pelmut wrote:Daryl wrote:pelmut wrote:-- 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?