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”?

We have on the one side an explanation of male and female based on genetics that we could describe in a few words to an alien

and on the other side, we have a concept of male and female that can not be described to native speakers of English ?

I think you’re rather lost here. Asking whether gender incongruence might exist in a hypothetical world where a child is raised by wolves and never encounters another human being is (a) an impossible question to answer and (b) of little relevance to the world we actually inhabit, where human beings develop within social relationships and societies.

You seem to have conflated three entirely separate questions: whether gender incongruence exists, how we understand its development, and what constitutes appropriate clinical care for children and adolescents experiencing it.

Of course we have a responsibility to ensure that clinical interventions are evidence-based, proportionate and informed by a careful assessment of potential benefits and harms. But that responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can answer your hypothetical question about a child raised by wolves.

You seem to have conflated three entirely separate questions: whether gender incongruence exists, how we understand its development, and what constitutes appropriate clinical care for children and adolescents experiencing it.

So... the existence of a condition and it's cause - its aetiology - are irrelevant considerations when deciding if treatment is appropriate and what it should be?

I don't think you believe that.

Yes. And I've seen some of the messy videos uploaded to social media. It's a very tragic case. And of course Susie Green is still making money out of doing the same harm to other children, despite the NHS warning:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/updated-guidance-to-primary-care-about-unregulated-providers-who-supply-hormone-medications-to-children-and-young-people-for-gender-incongruence/

'Anne Trans Healthcare Ltd
Anne Trans Healthcare Ltd is a UK based company, though its clinical team is based overseas. It is not registered with the Care Quality Commission.
It describes itself as “a subscription service which coordinates therapeutic and medical support for individuals experiencing gender incongruence through referrals to healthcare professionals”. It offers access to overseas healthcare professionals, and its website states that it offers services which include “puberty blockers for individuals of all ages, including those under 18.”
As has been noted above, and subject to narrow exceptions, the sale or supply by private prescription of GnRH analogues to children and young people under 18 years for the purposes of puberty suppression and as a treatment for gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria contravenes the Government’s restrictions on their prescription and is contrary to the aims of the NHS clinical policy position.
The company’s published terms and conditions has the disclaimer that “Anne is not responsible for the quality of care, advice, or any prescriptions or medication provided to you/the Minor (if applicable) by any Independent Healthcare Professional”.'

The aetiology of a condition is an interesting and important scientific question, but it isn’t necessarily the most relevant consideration when determining appropriate treatment, particularly when we’re a long way from establishing definitive answers.

We don’t have a complete understanding of the aetiology of all sorts of conditions, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t treat them. Someone close to me has recently developed Parkinson’s disease, for example. We don’t fully understand its aetiology. Does that mean she shouldn’t receive medication to manage her symptoms? My youngest child is autistic. Do I know the precise aetiology of her autism? No. Does that mean she shouldn’t receive the support she needs?

Clinical decisions are informed by evidence about a condition’s presentation, prognosis, and the potential benefits and harms of available interventions. A complete understanding of its aetiology isn’t a prerequisite for providing appropriate care.

And as for your hypothetical about a child raised by wolves, I’m not sure what you think it would establish. We might ask - would a child raised without human contact develop language? Almost certainly not in the ordinary way. Does that tell us that language has no biological basis, or that it isn’t a real aspect of human development? Of course not.

Human development involves complex interactions between biological processes and social experience. Even if we could establish whether a child raised by wolves would experience gender incongruence, that wouldn’t tell us whether gender incongruence is real, whether it has a biological basis, or what constitutes appropriate clinical care for people who experience it. At most, it might tell us something about the role of social experience in its development

Anne Trans Healthcare Ltd seems to have branched off into Anne Wellbeing Ltd as of Sept 2026

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/17466967

And Anne Health is now registered in Estonia.

'Copyright 2026 Anne Health. Anne Health is a trading name of Enna Limited OÜ, registered in Estonia (Company No. 17512388).
Registered Office: Harju maakond, Tallinn, Nõmme linnaosa, Pärnu mnt 388b, 11612 Estonia.'

From that description, I have no idea whether your child is male or female. This is not helped by the nonsensical convention that "trans boy" means someone female who claims to be male and "trans girl" means someone male who claims to be female. I don't know whether you are following this convention or not.

The importance of the thought experiment about a child raised by wolves is that it drives a coach and horses through the idea that trans is "innate". It's blindingly obvious that it's a social issue, and that jumping straight to pharmacological solutions to social issues is reckless, to put it at it's most neutral.

You said earlier that the aetiology of a condition is "unconnected" to its treatment. Now you've rowed back to not "the most relevant consideration". I don't agree with that - if not the only consideration, it's certainly the most sensible starting point.

We don't understand fully the aetiology of lots of diseases: but those trying to develop treatments for them would never say they're irrelevant, or decide that trying to understand their aetiology is merely an interesting footnote to their work, rather than a vital source of information and our best hope for effective treatments. I'm genuinely surprised you're so cavalier about it in the case of young people with gender dysphoria.

Your thought experiment doesn’t drive a coach and horses through anything. human development involves complex interactions between biological processes and social experience. Language is an obvious example. A child raised without human contact wouldn’t develop language normally. Does that mean our capacity for language isn’t innate, or that language is simply a social construct? Of course not.

You’re also presenting a false dichotomy between biological and social phenomena, as though something influenced by social experience cannot have a biological basis. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of human development.

Finally, even if you could establish that gender incongruence was entirely socially determined, which you haven’t, that wouldn’t in itself tell us whether pharmacological interventions were appropriate. That question requires evidence about their effectiveness, risks and benefits, not assumptions about whether the underlying phenomenon is biological or social

I haven’t suggested that understanding aetiology is unimportant to medical research. However, understanding of a condition’s aetiology isn’t a prerequisite for providing effective treatment.

I have no trouble believing in gender incongruence. As a child I felt alienated from the more feminine portrayals of girls and women. I used to make up boys’ names for myself and wear my brother’s clothes. Thankfully, I grew up in a time where being a ‘Tom boy’ was perfectly okay and no one suggested I was trapped in the wrong body. George from the Famous Five was my role model. When I reached puberty I (eventually) made peace with my physical body and embrace my femininity. In my view, inventing the ‘solution’ (surgical and hormonal treatments) has created the problem (and the market). I am straight but it’s well established that a childhood feeling of gender incongruence is more common and stronger in people who will grow up to be same sex attracted. I’ve seen this play out in children I know in two ways. Either they are allowed to express themselves freely and they grow up as gender non-conforming and same sex attracted, or the adults in their lives decide they are trans and they go down that path.

Her child is clearly assigned female, but told her he was a boy age four, and is a trans man. That's clear from what she wrote. I'm not sure why it's not clear to you?

There are very ,very good reasons why society shouldn't just "accept" most importantly the medicalisation of gender questioning children, leading to harmful hormonal and surgical interventions, creating lifelong patients. We absolutely do "need to understand" - seeing as the trans umbrella covers everyone from teenage autistic girls who may be struggling with hormonal mood disturbance ,sensory issues around periods and finding themselves same sex attracted, to the middle aged married-with-children cross dressing men to trans school shooters and paedophiles. If it was a case of just accepting that people have differences in ideas and experiences of gender identity ,most of us could be on board with this but sadly it's not.

That's not gender incongruence. Thats (at most) gender non conformity. Tonnes of women / girls have that experience, I certainly did. It's not the same thing at all as being trans.

How do you know?

but told her he was a boy age four

Told a friend she was a boy. Let that sink in. A four year old girl told another four year old she was a boy and Lo! she's a boy from then on.

And somehow it’s us who are wrong for “not getting it”.

from her description. That description doesn't describe anything like the experience of gender incongruence: it's a description of a very ordinary and commonplace reaction to gender norms/ roles/ stereotypes.

A four year old girl told another four year old she was a boy and Lo! she's a boy from then on

Are toy suggesting you really believe that's how simple it was in real life? Come on be serious now,

What she appeared to write is a tale of a woman who found it almost impossible to relate to having a female child. Something she appears to relate to being ‘a feminist’. But sure, parental interaction with children has zero influence.

She was simply trying to explain that she wasn't into gender stereotypes and that stereotypes had nothing to do with her child being trans.

Notice also how the child is able to 'outwardly' be the girly girl 'his' gran always wanted. So the child is described as performing the role of 'girl' for gran. It is never considered that the child might actually be performing the role of 'boy' for mum.

I think you are guilty of "gatekeeping". You are also on record as saying that gender dysphoria isn't the same as, or a necesary precondition to being, "trans". So it gets hard to understand what your opinions are.

Language is an obvious example. A child raised without human contact wouldn’t develop language normally. Does that mean our capacity for language isn’t innate, or that language is simply a social construct? Of course not.

Language is not the same as capacity for language. King James I thought a child brought up without hearing a mother tongue would. naturally speak Hebrew, the language of God and the bible; obviously that experiment failed. So no, language is not innate. Nor is a sense of what sex you are, let along the sense that you're the "wrong" sex.

I still want to know if not from observing and interacting with others, how a girl came to the conclusion that she is "a boy". From inside herself, we are told. And the parent involved hasn't responded, which is an answer in itself.

Well how does a four year old girl confiding to another child her own age even remotely result in that child being “trans” other than the parents taking it seriously?

Essentially, parents have to justify why they decided to do what they did with that knowledge, and “just trans” is so pathetically weak as an explanation. It requires a much deeper explanation to explain how any adult took that declaration as indicative of anything other than a four year old’s imagination at work.

I think the answer is obviously that any “identifying” as a girl has much more to do with the adults in the child’s life than any innate sense of gender. Otherwise you’re just a boy who likes playing with dolls/ dressing like Elsa/ wearing sparkly hair clips / hanging out with girls or whatever other reason people have for nudging a child down the we always knew he was a girl due to him doing xyz.

I have read all of your posts on all the threads on this topic. If I didn't know better, I would interpret your collective posts as a story of a mother who actively transed their daughter against her will. But I would never accuse you of that because I may have misunderstood your posts.