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”?

Always remembering that a child who explicitly comes out as “trans” (are they really using this word aged 4?) might also be socially transitioned which makes persistence more likely because the identity has now been invested in by family friends and school and is significantly harder to row back from quietly.

Hmm I see my comment has been deleted.

Was it me musing that if a child does think they are the opposite sex, it's definitely not reality.

And we don't, on the back of that, cut body parts off them, render them infertile, potentially stopping them having a sex life or pair bonding, lowering their IQ and then decimate the equality act from one to the other.

And that transactivists believing that we should do all that is absolutely mind-boggling to normal people.

edited to add that watching the questions that people will or won't answer is as telling as the posts that must be deleted.

I just answered this again at the top. I'll provide a summary again here.

Before I do - I think it's important to clarify that the question I am answering is about how we understand gender identity/ gender incongruence. Of course when we have a child in front of us and we are trying to figure out what might be going on for that child, we must ask them these questions - "why do you think you are a girl? How do you know that? What does being a girl mean to you". If a child says - "I think I'm a girl because I like wearing dresses, then we can work with that child to help them understand that wearing dresses doesn't make a person female, and that boys can wear dresses if they want.

However - it terms of how we understand what gender identity is:

A person's gender identity concerns their recognition of themselves in relation to sex and gender categories such as male, female, boy and girl.

A lot of pps on this thread are assuming that when a child says "I'm a girl", they must have arrived at that identification by comparing themselves with some set of characteristics they associate with girls. For example, "I like dresses, girls like dresses, therefore I'm a girl", or "girls have vulvas, I have a vulva, therefore I'm a girl".

But why assume that this is how gender identification works?

In fact, classic cognitive-developmental theories distinguish children's basic identification with a gender category from their knowledge of the stereotypes and characteristics associated with that category. They propose that developing gender identification itself motivates children to explore what being a boy or girl means socially.

A couple of days ago a pp asked me how my daughter knows she is a girl. (My daughter isn't trans - she was born female). She's 4. The convo went like this (I'm paraphrasing as I can't remember the words exactly):

me: DD how do you know your a girl.

DD: Because I know I'm a girl. Because I am a girl.

Me: But how do you know that?

DD: Because I am a girl.

Me: But how do you know?

DD: Because I can see I'm a girl.

Me: What do you see?

DD smiles at me like I'm bonkers and runs off.

My DD doesn't know about XX chromosomes, and she didn't refer to her anatomy, clothes or interests. Nor did she say, "Because you told me I am."

Now, it's perfectly possible that she originally acquired that identification because everyone around her has always called her a girl. But the important point is that her identification doesn't appear to depend on consciously comparing herself with a list of characteristics associated with girls. She simply recognises herself as a girl.

And if gender identification were simply a matter of internalising the category assigned to us by others, how do we explain children who have consistently been told they're boys, yet persistently and insistently identify as girls?

PP's on this thread are insisting that they must have learned some beliefs or stereotypes about girls and mistakenly concluded that those characteristics apply to them.

But why must that be the explanation? It's one possible hypothesis, certainly, but where is the evidence that it's the correct one? People can't establish this by simply insisting that no other other explanation makes sense to them.

Another possibility is that our capacity to recognise ourselves in relation to sex categories is influenced by underlying neurodevelopmental processes. Language and social learning provides the concepts through which that recognition becomes activated, but the underlying neurocognitive processes may themselves be biologically organised rather than simply acquired through social learning.

To me this latter theory is a much better fit with the body of empirical evidence we have.

I cited the guidance to provide you evidence that clinical assessment on the NHS involves asking children these questions.

I didn't cite it because I endorse every claim made in the guidance.

Yes, this article, for example, is about children who have already socially transitioned.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35505568/

But why assume that this is how gender identification works?

Because when a child knows what any word means they have learned that meaning somehow. Your options are observation and generalisation from that, or explanation. How do they learn what a cat is? They observe cats and draw conclusions about what features they have in common. Many babies may call a dog a cat until they refine their language model. Many toddlers think "child in a dress" is synonymous with girl until adults explain that's not actually how it works.

Of course when we have a child in front of us and we are trying to figure out what might be going on for that child, we must ask them these questions - "why do you think you are a girl? How do you know that? What does being a girl mean to you". If a child says - "I think I'm a girl because I like wearing dresses, then we can work with that child to help them understand that wearing dresses doesn't make a person female, and that boys can wear dresses if they want.

So Lacksie, what answer do you imagine a child could give that would satisfy you that they were not basing their assertion that they are the opposite sex, on stereotypes.

This is madness. At 15.05 ish @Lacksie you posted another wordy post in record time off the back of the last posts. You the declared ‘got to run!’ But proceeded to post every few minutes.

I am struggling to believe and I say this in kindness, that you are anything other than an activist. I understand when people are so wedded to the cause of proving trans is real they will never appreciate it might not be so simple as a people with some issues around how they fit into society and feeling at odds with what they perceive to be male or female stereotypes.

What does concern me is we are interfering with the development of young people who need to be able to work out their sexuality in their own time without the blurring of lines that they may have been ‘born in the wrong body’.

Everyone deserves respect. Respect is nurturing our children and not medicalising them based on some research papers that seem to want to disrupt society.

Appendix A is the closest the document comes to 'evidence'. I can't see where it talks about asking a boy, for example "what does being a girl mean". You're claiming this is asked, which suggests you have either been in the position of asking or have been asked (or in the room when a child is asked). I'm not sure why you are being coy about where your specific knowledge comes from.

@LacksieTo me this latter theory is a much better fit with the body of empirical evidence we have.
You keep saying this, but I just haven't seen the evidence. Ruble herself suggests that it is a complex interaction between several factors.

In summary, Lacksie says that the only meaning that can be attached to a boy child who persistently and insistently says that they are a girl and vice versa is that the child is trans, even though the child is unable to describe what they mean and to that question replies "I just am.".

And on that basis she supports puberty blockers and early cross sex hormones and surgery.

That really does sum it up @SylvanMoon . @Imdunfer and I have been here from the start of the thread.

Well deduced @Imdunfer I think I clocked that a few pages back and also on other threads.

Indirectly by posting hoards of papers and research it seems an around about way of saying we ‘have’ to try these things out.

It is every red flag about safeguarding - we do not experiment on children based on the ideas out there in academia.

I wonder what @Lacksie thinks about Queer Theory?

Obviously it would be a long conversation. But some of the things a child with gender incongruence might say.

“What makes you think you’re a girl?”
“I just am.”

“Is it what you wear or what you play with?”
“No. I just am.”

"Boys can wear dresses if they like".
"I know boys can wear dresses. But I'm a girl who wears dresses".

"Boys can play with dolls."
"I know boys can play with dolls. I don't like playing with dolls. I'm a girl who likes playing with trucks".

How do you know you are a girl?
"I felt it inside"
"my body feels it"
"I'm a boy on the outside, but inside I'm a girl".
"I know I have to be a boy in school and stuff, but inside my head I know I'm a girl".

What is a girl?
"how you feel inside"
"I am a girl.”

How do you know if someone is a girl?
"you just ask them".

@HenriettaSwanLeavitt2 interestingly JKR has updated her 2020 essay re trans/women etc etc. I found it emotional and also spot on as to how many of us feel.

We do not ‘hate’ trans people. JKR does not hate trans people. Trans people do seem to hate women who will not acquiesce.

Who are the baddies?

I'm not goading you.

You haven't answered my question. If you believe you have, please post a link to the post with your answer.

I salute your indefatigablity

Yes, I've just read that. She is a goddess.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5591471-jkr-an-update-to-my-essay-of-june-2020

@Lacksie you might enjoy this and be able to critique her writing

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/an-update-to-my-essay-of-june-2020/

You tell me you don't even have a gender identity!

Not I; you're confusing me with someone else.

Your answer seems to be that they must have learned some beliefs or stereotypes about girls and mistakenly concluded that those characteristics apply to them.

Again, not I. I'm a skeptic, but I don't have an answer. I want to know your answer, that you're very sure you do have.

But the important point is that her identification doesn't appear to depend on consciously comparing herself with a list of characteristics associated with girls. She simply recognises herself as a girl.

I'm grateful for this, but it's an answer to a quite different question; it answers the question "which aspects of a (real) girl does he think he has".

You can't recognize yourself as a girl unless you have some kind of mental model of what a "girl" actually is. I didn't ask "what is it that makes you think you're a girl." I asked "what is a girl, to you?"

I'm asking about the meaning of the word "girl". The answer is not a list of attributes. But it means something, to the boy who claims to be one. What does it mean?

@Lacksie me: DD h

Me: How do you know your a girl.
DD: Because I know I'm a girl. Because I am a girl.
Me: But how do you know that?
DD: Because I am a girl.
Me: But how do you know?
DD: Because I can see I'm a girl.
Me: What do you see?

Boring questions. The right question to ask her is "what is a girl?"

It always, always comes down to the idea that we all have a gender identity, but only trans and allies are aware of it. Its impossible to put into words.

We know that a little boy will never have periods or give birth, but if we change the meaning of the words girl and woman, these boys can become girls and eventually women.

But is that actually solving anything? If it does, it just demonstrates that the boy is happy just to be called a girl. Nothing has changed apart from the meaning of girl/boy.

Its understandably, although wrong, to do this to make children happy, but adults? How can an adult claim to be so distressed/aware of their gender identity, but the distressed is eliminated by a changing the meaning of the words woman and man?

On one hand, we are expected to acknowledge the deep feelings these people have and their distress. But then believe that these feelings, that cannot be articulated, can be eliminated by dictionary definitions?

'I just am' and 'I feel it inside' are what you'd consider evidence that a child should be given hormone treatment?

Apologies for attributing ideas to you that aren't yours.

You can't recognize yourself as a girl unless you have some kind of mental model of what a "girl" actually is. I didn't ask "what is it that makes you think you're a girl." I asked "what is* a girl, to you?"
I'm asking about the meaning of the word "girl". The answer is not a list of attributes. But it means something, to the boy who claims to be one. What does it mean?*

I think you're still making an assumptions about how human cognition works that aren't justified.

Of course a child needs to have acquired some understanding of the words "boy" and "girl" to use them meaningfully. But that doesn't mean the concepts themselves produce the child's identification with one category rather than the other. That identification may arise from underlying neurocognitive processes, while socially acquired concepts provide the means through which the child comes to understand and describe it.

Take something as apparently simple as knowing that your arm belongs to your body. How do you know it's yours? Is it because you can see it? Because you can feel it? Because you understand what an arm is and have consciously concluded that this particular arm belongs to you?

Neuroscience tells us that bodily self-recognition involves complex processes operating largely outside conscious awareness.

For example, there's a fascinating neurological condition called somatoparaphrenia, in which people fail to recognise one of their own limbs as belonging to them. Some patients can see their arm, experience physical sensations when it's touched, and understand perfectly well what an arm is, yet still insist that the arm belongs to somebody else.

Their problem isn't that they don't understand the meaning of the word "arm", or that they've incorrectly reasoned about its characteristics. It's that the neurological processes involved in recognising the limb as their own have been disrupted.

Now, I'm not suggesting that gender identity and bodily ownership are the same neurological phenomenon. We don't know that. But this illustrates an important principle: our recognition of ourselves isn't necessarily produced by consciously evaluating characteristics and deciding what they mean. The brain can generate that recognition through underlying cognitive processes that we can't directly access or explain.

So, when a child says "I'm a girl", of course we can ask what the word "girl" means to them. We can explore their understanding of sex, anatomy, social expectations and gender stereotypes. Those are all legitimate questions.
But the child's answers tell us about their conceptual understanding of the category. They don't necessarily explain the cognitive processes through which they came to identify with it.

My suggestion is that our capacity to recognise ourselves in relation to sex categories is influenced by underlying neurodevelopmental processes. Language and social learning provide the concepts through which that recognition can be understood and expressed, but the neurocognitive processes underlying the identification may themselves be rooted in the brain's underlying organisation, rather than simply acquired through social learning..