand why she had a penis, she used to tell her parents there must have been a mistake and god (her family is Catholic too) had mixed up her body parts with a girl and she accidentally got the boy’s penis and there was a boy out there who had accidentally got her vagina! This child had had very little external influence regarding gender stereotypes by this age. She didn’t attend nursery, she was with her mum all the time, she had one older brother at that point, and they were religious and pretty old-fashioned, I don’t think the child even got to watch tv before age 5. Fast forward 12 years and the child is a very happy trans girl. She didn’t have an easy ride though and neither did her parents, who didn’t believe it was possible to be trans and took her to a million different child psychologists looking for an explanation. The only thing that made any difference was transitioning, so there was no other option for my friend. Thankfully she’s fully supportive of her child now and no one would ever know she wasn’t born a girl

I am banjaxed that you describe a child, especially in a strongly Catholic household, as not having access to external gender stereotypes. They may not have watched TV but I'll bet they went to church and on outings and that one of their first books was a child's illustrated bible.

I wonder how strongly that mother was hoping that her second child was going to be a girl?

@Tinyterrier as a Catholic presumably attending Mass the child would have not only been exposed to a variety of people but also readings and scriptures discussing different people and messages about acceptance.

Do you know anything about being a Catholic?

*“It would be unreasonable to conclude that gender typing is strong and stable throughout life”

Gender typing is much broader than gender identity. Gender typing refers to how children learn about and acquire the behaviours, preferences, attitudes and characteristics that their society associates with being male or female. These change over time. In early childhood children are often very rigid in their stereotyping- this tends to relax as people get older.

Honestly is there anything laxy is not an expert on?

Non-circular reasoning?