So clear, maybe the best yet on this topic of how we create "trans kids." I maxed out one friend with what I thought were great explanations, including (I think) one previous one by you, and my own, and a great one on Transgender trend. The tone of them all put her off and she really didn't like the phrase "trans kids" in quotes. She said I was discounting the experiences of these kids, which totally confused me. It finally occurred to me that she thinks we are mocking the KIDS with the scare quotes, when we are mocking nobody. We're trying to convey that society created this dangerous category, it is not an immutable or real thing. We don't wish to be insulting anyone, but we have to put it in quotes to be intellectually honest, as taking it out of quotes is a concession to an ideology we do not share and strongly oppose. Like using the term "cisgender woman" unironically just to communicate that we mean the category of human known for centuries as "woman." Maybe in a few months I can see if she would be open to this one. My friend is exceptionally intelligent and I'm thankful she is one friend I haven't lost, though she disagrees with me so strongly. It still baffles me that something so obvious cannot be seen. But maybe those who have ears may hear this one, maybe it'll get through. Thanks so much for your great work, Eliza.
Yes, I started using that term too, inspired by Stella O'Malley, and used it in my own writing to my friend. However, one problem I see in the language is that a term we think is non-combative and simply descriptive morphs into being perceived as combative, fueled by the toxic press on both sides in the US. Like "gender ideology," Apparently that now is as offensive as "mutilated" (see recent interview with Lisa s. Davis and Zander Krieg). I have started using "ideas about gender." But for now, "gender distressed" is still more effective!
That pop tart parable is such a good example of how easy it is to manipulate and indoctrinate the young and the vulnerable.
You've explained so clearly the difference between 'trans' and other varieties of inclusion and tolerance that I'm saving this to show to those who still don't see the harm.
This is such a clear and thoughtful explanation of the divide between those who believe in "trans kids" and those who think it is iatrogenic or social contagion. Thank you! Your analogy to reading about refugees, is excellent. The folks who believe being homosexual, for example, is innate, are looking for greater tolerance and inclusion, and the same rights to love whomever they choose as anyone else. There is no requirement to change the physical body or to medicate homosexuals to conform to a category, it just is one of the natural variations of human diversity that exist. Discussing it will not induce people who are not naturally homosexual to become homosexual; even if a person experiments with it, there are no irreversible physical changes required, no pretense to uphold.
Some experimentation during teen years is and has been common for millennia. The phenomenon of "trans kids" however, requires irreversible medical procedures and is highly dependent on suggestion and peer-group influence, and does not seem to be an innate, stable characteristic of humans over time. If we consider the waves of teenaged identifications over the years, with hippies, Goth, Emo, etc, we can see the phenomenon of "Trans" as another stage in teenagers' efforts to rebel and stand out against the adult world, albeit this one leading to castration, sterility, genital mutilation, body modification and medicalization. The influence of the internet has pushed normal teenage identity exploration to the most extreme places possible, and the capture of major institutions by ideology has brought us to this place.
YES! It's like a cop interview.... when cops blurt a detail, or ask a leading question that "suggests" what they want the interviewee to say... ADULTS will change their story if pressured this way.
Now clueless Moms ask three year olds 'what gender they feel like today." An unanswerable question. But if you ask a kid the same question again and again they will suspect they are not giving the "right" answer.
And if a child is suffering, not introspective, alexithymic, etc-- they will be RELIEVED to be handed a "reason" for it.
For a window into this, here's Exulansic, of Isle of Ex youtube channel and me, transwidow, discussing the fallacies of cross-dressing. The entire 11 minute dialogue will go up on Ute Heggen channel on Thursday and a transcript will appear then at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
Same as it ever was but the difference is that if they feel differently in a few years they'll still have decent bone density, their brains will have matured and their genitals won't have atrophied.
Exactly! A 13 y.o. girl who fancies herself a lesbian and dates another 13 y.o. is not destroying her body. If she figures out in a few years that she is really attracted to dudes she can just move on. (And if she doesn't, she doesn't . Her body is still healthy). Btw, I think homoerotic feelings are and always have been extremely common in young teens. If you read books about boarding schools in the 19th century or so, lots of crushes were going on. In the past the stage just wasn't emphasized and blown out of proportion. The girls simply moved on after a while (and never even had a label attached to their crushes). There may even be evolutionary advantage to it: a 13 y.o. can get pregnant but her body (much less her mind) is not ready for childbirth, her hips are not even wide enough , she is still growing herself. So exploring and satisfying her sexuality in a same-sex relationship may give her a better chance to survive and procreate in the future.
So clear, maybe the best yet on this topic of how we create "trans kids." I maxed out one friend with what I thought were great explanations, including (I think) one previous one by you, and my own, and a great one on Transgender trend. The tone of them all put her off and she really didn't like the phrase "trans kids" in quotes. She said I was discounting the experiences of these kids, which totally confused me. It finally occurred to me that she thinks we are mocking the KIDS with the scare quotes, when we are mocking nobody. We're trying to convey that society created this dangerous category, it is not an immutable or real thing. We don't wish to be insulting anyone, but we have to put it in quotes to be intellectually honest, as taking it out of quotes is a concession to an ideology we do not share and strongly oppose. Like using the term "cisgender woman" unironically just to communicate that we mean the category of human known for centuries as "woman." Maybe in a few months I can see if she would be open to this one. My friend is exceptionally intelligent and I'm thankful she is one friend I haven't lost, though she disagrees with me so strongly. It still baffles me that something so obvious cannot be seen. But maybe those who have ears may hear this one, maybe it'll get through. Thanks so much for your great work, Eliza.
Really great point - you can't peak anyone if you set yourself up (in their eyes) as an uncaring adversary with your first words.
To avoid the compelled speech I have employed 'gender distressed' on occasion which didn't seem to provoke dissent.
Yes, I started using that term too, inspired by Stella O'Malley, and used it in my own writing to my friend. However, one problem I see in the language is that a term we think is non-combative and simply descriptive morphs into being perceived as combative, fueled by the toxic press on both sides in the US. Like "gender ideology," Apparently that now is as offensive as "mutilated" (see recent interview with Lisa s. Davis and Zander Krieg). I have started using "ideas about gender." But for now, "gender distressed" is still more effective!
Frankly, nothing works with those seeking oppression.
But I've justified 'gender distressed' with the misguided 'just be kind' allies on the grounds that it was more inclusive!
Wonderful piece!
That pop tart parable is such a good example of how easy it is to manipulate and indoctrinate the young and the vulnerable.
You've explained so clearly the difference between 'trans' and other varieties of inclusion and tolerance that I'm saving this to show to those who still don't see the harm.
This is such a clear and thoughtful explanation of the divide between those who believe in "trans kids" and those who think it is iatrogenic or social contagion. Thank you! Your analogy to reading about refugees, is excellent. The folks who believe being homosexual, for example, is innate, are looking for greater tolerance and inclusion, and the same rights to love whomever they choose as anyone else. There is no requirement to change the physical body or to medicate homosexuals to conform to a category, it just is one of the natural variations of human diversity that exist. Discussing it will not induce people who are not naturally homosexual to become homosexual; even if a person experiments with it, there are no irreversible physical changes required, no pretense to uphold.
Some experimentation during teen years is and has been common for millennia. The phenomenon of "trans kids" however, requires irreversible medical procedures and is highly dependent on suggestion and peer-group influence, and does not seem to be an innate, stable characteristic of humans over time. If we consider the waves of teenaged identifications over the years, with hippies, Goth, Emo, etc, we can see the phenomenon of "Trans" as another stage in teenagers' efforts to rebel and stand out against the adult world, albeit this one leading to castration, sterility, genital mutilation, body modification and medicalization. The influence of the internet has pushed normal teenage identity exploration to the most extreme places possible, and the capture of major institutions by ideology has brought us to this place.
YES! It's like a cop interview.... when cops blurt a detail, or ask a leading question that "suggests" what they want the interviewee to say... ADULTS will change their story if pressured this way.
Now clueless Moms ask three year olds 'what gender they feel like today." An unanswerable question. But if you ask a kid the same question again and again they will suspect they are not giving the "right" answer.
And if a child is suffering, not introspective, alexithymic, etc-- they will be RELIEVED to be handed a "reason" for it.
The revisionist history reveals the inherent misogyny in this belief system, because it's almost never men who are re-categorized, is it?
For a window into this, here's Exulansic, of Isle of Ex youtube channel and me, transwidow, discussing the fallacies of cross-dressing. The entire 11 minute dialogue will go up on Ute Heggen channel on Thursday and a transcript will appear then at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ERBzqDzaA
Same as it ever was but the difference is that if they feel differently in a few years they'll still have decent bone density, their brains will have matured and their genitals won't have atrophied.
Exactly! A 13 y.o. girl who fancies herself a lesbian and dates another 13 y.o. is not destroying her body. If she figures out in a few years that she is really attracted to dudes she can just move on. (And if she doesn't, she doesn't . Her body is still healthy). Btw, I think homoerotic feelings are and always have been extremely common in young teens. If you read books about boarding schools in the 19th century or so, lots of crushes were going on. In the past the stage just wasn't emphasized and blown out of proportion. The girls simply moved on after a while (and never even had a label attached to their crushes). There may even be evolutionary advantage to it: a 13 y.o. can get pregnant but her body (much less her mind) is not ready for childbirth, her hips are not even wide enough , she is still growing herself. So exploring and satisfying her sexuality in a same-sex relationship may give her a better chance to survive and procreate in the future.