File: 1611788318856.png (37.59 KB, 811x793, 811:793, 2535967.png) ImgOps Google
People wish to protect children from transgendering; they wish not to have children sexualized or exposed to adult issues too early. I can not argue against protecting children, no one can ague for sexual expression in children who can neither understand nor consent to that sort of thing. And I can't figure that 'trans' or 'cis' is the issue, we are not to be prejudiced in that way. What remains is that gender is inappropriate. I know it is conventional to use gender for children, but sometimes convention is wrong. Does ethics require all children be referred to as 'it' until they reach the age of consent when they may choose an appropriate gender?
I see. Something else is preferred.>>8663
I take it the theory is that it's most healthy to require an assignment of gender to children. I don't know what system is imagined. Some systems, I believe, would require checks by those who might use gender for children that I don't feel are appropriate to mention.>>8664>too big a step
I believe there's a phrase that can help: "Save the Children." I think it allows many possibilities that would not otherwise be available.
But anyway, you take my idea as sound, just perhaps that intermediate steps are required. I don't know that you have many intermediates between "gender: something", and "gender: not applicable". Perhaps we can think about it.
File: 1611972259517.jpg (106.42 KB, 500x628, 125:157, zergface-ce6.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Gun-control laws intended to protect children can still be illegal (i.e., unconstitutional) if they infringe the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
File: 1612050854971.jpeg (122.88 KB, 394x814, 197:407, 1308191.jpeg) ImgOps Google
OK, so a qualification: provided guns are safe from restriction, we may [Save/Think of] the Children. Probably there are a few other qualifications in American culture.
But I think we might be OK. I know of no theories of child gender that involves weapons of that kind, in any necessary way, at least.
So back to the issue, some would say putting a boy in a dress is exploitation. Must be equally exploitative to put a girl in a dress. We can both simplify things and put an end to such claims.
File: 1612068370226.png (563.37 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 456.png) ImgOps Google
Is your argument that society should move towards a postgender society in that the gender binary has been done away with and people identify not as man or woman and have moved to use more personal and accurate descriptors?
If so then my only major criticisms of your wording are as follows:
The use of "protect the children" is an appeal to emotion is does far more harm than good. It would be better to show how children and adults would benefit from gender abolition, rather than hiding behind the shield.
I would never recommend the use of "it" as a pronoun. It de-persons individuals and comes off as rather dismissive, at best, and
hostile at worst.
File: 1612154735434.gif (1.75 MB, 250x336, 125:168, tenor.gif) ImgOps Google
Language can be very subtle with a lot of room for nuance. Why not just come up with a way of nuancing that allows us to inform others of what package the kid has (pecker or taco), and then leave the gender itself a coming of age thing for them to discover when they are ready, and celebrate it like the way we do birthdays.
I think this would also allow for more practical things, like how a doctor has to know what junk you have in order to give you the best care.
File: 1612171058113.png (402.37 KB, 701x1024, 701:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google
>>8673>society should move towards a postgender society
Not really. While there are issues, adults are mature enough to pick what they want and some might want gender, and I'm not arguing against that.>the use of "protect the children" is an appeal to emotion is does far more harm than good.
I haven't really painted an enemy. It's not getting much traction, tbh.>I would never recommend the use of "it" as a pronoun. It de-persons individuals and comes off as rather dismissive, at best, and
hostile at worst.
Suppose we want a pronoun that says, gender: not applicable, but still a person. Which has to be different from someone who reaches the age of consent and chooses to be agendered. At least a different concept.>>8676
That would have to be protected. At least on private property where the parents approve.>>8678
Basically. We don't code blood type into pronouns and doctors manage to determine the information when necessary. Not sure it needs to be nuance necessarily, just restricted to need-to-know.>>8679
I think you bring up two ideas: complexity and convention.
File: 1612309155839.png (124.13 KB, 334x422, 167:211, 2511140.png) ImgOps Google
They/them has existed as a nongendered singular pronoun for awhile comrade.
File: 1612541309725.png (393.36 KB, 2000x2500, 4:5, fdaa113.png) ImgOps Google
>>8673>I would never recommend the use of "it" as a pronoun. It de-persons individuals and comes off as rather dismissive, at best, and >hostile at worst.
You might just mean in terms of deciding a pronoun on someone else's behalf - in which i completely agree. But i know a few people who go by "it/it's" and i'd consider doing it myself if it weren't such a hassle for people to respect such a decision. They're pretty awesome pronouns for the right people!
File: 1612558982699.jpeg (97.3 KB, 854x480, 427:240, 25.jpeg) ImgOps Google
It is what I meant.
If an individual identifies as such of their own volition then I will be happy to call them it.
Just had a lot of people call me an "it" for a time and I found it hurtful because of my own personal identity.
I have identities that are sometimes applied to people to degrade them, but I don't intend to degrade myself, quite the opposite. So sometimes things are complicated.
File: 1612725861693.png (460.9 KB, 2200x2900, 22:29, d687ca8.png) ImgOps Google
It's probably better not to degrade people. Being critical of beliefs and actions is one thing, but degrading someone is unacceptable.
File: 1612901642616.jpeg (58.36 KB, 982x726, 491:363, I HATE ME THIGHS.jpeg) ImgOps Google
or, hear me out, you could just keep things as they are but just not punish kids for not being what you want them to be based on their identities. treat your kid as what they want to be until they tell you otherwise, then treat them accordingly based on that. all these mental gymnastics people do to beat around the bush are just avoiding the fact that if a lot of parents stopped being shitty, this "issue" wouldn't be an issue in the first place. asking to respect someone's pronouns is a whole different leap to "abolish gender entirely.">no one can ague for sexual expression in children who can neither understand nor consent to that sort of thing.
would also just like to point out that putting baby girls in shirts that say "daddy's girl" and shit like that is absolutely a thing, too, so don't even pretend like people don't do that. same reason why three year old me, who is a boy, immediately got asked if a female friend was my girlfriend because we sat next to each other. it's not the kids who are the problem with this shit.>>8664
basically this yeah tbh
Silly Squirrel is a really good name. :)
You have a model that may work for some.>they tell you otherwise, then treat them accordingly based on that
Some are pretty upset by this possibility, in the interest of protecting children, either from sexual fetishism or one child attacking another because of their gender. My system makes transgendering children quite impossible, so there would be no reason to be upset.>baby girls in shirts that say "daddy's girl" and shit like that is absolutely a thing
You mean, assigning gender quite young. Even at birth, yes, that's the convention, I believe.>female friend was my girlfriend because we sat next to each other
Perhaps made to be funny due to the degree romance is invalid in children. Hyperbole.
File: 1613094972065.png (147.51 KB, 1280x526, 640:263, large.png) ImgOps Google
>>8694>Should people stop naming their child until they're old enough to decide for themselves?
Or should we start to come up with new alien-like names devoid of gender?
I'm a bit partial to serial numbers, but I don't think I'd need to over-regulate the process of identifying individual children. It is enough that children will be protected from the predatory boy gender and the girl gender that attracts male interest.>Everyone wearing a white plain body suit until they're 18?
In my mind it was gray, but white will do as well. I expect far enough in the future cloths won't matter as much, but a neutral color to start would be best.
For practicality, what would be done when assigning a name to the child?
You remove the idea of gender from names and then if the child wants to pick a different name when they are older you help in that transition. >And what should be done with clothes and such? Everyone wearing a white plain bodysuit until they're 18?
Again you remove the attachment that society places on clothes and let people wear what they want.
File: 1613605485956.gif (1.97 MB, 540x540, 1:1, 1598993629224.gif) ImgOps Google
forgot i posted here
you are totally correct that there is no concept of romance in young kids, my point was more why were my parents projecting it onto me when I, as a kid, could knowingly have no concept of it? but I suppose that was maybe a bit off topic
and no, I don't mean just "assigning gender quite young" i'm talking about the imprinting of behaviours. so your kid is a girl, so you dress her in that shit. is there a shirt for "daddy's boy"? sounds kinda weird right?>Some are pretty upset by this possibility, in the interest of protecting children, either from sexual fetishism
so you think the primary people that society should be accommodating is people who sexually fetishize kids? someone shouldn't allowed to be themselves because a fucking paedophile might get off on it? many of them get off on cis kids, so like... do we just cancel kids altogether or what? >or one child attacking another because of their gender.
if kids have no concept of romance, as you said, what makes you think they know the concept of attacking each other over gender politics? To be brutally honest, you can grow up cis as fuck but kids are still going to bully other kids over anything they can. because they are different to them. It seems a bit unfair to encourage not allowing transition to avoid kids being bullied over it. like, if that's the case, let's ban fat or poor kids from schools period til they either get rich or lose weight, since they are being attacked over that too.
File: 1613654978630.png (292.63 KB, 441x583, 441:583, Screenshot from 2021-02-18….png) ImgOps Google
>>8701>so your kid is a girl, so you dress her in that shit.
Right, there's various studies showing how people treat infants, even varies by assigned gender.>is there a shirt for "daddy's boy"? sounds kinda weird right?
People get called a mama's boy, but I'm not sure it's flattering. A quick image search shows it's less common as a shirt. And yes, it's weirder in any way but daddy's girl.>so you think the primary people that society should be accommodating is people who sexually fetishize kids?
The idea would be...not to enable them or make it easier. The response depends a bit on whether you see gender as imposed from without. If so, you'd ask why should we expose children to the unnecessary thing, when it will in some cases be problematic or tempting. We all know the only cause of a theft is a robber; no one else is responsible for the crime, yet people lock doors.>many of them get off on cis kids, so like... do we just cancel kids altogether or what?
My argument is to cancel gender. So kinda.>what makes you think they know the concept of attacking each other over gender politics?
The particular reason is that this is the concern people raise when talking about transgender girl children enter girl-only spaces. I take it to mean, predatory boy gender behavior must be trained fairly early. (Or the concerns are irrational, but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure I'm willing to entertain the idea that, say, a child born with a Y chromosome is born a predator. That would be sexist in a way nobody can intend.)>let's ban fat or poor kids from schools period til they either get rich or lose weight, since they are being attacked over that too.
I'm in favor of not using the labels 'fat' and 'poor' for kids. Kids...probably will always find some way to create a hierarchy, but I suppose you could say people who work with kids try to make it harder for them to hurt the weaker or less popular children.
I'm generally torn on this issue. On one hand, i think society places way too much emphasis on gender, and that has and does create very real problems in society, from voting rights to domestic abuse to law enforcement to custody battles; De-emphasizing gender would be, therefore, a good thing across the board, imho.
On the other hand, kids are going to gravitate to and figure out these ideas on their own, anyway. Technology only makes it more difficult to insulate children from anything, and kids are going to try and find their place in the world and emulate adults regardless of how much we try to de-emphasize things. Kids are also shitty by their very nature. It takes a lot less time and effort to acclimatize to a social environment than it does to painstakingly develop your own meaningful sense of morality, and this is doubly true for children who must cater to the whims of a hodgepodge of conflicting authority figures in order to get by on a day-to-day basis. Kids are shitty, and it's not their fault, and there's nothing to be done about it except to make the tools for moral development readily available and trying to establish a proper balance between crushed quiet and spoiled rotten, a daunting feat for the best of people.
My long-winded point being, i think trying to dictate what gender should or should not be for a child is a loosing battle, though i am largely of the opinion that until you hit puberty, you might as well be a genderless blob who is still trying to figure out how to be a person. They'll experiment with social concepts regardless of what we do, because that's likely hardwiring that keeps us alive, especially in our current socially-driven society, entirely too ingrained and vital to remove, or to want to remove.
At a fundamental level, we as Americans need to turn gender identity into something like eye color, hair color, height, shoe size, and the like. Children aren't beaten black and blue for being seen as too tall. Apartment dwellers aren't kicked out by their landlords for having the wrong hairstyle. Nobody gets sexually assaulted walking home at night as a result of how their eyes look.
While I don't necessarily think that the concept of 'gender' and the related labels should be abolished, clearly the notions of 'gender requirements', 'gender roles', 'gender stereotypes', and the like should fade away. Getting rid of the pseudoscientific and disproven concept of the inherent 'gender binary' in the first place and recognizing that since every human being is unique that they express themselves in varying ways, with gender as an identity being more akin to spirituality, political ideologies, personality types, and the rest... complex shades of colors rather than black versus white? That change would also be fantastic.
Thankfully, in my opinion, this is happening. Younger generations are less prejudiced. Children are, as the cliché goes, the future. They should and often are get to have more freedom to be themselves.>>8673
I agree with this.>>8678
This is also getting at something important.>>8679
I don't think this mindset makes sense. The vast majority of Americans are Christian. However, we don't structure laws and general rules under the assumption that everybody has to be a religious person at all, let alone narrowly a devout Christian. For example, public schools don't have public Christian prayers for students to learn and religious nonprofits don't receive taxpayer funding to promote devotional causes. Similarly, few Americans are physically disabled. Yet all manner of facilities are created due to government mandate in order to help, say, blind individuals. As a matter of law, blind folks can pay their taxes, attend public colleges, apply for welfare assistance, start small businesses, and otherwise do everything in society that sighted people can due to that latter group being mandated to provide reasonable accommodation. When it comes to gender roles, similarly, shouldn't society (especially when it comes to things tied to the government) be neutral and with malice toward none, charity to all?>>8692
This is getting at something important, but I still feel like going for a kind of post-gender society is an important goal.
The post that I was responding to (>>8678
) was talking about language, not law. Law is extremely rigid; language is not. I have no problem with labeling some shopping aisles as "boys' toys" and others as "girls' toys", whereas I would have a problem with a law that limits certain toys to only certain genders.>to provide reasonable accommodation
That's basically what I meant when I said "The edge case can be dealt with manual exception handling.".
I generally think that everyone in the world could benefit from simply acknowledging the reality of physical gender dysphoria.
It's actually kinda disengenuous to ignore it, I think. I honestly have always hated having to justify my existence in terms of theory. I just experience what I experience and I can't explain it cause it's not something I could explain. And because it's an entirely subjective experience, I can't prove to anyone that I experience it, but I am expected to justify it with theory in order for people to accept it legitimately happens. Or otherwise they just have an impossible standard of evidence I am expected to meet.
That sounds like potentialy a case of hermeneutical injustice, see linked wiki article for an a more detailed explanation but in short, it's when someone cannot understand their own experiences because they are prevented from knowing of others who may have have similar experiences.
Preventing a child from knowing about the existence of something like gender dysphoria when they're experiencing it is basically hermeneutical injustice.
I mean, my point earlier was that I was experiencing what I was experiencing since I was a child, it doesn't matter what someone thinks was inappropriate for me to know about, it didn't change the fact I was experiencing gender dysphoria as a child.
So how us it just to prevent other children who experience what I did as a child from being able to understand that experience when understanding or not has no bearing on whether or not it's happening?
>>9362>I was experiencing gender dysphoria as a child.
Did adults force you to exist as a gender when a child?>what someone thinks was inappropriate for me to know about
Well, there won't be magic that happens at 18 that turns on feelings of gender and sexuality. I guess for reasons of judging what is legal, appropriate, and safe, people believe in creating a line. The consequences of keeping children innocent -- which might be confusion about anatomy or feelings in childhood -- is worth the cost, which has something to do with irreparable psychological harm or grooming for rape by adults.
File: 1622865210174.jpg (49.32 KB, 640x500, 32:25, gun-1934-school-shootings.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Over time, I've learned that people making an argument like "Think of children!" is usually a sign that whatever they're arguing for is wrong.
File: 1622865402696.jpg (81.31 KB, 1500x1177, 1500:1177, sous-vide-chicken-guide-pa….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
The reason is likely that people get too emotional about children and let emotion cloud their reason.
I feel there's probably an uncomfortable discussion on paedophilia to draw from this as well.
Or to a more reasonable extent, the way kids can be assumed to have agency over things.
I mean that there's definitely things where our protective attitude towards children might be warranted.
Or not, in which case we have some unsavoury taboos.
>>9363>Did adults force you to exist as a gender when a child?
But gender dysphoria doesn't always work the way I anticipate you to reply with. It has to do with my body
, not just
how I was forced to be raised. It's not like I was allowed to know that what I experienced was something other people experienced as well. >>9363>The consequences of keeping children innocent -- which might be confusion about anatomy or feelings in childhood -- is worth the cost, which has something to do with irreparable psychological harm or grooming for rape by adults.
This sounds like a massive
slippery slope fallacy if I've ever seen one.
How do you distinguish?>>9374>It has to do with my body, not just how I was forced to be raised.
So my proposal would only go part way. So it would be necessary that children are trained enough to be able to report symptoms of this kind of gender dysphoria.>massive slippery slope fallacy
I think most everyone can agree nudity/sex/violence/etc. is bad for kids. What would you write as the reason?
File: 1623040503126.jpg (165.39 KB, 900x1157, 900:1157, 08da46efa99eb1029bdca5d4e1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>9377>I think most everyone can agree nudity... is bad for kids.
Nudists would certainly disagree with that. And personally, I don't see any reason why non-sexual nudity would be bad for kids.
Uh, yeah, it's a fallacy regardless of how many think of it like that.
There are transgender kids, and gender dysphoria can effect them, it's not just an adult issue.
And a slippery slope fallacy is a fallacious assumption of cause and effect. You implied that teaching a kid about the existence of transgender people, and of gender in general would lead to situations where adults could/would commit various forms of sexual assault against children. But this doesn't logically follow, and the fact that it's a fear (rooted in fear mongering) that's common in some sections of society doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's true. There are also sections of society who believe in logically impossible and untestable conspiracy theories as well, and that has no bearing on whether or not those are true either.
I'm middle aged, when I was a child in the 1980s I was explicitly taught that boys have penises and girls have vaginas, by my mother, that didn't lead to any sexual assault or for that matter did it involve any nudity or anything like that. And in recent decades, my sister-in-law taught her kids that transgender people exist and explained to them what gender dysphoria was without having to use any references to sexual acts or any exposure to nudity whatsoever, basically to explain my existence to them. All it required was to explain that I feel a chronic discomfort with the sex of my body and that I am seeking to alter it for that reason, that's it, no more details than that.
>>9387>There are transgender kids
If such is allowable, I would have no argument against genders for children in general.>it's a fear (rooted in fear mongering) that's common in some sections of society doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's true
I'm not sure. For social things, beliefs usually make things true. At least until the beliefs are about things scientific. Presumably science doesn't care about beliefs, things are true and false objectively. But I'm not authorized to apply science to human minds.>taught her kids that transgender people exist and explained to them what gender dysphoria
If you consider such safe, I suppose that can have as much meaning as strangers on the internet who consider such unsafe. Perhaps some kind of average would be appropriate.
>>9388>If such is allowable, I would have no argument against genders for children in general.
I mean, that's the question you're raising in the OP.>>9388>I'm not sure. For social things, beliefs usually make things true. At least until the beliefs are about things scientific.
Gender dysphoria is a diagnosable condition, it is a matter of science.>But I'm not authorized to apply science to human minds.
OK? That doesn't stop you from learning, this isn't a debate where one wins and the other loses.>If you consider such safe, I suppose that can have as much meaning as strangers on the internet who consider such unsafe.
My point was to give a counter example. You made the positive claim that teaching children about gender would lead to potential sexual assault, that's a positive claim putting the burden of proof on you. I was expressing doubt about that possibility and giving counter examples, you still need to explain your reasoning. If you're explanation is tbat most people believe it would, then well, it doesn't logically follow that just because some belive that it would, that sexual assault would follow.
>>9389>I mean, that's the question you're raising in the OP.
Raised, but not argued. I expected people to simply agree, I have no opinion myself.>That doesn't stop you from learning
I'm not sure the bounds of my authorization as a non-psychologist. Probably I can know/learn things very generally.>most people believe it would, then well, it doesn't logically follow that just because some belive that it would, that sexual assault would follow.
I suppose I'm not arguing for casual relationship, just that people believe it, and if we are to protect children from what people fear, it may as well be true.
File: 1623290776851.png (706.32 KB, 1000x650, 20:13, dc7qbbc-04ba7d5a-3279-4aaa….png) ImgOps Google
Mental Health of Transgender Children Who Are Supported in Their IdentitiesSocially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety, suggesting that psychopathology is not inevitable within this group. Especially striking is the comparison with reports of children with GID; socially transitioned transgender children have notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among children with GID living as their natal sex.https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/3/e20153223.short
Impact of Bathroom Discrimination on Mental Health Among Transgender and Nonbinary YouthOverall, 58% of TGNB youths in this sample reported being prevented or discouraged from using a bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Among the TGNB youth who experienced bathroom discrimination, 85% reported depressive mood and 60% seriously considered suicide. Furthermore, 1 in three TGNB youths who experienced bathroom discrimination reported a past-year suicide attempt, with 1 in five reporting multiple suicide attempts. After adjusting for demographic variables and general discrimination due to one's gender identity, bathroom discrimination significantly increased the odds of reporting depressive mood (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.34), seriously considering suicide (aOR = 1.40), a suicide attempt (aOR = 1.66), and multiple suicide attempts (aOR = 1.71).
These findings suggest that preventing TGNB youths from accessing appropriate bathrooms is associated with harmful mental health indicators. Addressing the suicide disparities for TGNB youths requires structural change. Policies and procedures need to be in place to ensure that all youths have equal access to appropriate bathrooms.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X20306534
Providing Affirmative Care to Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: Disparities, Interventions, and OutcomesThere is increasing evidence that gender-affirming interventions improve mental health outcomes for TGD youth. TGD youth report worse mental health outcomes in invalidating school and family environments and improved outcomes in affirming climates. TGD youth experience significant healthcare disparities, and intersectional clinical approaches are needed to increase access to affirmative care.
Providers can best support TGD youth by considering ways they can affirm these youth in their healthcare settings, and helping them access support in schools, family systems, and communities. Understanding the intersection of multiple minority identities can help providers address potential barriers to care to mitigate the health disparities seen in this population.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-021-01245-9
Gender Cognition in Transgender ChildrenA visible and growing cohort of transgender children in North America live according to their expressed gender rather than their natal sex, yet scientific research has largely ignored this population. In the current study, we adopted methodological advances from social-cognition research to investigate whether 5- to 12-year-old prepubescent transgender children (N = 32), who were presenting themselves according to their gender identity in everyday life, showed patterns of gender cognition more consistent with their expressed gender or their natal sex, or instead appeared to be confused about their gender identity. Using implicit and explicit measures, we found that transgender children showed a clear pattern: They viewed themselves in terms of their expressed gender and showed preferences for their expressed gender, with response patterns mirroring those of two cisgender (nontransgender) control groups. These results provide evidence that, early in development, transgender youth are statistically indistinguishable from cisgender children of the same gender identity.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614568156
If you want to "protect the kids" that also means trans-kids.
Education/normalization of transpeople leads to more acceptance and thus prevents harm.
What causes harm is denying them the means to know what is wrong with them and the resources to correct it.