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”?

Oh, sure, sure. 😂 I’m sure if Einstein had come onto Mumsnet and explained his revolutionary theory that time itself stretches and contracts, that gravity literally changes how quickly time passes, and that two people can disagree about whether events happened simultaneously and both be right, you’d all have said, “Oh, absolutely! Of course! Gravitational time dilation! Makes perfect sense to anyone of reasonable intelligence!” 🤣🤣🤣

And that it was provable.

Tell that to all the blokes who say sissy porn made them trans.

It's funny how you never mention them.

What would constitute future proof in your eyes that a four year old boy has been born as completely female person in a male body?

I don’t remember Einstein proving anything based on how he felt about it, even if those feelings persisted.

ETA…but I’m just a shambling idiot with barely two brain cells to rub together…

Physicists of course being renowned for not wanting to prove anything, preferring the ‘it just is’ principle.

I imagine a large number of people absolutely don't think he believes it, but think he's trying to get us to believe it.

Yes. And that’s precisely the assumption I’m challenging.

No, actually that's the assumption you're making when you decided to affirm a boy who identifies as a "girl" as the kind of girl that you understand by the use of the word, instead of the kind of girl they understand.

Because you haven't asked them what they mean, and you're jumping to use your understanding of the word.

Do you get my point?

The longer it goes on the more like a man or possibly an autistic woman Lacksie sounds. The declaration of reading the "clever" book about time was a turning point.

My best guess is that they are male to female trans. I just don't buy this level of involvement in the subject without a very personal interest. We only normally see it in trans people and the parents of trans children.

I would insert a gif of Billie Piper singing 'Because We Want To' if I could find one, as it seems to be the entire gist of Lacksie's argument.

Yes. Being able to test a hypothesis, explain it, and offer proof in support is quite important.

And yet I can and have explained and evidenced gravitational time dilation to 16 year-olds.
You are confusing the intuition necessary to make the discovery with the intelligence needed to comprehend what has been discovered.

My god.

If a 4 year old doesn't know that what is in their pants makes them a girl or a boy, someone somewhere has let this child down.
This is all really important to safeguarding. See also "PANTS"**

If a 4 child old feels they can't play with certain things, or dress a certain way, or behave a certain way, or feel a certain way because of what is in their pants, someone, somewhere has let this child down.

SEND excepted, every Reception aged child I have taught and met (this is now in the thousands) knows (or will find out imminently) that they came from mummy's tummy, mummy is a girl, and girls grow up to be ladies who can (hopefully) have babies.

How on earth would you square that with a boy that says he's a girl?
Are you going to tell him he could maybe, just maybe have a baby in his tummy someday?
"Other girls might when they become ladies, but not you dear. Ever. Sorry 😬.)

**the NSPCC Talk PANTS scheme of work makes the anatomical difference between girls and boys explicit. The lesson plans handle this by teaching correct, scientific terms in a measured and structured way:
• Anatomical Distinctions: The resources guide teachers to explain that while boys and girls have many body parts that are exactly the same, their private parts are different.
• Specific Vocabulary: For boys, the lesson plans explicitly identify the private parts covered by underwear as the penis, testicles, and bottom. For girls, the private parts are explicitly identified as the vulva and bottom (with many lesson guides highlighting vagina alongside the vulva).
• Specific Vocabulary: For boys, the lesson plans explicitly identify the private parts covered by underwear as the penis, testicles, and bottom. For girls, the private parts are explicitly identified as the vulva and bottom (with many lesson guides highlighting vagina alongside the vulva).
• Addressing Questions (e.g., Nipples/Breasts): The official teacher guidance notes that if children ask why girls cover their chests but boys do not, teachers should give a simple explanation: as girls grow older, their nipples develop into breasts, which should be kept private.
The goal of the PSHE Association-accredited scheme is to remove ambiguity. By explicitly naming the specific anatomical parts for both girls and boys, children learn exactly what is meant by "Privates are private" so they can accurately report any unwanted or uncomfortable touch.

Yep, 🙋🏼‍♀️AI pasted cos I've had a long day.
But this is what approximately 20,000 UK primary schools will be teaching, or one of the many variants thereof, every year.

So is this child going to listen to the boy part or the the girl part? Delivery of accurate information related to their sexed body is crucial.

Again, you wouldn't be cleared to work with children.

If that were me, I'd be so uncomfortable sitting with that.

@Lacksie Since your suggestion that there will be a lightbulb moment at some time in the future as to the development of a trans child along the lines of Einstein's lightbulb moment about gravitational effect on time, I've been researching how Einstein came up with his theory.

The answer Google gave me included this:

"Einstein realized that being inside a uniformly accelerating frame of reference feels identical to standing in a gravitational field. If acceleration alters the passage of time (via special relativity), gravity must do the exact same thing"

Einstein took observable, measurable physical effects and drew up a theory around an already mathematically tested principle to suggest that time was altered by gravity. That step was not a huge departure from what was already believed. "Gravity feels like acceleration, so it should do the same to time as acceleration does".

So, since it was a comparison that you made, can you please point me to either the mathematical models or the measurable physical effects that lead you to believe that a completely new* answer to why a boy might feel that he was a girl will come to light? You would think that the number of brains focusing on this issue for the length of time they have been, and the pressure from the trans lobby to have one, that there would be some move towards it by now?

*new, because there are multiple known and researched paths into gender dysphoria already, you are suggesting a different and currently completely unknown one.

We observe that boys grow up to be men and girls women. We observe that women become pregnant and men do not.

The words boy, girl, man, woman, male and female describe this process.

If gender identity exists, it is doesnt negate the need for these words. A boy who has 'female' gender identity is still going to grow to be a man and will never be pregnant.

You acknowledged this earlier in the thread. Then suggested that we could all have a different definition of these words. Now you are saying we may discover alternative definitions of these words? That the boy is maybe correct and he is a girl and will become a woman?

But we still need words to describe the people who could potentially become pregnant and the people who could potentially impregnate, dont we?

Any discovery we find in the future will not change who has the potential to become pregnant. The boy with the gender identity is never going to be of the class of people with the potential to become pregnant.

I agree, however I think @Lacksie said her youngest (4) has GDD so maybe some of the conversations have needed to accomdate that

I think they were two separate daughters if I remember correctly!

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?
Genuinely, I'm not being a dick.

Do you mean a child might have barriers to understanding that?
When I say SEND excepted I don't mean we just don't bother doing everything we can to safeguard the child. We have to take a different approach.

I think we’re in agreement! I was under the impression that Lacksie’s DD has GDD so yes, a different approach may be needed and may impact on how her DD talks about being a girl. It’s got a bit confusing because Lacksie has several daughters

Sorry, yes - following you now 😊
It is a bit confusing

As hopefully Lackie knows - across the huge spectrum of SEND, there will be some children who may never understand that boys have penises and girls have vaginas.
But they do need to know which one they have, if that's possible.
Regardless of whether they know why.

Safeguarding, innit?

People having an innate dislike of, or alienation from, bits of their body seems to be a thing that happens, and not only in situations where gender identity can be dragged into it.

If the bits concerned are not sex organs or secondary sex characteristics, there is nothing to muddy the waters: they are a whole human being and want to be/ identify as a damaged one. Society - and even the person concerned, if they are not too far gone in obsession- can see that this is an aberration and not a reason for someone to be affirmed and given surgery to become a different "authentic self".

If they are sex-related bits, the waters are being muddied, because there appears to be a valid alternative "self" to be, i.e. a member of the opposite sex. There's actually nothing inevitable about the inference that a brain glitch in relation to a body part that happens to be sex-related means you in some way really belong to the opposite sex. Nor can surgery and hormones actually deliver this.

And Einstein's theories, and Schroedinger's, included equations. I'll take weird philosophy and sociology more seriously when they are backed up like Physics. (I do accept that some Physics hypotheses are very speculative, but Physicists tend to know the difference.)

With gender identity, I think ideas such as Occam's razor are useful. A simple model that explains everything is more likely than one which requires the mind, which is notoriously unreliable, to provide evidence that overrides the observable and readily testable physical characteristics of all people.

Good grief.

Of course my daughter knows she has a vulva and a bottom. She knows and uses the correct anatomical terminology for her own body and understands bodily privacy.

What I actually said was that her understanding of herself as a girl isn’t something she consciously derives from her genital anatomy.This is entirely developmentally normal. Children can recognise and identify themselves as boys or girls without grounding that understanding in knowledge of anatomical sex differences. These are two different things.

As for PANTS, perhaps you should read the actual NSPCC resources rather than relying on an AI-generated account of them. PANTS is a safeguarding programme. Its purpose is to teach children about bodily privacy, boundaries and inappropriate touching, including the correct anatomical terminology for private body parts. It doesn’t purport to explain what makes someone a boy or a girl, let alone require children to understand themselves in terms of their genital anatomy.

Your hypothetical about telling a four-year-old that they will never be able to have a baby is bizarre. Do you really imagine that a child’s understanding of being a girl must be founded on the expectation that she will one day give birth? 😱🥴🫠

Finally, suggesting that I wouldn’t be cleared to work with children on the basis of your own misunderstandings - well better not to dignify that with a response.

And since you apparently think it’s relevant, my four-year-old daughter does not have SEND.

“perhaps you should read the actual NSPCC resources rather than relying on an AI-generated account of them.”

Just in case you were not aware, any school teaching children of that age group has a compliance obligation to ensure any staff will have had regulatory training and testing on particular teaching resources. Even administrative staff, will need to have read set resources. There will likely be a yearly set of training that teachers will have just done or will be finishing soon.

HPE has just posted that they are a teacher of that age group. I doubt that any school would allow a staff member who works with that group to continue in the role without doing the intensive training and CBT testing on safeguarding.

Making an accusation that HPE has not read the resource doesn’t even make sense in light of what was posted. All HPE posted was that they use an AI generator to summarise it after a long day at work. That was not an admission that HPE has never read the resource’s relevant section.

Well she doesn't seem to understand them. Since PANTS is a safeguarding programme whose purpose is to teach children about bodily privacy, boundaries and inappropriate touching, including the correct anatomical terminology for private body parts. Not explain that their genital anatomy "makes" them a boy and girl.

She also claims to have taught 16 year olds gravitational time dilation...