Custody battle in Texas over 7-year-old transgender

[pelmut]

Going to such a length would have to be justified by the severity of his gender identity disorder

It is not a disorder, it is a natural variation, like being left-handed or having green eyes.  It only looks like a disorder if society uses it as an excuse to cause problems.

...the route of social gender reassignment that involves deceiving the child or those with whom he/she comes into contact as to the child's true sex.

We have already agreed that for most purposes and to most people the child's sex is irrelevant, so why would anyone need to know it?  The child's gender is far more important in daily life and it is far better for the child, and everyone with whom he/she comes into contact, if the correct gender is used.  There does not need to be any deception because gender does not indicate sex.

[Grok]

In our society, we need to make space and for, and encourage toleration of, girlish boys and boyish girls as simply variants within the normal range.

I would quite agree with such toleration.

Actually, there has been a considerable toleration of Tomboys. But not so for boys with feminine interests.

[crfriend]

In our society, we need to make space and for, and encourage toleration of, girlish boys and boyish girls as simply variants within the normal range.

Precisely. This can -- and should at early ages -- happen outside the scope of clinical "diagnoses". Even young children are affected by social stereotype, and this is exacerbated when the stereotypes are constantly changing.

Here's an example. When I was a youngster, I was regarded as being slightly effeminate: I preferred cerebral challenge to sports, music to violence, and cooperation to competition -- yet was otherwise quite "normal" in that I worked with my hands a lot and was good at mechanical bits, fixing things, and creating things that went "boom" (which is what boys did at the time -- we learnt risk-management that way). Today that set of traits still persist and land me well out of being "masculine" puttng me right in the middle of trans-*. If I were a child today, I would likely be "professionally advised", based on the "diagnosis", that I would be candidate for "transition" -- which would be the worst possible outcome!

I went on into a man's adulthood and pursued computing -- against all the "professional advice" that could be brought to bear -- and I thrived on it. It's been one Hell of a rocket ride. What would have happened if the professionals decided I was a girl when I was five?

In short, stop moving the goalposts and celebrate natural variation instead of diagnosing it into assorted nonsense boxes -- especially for children.

[Fred in Skirts]

In our society, we need to make space and for, and encourage toleration of, girlish boys and boyish girls as simply variants within the normal range.

Precisely. This can -- and should at early ages -- happen outside the scope of clinical "diagnoses". Even young children are affected by social stereotype, and this is exacerbated when the stereotypes are constantly changing.
In short, stop moving the goalposts and celebrate natural variation instead of diagnosing it into assorted nonsense boxes -- especially for children.

Carl, I was also one who preferred music to violence as well as enjoying making meals in the kitchen, sewing and making all sorts of things that went off with a loud bang. (making home made gunpowder in the basement of our house and setting off in the back yard). I also enjoyed making things with my hands and old fashioned hand tools.
So if it were today I probably would be on all sorts of meds and in therapy with some shrink who had no idea what he is talking about.

[pelmut]

Today that set of traits still persist and land me well out of being "masculine" puttng me right in the middle of trans-*. If I were a child today, I would likely be "professionally advised", based on the "diagnosis", that I would be candidate for "transition" -- which would be the worst possible outcome!

I don't know of any country in the World where that would happen; being transgender is quite different from just not being stereotypically masculine.  A transgender person knows their real gender and, until recently, has had to fight tooth and nail to get any sort of help at all.

[crfriend]

A transgender person knows their real gender and, until recently, has had to fight tooth and nail to get any sort of help at all.

Meaning absolutely no offense, the question becomes, "From what frame of reference is one inferring their own gender from?" Today's? Yesterday's? Yesteryear's? Tomorrow's (which, unlike the others, requires careful extrapolation)? My supposition, since we're discussing childhood, is firmly rooted in the "present" (which has already shifted in the time it took me to write this). Face it, children are dealing with an incomplete tool-kit when it comes to this.

The crass opportunist in me would immediately pick up on the way that boys are, today, actively marginalized and immediately notice that isn't the path I want to follow. Is this a wise approach for society or an individual to take? Children are smart, and they're more crafty than adults give them credit for. They're also grand-masters at sniffing out unfairness in a system. How often you heard a child say, "But that's not fair!" only to have the parent say, "No, but you have to suck it up anyway."?

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

crfirend wrote:

If I were a child today, I would likely be "professionally advised", based on the "diagnosis", that I would be candidate for "transition" -- which would be the worst possible outcome!

From what I have read about gender and how transgenderism is treated today, I would agree 100% with the last part of your statement, that having you transition would have been or would be today the worst possible outcome.

That's why no reputable expert in the field -- either in terms of ethics or expertise -- would recommend that you transition to anything. She or he would reassure your parents that you're a perfectly normal boy with a different set of interests than his peers. SO WHAT?! If your parents went on to say, but he wants to wear skirts, the rejoinder would probably be, "And what would be the harm in that?" And that would be an honest question; there are circumstances where it might not be safe for a boy to be seen in a skirt.

Why am I so sure about this? Because what people who work in this field look for, before they judge a child is transgendered (In the sense they are what used to be called "transsexual." I know, "Being PC strikes again!" Get over it.) is "Consistence, Persistence, and Insistence." I'm quite sure that at whatever tender age you might have been taken in for this hypothetical evaluation you would have consistently and persistently insisted, "I. AM. A. BOY!!!" And well you should!

Hello Stu, et. al.,

Politically, Texas is a fairly conservative place. The ethos of the place can pretty accurately be typified by the expression, "Men are men! And women are women!" I.e., the Gender Binary isn't up for much debate. Consequently, when I say we should take the judge's judgement for the matter as very likely accurate, it's not because I have a naïve faith in the judicial system (for the record, I have sat on a number of juries.), it's because it is so unexpected for such a ruling to be made in a Texas court. It would be more likely that a Texas judge would rule that the child be ordered to wear a cowboy outfit until he got over this "I'm a girl," nonsense!

Sexual identity IS a matter of biology, chromosones and genitals. We're not talking about that; the court in Texas is trying to make a judgement about the child's gender identity, which is an entirely different matter altogether.

The experts in the field say that as young as 4, children know what their gender identity is and that it remains fixed. A biological boy who is 4 or older who says one day, "I'm a boy!", the next "I'm a girl!" and the day after that "I'm a giraffe!" should be allowed to dress as his imagination or curiosity dictates. It is indeed a typical phase. No knowledgeable person would see that as anything else. At most a sign of gender fluidity.

It seems to me that we simply aren't close enough to the situation to have reliable facts to refute the court's judgment.

It is also clear to me that many of you who are arguing with Pelmut and I are working off of your own experience or out of date information. Before this thread goes any further I am requesting that you read up on the subject before weighing in again. Once again I am recommending the January 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine as a good source for a good background for this whole complicated topic of Sex vs. Sexual Orientation vs. Gender Identity. The January issue was devoted to the topic of Gender but it includes articles on the distinctions amongst those 3 dimensions of personal identity, the biological influences on gender identity and, of course, the social influences. It even explains why we should take kids' word for it when the biological boy insists he's a girl and vice versa.

Perhaps the most pertinent sentence in the magazine is a quote from a 9-year-old transgendered girl, "The best thing about being a girl is, now I don't have to pretend to be a boy."

[Daryl]

-- the fact that she has 'boy bits' is an unfortunate biological anomaly which can be ignored for most of the time and treated sensitively on the few occasions when it matters.

You think saying that a person's body, the foundation of that person's very experience of existence, is "unfortunate" but can be "ignored most of the time" isn't cruel?

A transgender childs 'experience of existence' is not determined by its genitals unless adults keep insisting that it is something it knows it is not.  If they persist in doing that, it's 'experience of existence' turns to misery.  Most of the time, a child's genitals are not evident to others, so they can -- and should -- be ignored.

That's seriously messed up.

Society is seriously messed up if it has more interest in a child's genitals than in its happiness.

Society doesn't have an "interest in genitals". What a perverse, desperate rhetorical diversion, Pelmut; honestly.

All children's experience of existence is through their bodies, of which genitals are a part. Your "transgender" dogma has it that they can in fact be "wrong" parts. Who is focussed on genitals, exactly?

And the old, manipulative, "think of the children" rhetorical appeal...wow.

Society does have an interest in providing for children through collective acts, such as schools, appropriate pedagogies, sports, medical facilities, etc.. These are the reasons that the sex of children is of interest, not "interest in genitals". Society's interest in resisting introduction of the "trans/gender" narrative about genitals is protecting children from being steered down disastrous personal and collective paths by perhaps well-meaning but overly-conscientious (or overly-zealous) influencers such as teachers and other caregivers.

A child's idea of "what it is" is entirely informed by its experiences. People saying "good boy" or "good girl" alone will inform children of which words identify their sex, and a child will have no reason to even form the idea "that is wrong" except for the unnecessary baggage we add to the two sex categories; baggage like "boys don't wear dresses" and "girls don't play rough". Take away that baggage and there is no reason at all to even form the idea of being in a "wrong" body, because no misalignment between adult's expectations and the child's interests and urges can even be perceived. In the absence of sexed expectations, the body can't be seen to be at fault for the emotional pain of not living up to adult's expectations.

The solution to that baggage is not to educate children to the new trans/gender theology, but to cease enforcing the sexed behaviour expectations of the old theology. If a boy wants to wear a pretty dress, it's not because he has the wrong body; it's because he wants a pretty dress, full stop. Why can't we simply let him have the dress, or play with the doll, or whatever, without the metaphysical nonsense of "right" and "wrong" bodies, and without the religious idea that mind and body are separate (and therefore separable)?

I'll answer my own question. To the extent that we actually can't let go of our sexed expectations, it's because we want to keep our stereotypes alive. Transfolk in particular use those stereotypes strategically. Since we humans mostly hide our genitals, the first step in presenting oneself as a person of the other sex is visual presentation, and clothing is a huge part of that. (For men, a close shave comes next, then an artificially raised voice, replicating some of the neoteny of human females.)

The "gender/trans" narrative doesn't provide the only way out of the pain caused by sexed expectations. In fact, it's the dog in the manger preventing the rest of us from pursuing the course of reducing those sexed expectations. Why would we need to challenge our stereotypes when we can leave them pretty much intact if only we give in and adopt the gender/trans "solution" of body mutilation and proliferation of newspeak around sex?

[Daryl]

It is also clear to me that many of you who are arguing with Pelmut and I are working off of your own experience or out of date information. Before this thread goes any further I am requesting that you read up on the subject before weighing in again. Once again I am recommending the January 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine as a good source for a good background for this whole complicated topic of Sex vs. Sexual Orientation vs. Gender Identity. The January issue was devoted to the topic of Gender but it includes articles on the distinctions amongst those 3 dimensions of personal identity, the biological influences on gender identity and, of course, the social influences. It even explains why we should take kids word for it when the biological boy insists he's a girl and vice versa.

Sorry Pdx, but sincerely, you just did the equivalent of "read the right bible".

[Daryl]

In our society, we need to make space and for, and encourage toleration of, girlish boys and boyish girls as simply variants within the normal range.

I would quite agree with such toleration.

Actually, there has been a considerable toleration of Tomboys. But not so for boys with feminine interests.

Not so for boys overall, either. Boys are treated as defective girls in school, and that's a deeply systemic problem.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Hello Daryl,

WOW! Nobody wants to replace one kind of torture with another! OK?

As far as I can tell -- and I know a lot of gay, trans, etc. people and volunteer for a gay rights organization -- what nearly everyone in the Diversity spectrum would like better than anything else in the whole wide world is for all of this labeling and obsession therewith and the Gender Binary* especially to simply go away altogether!

That said, there will always be a distinct difference between men and women; there better be or the propagation of the species could be problematic!! Consequently, even if that enlightened day arrives, there will be a certain percentage of the population of children who will look at their private parts and say, "That's not right!" because their gender identity won't match their body. Full stop, as you all like to say. This won't be the result of a trans ideology -- we had transsexuals long before we had a word in English for it -- or any other social influence, it's simple biology. Nature loves diversity. It's a species survival mechanism.

All of that said, all of us know full well that the world will be a much happier place when we get rid of the sexual stereotypes. They're a perfect example of that old Civil Rights era saw, "No one is free, until everyone is free." We feel trapped by the social expectations that we'll almost always wear pants, except when it's exceptionally hot and then we might be allowed to wear shorts. Why? Because too much of our society is based on the cockeyed notion that women are somehow or another inferior to men and that if we were to dress as women do we would be degrading ourselves.

What I hear over and over again is that all of you want to break out of that prison. If so, then just do it! Stop thinking less of women. Stop imagining they're some kind of alien creatures with inscrutable power over us. (The answer to that one is right between your legs.) Or privileged characters with more legal rights than we have. (If you really believe that, say it out loud to a group of intelligent, educated, socially aware women.)

After you've taken that step, go out into the light of day dressed in whatever manner suits you. Try to show good taste and fashion sense, but wear that skirt, dress, blouse or high heels that you have been dying to. You've got more than enough examples of other men doing exactly that without repercussion. If we can do it, so can you! There's nothing that special about any of us.


*Gender Binary: the widespread, but totally false notion that men, all men or at least "real" men, are or should be one way in their interests, personality characteristics and sexual orientation and women are the polar opposite of all of those traits. And that's all there is to it. A corollary is that genitals are destiny and anything else is an offense against nature.

[pelmut]

Sorry Pdx, but sincerely, you just did the equivalent of "read the right bible".

The article he referred to appears to be based on science, current knowledge and the actual experiences of the people concerned; most of the erroneous beliefs previously expressed in this thread seem to have originated from the uninformed media or those deliberately spreading misinformation.  Are you suggesting that these are equally valid sources?

[pelmut]

A transgender person knows their real gender and, until recently, has had to fight tooth and nail to get any sort of help at all.

Meaning absolutely no offense, the question becomes, "From what frame of reference is one inferring their own gender from?" Today's? Yesterday's? Yesteryear's? Tomorrow's (which, unlike the others, requires careful extrapolation)? My supposition, since we're discussing childhood, is firmly rooted in the "present" (which has already shifted in the time it took me to write this). Face it, children are dealing with an incomplete tool-kit when it comes to this.

Gender is something fixed and deep down, which only the individual can know; it is the thing from which interaction with society comes, not a response to that interaction.  It is society which you have noticed changing, not your own personal gender.  You feel you need to do certain things in order for society to treat you in certain ways -- and then society moves the goal posts and you find you need to do different things. Throughout this process, your gender hasn't changed but you may have had to change your gender presentation.

Another change that might take place is a change in your understanding of your gender.  Until a few years ago I had only the fuzziest idea about gender and sex and the distinction between them.  As I understood more about the subject, I began to realise that my gender was actually more feminine than masculine -- and therefore wasn't, as I had previously believed, the same as my sex.  To an onlooker this might have looked as though I had changed my gender; I had been the same gender all along but just hadn't recognised it.

A friend of mine is 'bi-gender': fully feminine for a couple of weeks, then fully masculine for a similar period.  On occasions she has to go to formal functions as 'he' and it stresses her badly. One morning 'she' went out and the change occurred rapidly and unexpectedly, he couldn't get back home to change his clothes until much later that day and was in a state of shock for some time afterwards.  I visit him/her frequently and I can tell by his/her body language which mode he/she is in, even if he/she is not dressed appropriately for that mode.  There are subtle indications in his/her behaviour which I can pick up on, but which he/she doesn't appear to be aware of. I wouldn't be able to put my finger on a single reliable gender indicator and anything that applied to this one individual might not apply to another.    Technically his could be held up as an example of a gender that can change, but it is not under his/her control and this unstable binary state has shown no signs of altering throughout his/her lifetime.  

[crfriend]

Gender is something fixed and deep down, which only the individual can know; it is the thing from which interaction with society comes, not a response to that interaction. 

The problem there is that proper interaction is a two-way thing. When we interact with the world, we change it in some small way, and it changes us. That's unavoidable. So, unless we find that the direction the world is going quite abhorrent we'll move in that direction as much as the other way 'round.

It is society which you have noticed changing, not your own personal gender.

I'm aware of that, and part of it is that I'm not having a lick of what society thinks men should be, and I happen to find machismo repellent (as, likely, many, if not most, men do which is why we're now misclassified as trans-*). Thus I've dug my heels in on the matter; but, that does not stop the pressure to conform.

Another change that might take place is a change in your understanding of your gender.

I doubt that to be the case with me, and doubt it for any number of reasons. My personality has mellowed over the years which has had the welcome aspect of smoothing off a lot of the (very) rough edges, but I remain fundamentally who and what I was from when my brain first really woke up. I'm vastly more comfortable now, and that's down to me now having the power to resist those who would change me which I did not have as a child.

A friend of mine is 'bi-gender': fully feminine for a couple of weeks, then fully masculine for a similar period.  On occasions she has to go to formal functions as 'he' and it stresses her badly. One morning 'she' went out and the change occurred rapidly and unexpectedly, he couldn't get back home to change his clothes until much later that day and was in a state of shock for some time afterwards.

That sounds like something entirely bad, likely bordering on multiple personalities. I hope that individual is under proper care.

[Jim]

Gender is something fixed and deep down, which only the individual can know; it is the thing from which interaction with society comes, not a response to that interaction. 

That seems a fairly dogmatic statement. A recent Psychology Today article:

Everybody is Gender Fluid
If it’s true that language governs concepts, then clarifying our language around gender and sex could improve our understanding. Sex should refer to whether you are a male or female, whether you have an x- and a y-chromosome or two x-chromosomes. Gender should refer to whether you act masculine or feminine. It doesn’t have to be these particular words of course, but we really need two different words for these two things.
...
Behaviorally, gender refers to the repertoire of behaviors that were differentially established because of the person’s sex. Anything that is punished or rewarded when done by one sex but not by the other is gendered behavior, either masculine or feminine depending on which sex the behavior is "allowed" in.
...
Behaviorally, gender refers to the repertoire of behaviors that were differentially established because of the person’s sex. Anything that is punished or rewarded when done by one sex but not by the other is gendered behavior, either masculine or feminine depending on which sex the behavior is "allowed" in.
...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nder-fluid

Saying gender is fixed seems to be as much a matter of faith and dogmatism as to say gender is fixed and is the same as one's sex.