Qt/tra, how does identity form?

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (201 children)

To clarify I hope

Formative years social pressure tells you that the things you like are only for some other group. You identify with that group. By the time your personality has time for rational reaction you have already formed such a core identity as part of that group it can’t be changed once the mind isn’t in that formative time. Hypothetically anyway.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (181 children)

That doesn’t sound anything like how any one else forms a sense of identity. It’s entirely the opposite.

Women aren’t a group because of the stereotypes associated with us.

The stereotypes are associated with us because we are women.

That’s how that works. So there is no group to identify with. The group only exists because we all share the same sex. Sex is the group. There’s no identity in sex. There can be sub groups, race, economic class, sexuality etc. Other than that, we can’t take for granted we have anything connecting us (even within a sub group, I can’t take for granted I have anything in common with another bisexual woman other than us both being bisexual women).

My point being- the group You identify with wouldn’t be "women" or "females", it would be people who -insert whatever thing(s) you liked or were drawn to that made you believe you identified with all women-. That’s not sex or gender specific. That’s interest/likes/whatever specific.

And realizing that you’ve based your sense of identity on stereotypes could very well be a reason to change how you see yourself to many people. Personally, if I believed I identified as something and then realized it was actually based on the perpetuation of stereotypes about a group of people (females in this case) that Im not a part of, I’d stop saying I identify as a female and start saying I personally gravitate towards things associated with women.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (180 children)

You can’t just decide to change the basis of your personality and identity that is that deeply set.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (168 children)

You can if you understand that you’ve based your identity on a harmful falsehood.

It wouldn’t even be changing the basis of your personality. Woman is not a personality. It’s changing the phrasing you use to describe the basis of your personality. liking feminine things is not a personality. What you’re describing is not personality or identity. The things you like or gravitate toward are not personality or identity. So all that would actually be changing is the phrasing you use- to something that is actually an accurate description of the situation instead of a harmful falsehood.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (147 children)

No you can’t. What feels right to you isn’t something you can just decide to change. Those tracks are laid deep as kids and can’t be undone.

Could you force yourself to call yourself something that feels wrong and lie to everyone? Yeah maybe but that’s not a life anyone can stand for long.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (138 children)

If i called myself black but was actually not black and black people informed me that the basis for me calling myself black was rooted in pushing racist stereotypes about black people i would absolutely stop referring to myself as black. Because it’s the right thing to do. Males should have the same basic level of respect for females (and females for males) IMO.

It’s not a lie to anyone. It’s literally not a lie lol, even if it feels wrong to you personally.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (137 children)

Calling myself a man would Absolutely be lying for your benefit.

That label doesn’t fit. It would be as wrong as calling myself a chicken or a cat.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (103 children)

Calling myself a man would Absolutely be lying for your benefit.

That label doesn’t fit. It would be as wrong as calling myself a chicken or a cat.

Then call yourself a "non man" or something else. Make up a new term that more accurately describes yourself. That's a reasonable proposition. I could get behind that.

What's not reasonable is for some self-appointed males to keep appropriating the word "woman" and insisting the meaning has been change to include males like you and them. The word "woman" is taken, as are the words women, girl/s, female/s, mother/s, daughter/s, sister/s,etc. The attempts of some males to steal and change these words are insulting and harmful to those of us to whom these terms genuinely apply. Better to spend your energies inventing and popularizing your own brand-new terms to describe your reality than to try to force the world to bend to your will.

Also, sorry to inform you, but male activists' and allies' aggressive appropriation of the word woman, and constant insistence that women do as you/they tell us, doesn't make a compelling case for you and others in your position being a breed entirely apart from, and different to, others of your sex who got standard male socialization.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (102 children)

I actually wouldn’t mind that. If being “non-binary” wasn’t considered part man I could accept that. Non- man is a pretty ugly phrase but I’ve said before in a vaccum I wouldn’t need to be called a woman as long as I wasn’t called a man but we live in a binary society. Everything is split by sexes so you have to pick one and I’d rather be dead than a man so …

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

No one gets to pick their sex like if it were some clothes that you buy from a store. Sex is determined at conception depending on which sex chromosomes you have. Humans cannot change their sex, not naturally nor with the aid of medical technology.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (87 children)

Good to know. Some pro-trans orgs and people have tried to foist the label "non man" on female people against our wills. But it suits you much more than it does us.

BTW, the sex binary isn't a creation of "society" - it's nature's doing. Moreover, the issue with gender identity is gender - which isn't binary. There are all kinds of ways for an individuals to be.

There have always been guys who've been unconventional for their sex. But only in recent years have such males begun using their lack of affinity for the sex stereotypes associated with their sex as an excuse to make fatuous claims that they are of the opposite sex and to demand that female people accommodate them by giving up our rights to self-definition, safety, privacy, dignity, fairness in sports - and to make it impossible for girls and women to ever be away from males even for a moment.

Also, it's really not true that "everything is split by sexes" at least not in the West any more. Historically, girls & women were excluded from many spheres of life because of our sex, but that's no longer the case. Just a few things are split by sex nowadays, and it's where sex really matters: sports, toilets, locker rooms, change rooms, health care, prisons, etc.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

Yeah this is going to get exhausting so I’m gonna say the thing and have this conversation end:

It’s literally not a lie and nothing You comment back will ever make it a lie. Sorry 🤷‍♀️

Regardless of how you feel, it will never be a lie for a transwoman to call themselves a man. It will always be a lie for them to call themselves a woman. It is a fact that TW are male. It is a fact that males are men. Period. It is what it is. Facts don’t care about your feelings. Reality doesn’t either. And it seems biology gives no fucks as well. The dictionary definition still stands and until it doesn’t and there’s a law passed saying we have no choice but to accept you as a woman- it’s never going to be true that you are one. And even in those circumstances it still wouldn’t be true, the lie would just be forced. Nothing and no one in this world will ever make a transwoman not a man, less of a male, or close to being a woman/female. Because it is humanly impossible.

Imagine being a male telling females they would be lying to call themself a male because even though females are telling this male "that’s not what womanhood is, you aren’t actually identifying as us at all and you’re causing harm" the male thinks "why would I listen to females when they tell me that claiming to be a woman is both inaccurate harmful to them? Lol I know Im a woman because my genderfeels. I know better than females what it is to be a woman"

It’s pointless. Women are literally taking the time to explain how this is offensive and harmful and transwomen just don’t give a fuck. They never listen to women. It’s so exhausting and fucked up lol. It’s Also stereotypically the very M word they hate being associated with.

The label fits like a glove made to your exact measurements, baby.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (31 children)

Take issue with me calling myself a woman if you must but I’m not a man. To say so would be a lie in every level. It would be like calling myself a cannibal. Both disgusting and untrue.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

Yeah. None of what you’ve said in your response is fact based. I’m speaking in fact. Not feelings, personal beliefs, or philosophy. Factually speaking all TW are men and male and are not women or female in any capacity.

The only lie is the denial of these facts. Acknowledging a male is a man is neither disgusting nor untrue. Nor is it in any way comparable to calling someone a cannibal.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You know people get treatment for personality disorders all the time, right? It’s absolutely possible to improve one’s understanding of themselves and one’s deeply seated, formative ideas that are shit.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You can’t change your core. You can learn to cope. You can learn to understand the state your in but you can’t untraimatize a brain.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Tell that to people with BPD who successfully do DBT. Tell that to trauma survivors who had defined themselves by their trauma and no longer do. Tell that to ED patients terrified and ashamed of having human needs, they’ll never learn better.

Goddamn, the way you insist that because you aren’t well, nobody else ever will be, is so fucked up I can’t even begin to tell you.

Thousands of traumatised people move on every day. Your choice to be miserable doesn’t make their successes a lie.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

You don’t stop having BPD or Being traumatized. You learn to cope or medicate but you don’t just stop. Coping mechanisms like say changing your body to better fit yourself for taking medication to feel better. Like transition.

I don’t know what you mean by the ED part. I’m assuming you don’t mean Ehlers Danlos.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Eating disorders, specifically the severe and enduring kind.

So, you’re telling me that even though I no longer think about my abuse, or respond like it’s going to happen, no longer have any trauma symptoms and have retrained my automatic thoughts so they are no longer ones that are an abuse response, even though two psychiatrists have since deemed me no longer meeting the symptoms of cptsd, I still have it?
You’re saying nobody ever actually heals, and all anybody can hope for is a coping tool Band-Aid?

You can say that but you need to stop claiming it’s the truth for anyone but you. It’s honestly really awful to say about others. People with personality disorders often work really hard for years to get better and you’re saying they’re all hopeless.

[–]Juniperius 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure you do. It's very common as people get older and go through treatment for their therapist to say they "no longer fit the diagnostic criteria for BPD," for example.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You are just talking about changing a superficial label, I’m talking about the psychological structures that make someone use a label. I know it is wrong to be called a man just as I know it would be wrong to called anything else that just isn’t true. Just as I know woman doesn’t feel wrong.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

So you can’t change the harmful language you use to describe yourself to actual accurate language because you don’t have the psychological capacity to handle it, Not because the label is true?

Im actually fine with You acknowledging that.

Im not fine that that’s the situation as you’ve been done a huge disservice by the medical/mental health professionals who have assisted you. But I’m fine with leaving it here as you’ve acknowledged it’s a psychological issue.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

So you can’t change the harmful language you use to describe yourself to actual accurate language because you don’t have the psychological capacity to handle it, Not because the label is true?

I’m not actually sure what you are saying here. To be clear I don’t believe it would be accurate to call me a man.

But I wasn’t done a disservice. I mean sure there’s a psychological issue in play but transition still objectively improved my life.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Im saying you can’t change the languages because of psychological issues.

A mentally healthy person would never have thought they were a woman to begin with so clearly the reason you can’t use accurate language is because of your psychological issues.

If You honestly think you’re a woman you were done a disservice by every medical professional who helped you transition imo.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Language changes based on society.

But back to the point. Without transition I would be dead. I was an actively suicidal no functional mess. Now I’m not suicidal and get by. In what way is that a disservice to me?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Language hasn’t changed in the way you’re claiming tho.

If mental health professionals are advocating allowing specific patients to cling to and believe such an obvious falsehood then they’ve done a disservice to those patients imo. You may not be suicidal- over the few years we’ve been engaging it’s become abundantly clear that you have deep rooted mental health issues that haven’t been dealt with. But sure, calling yourself a woman fixed you lol

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Actually, hold on-

Is this even true? Don’t some racist people stop being racist? Don’t some religious people stop believing or convert? aren’t there thousands of other instances where someone can come to change their feelings on something that influenced them their whole life (particularly in formative years)?

Unless you think that gender identity is just so much more of a powerful influence than religion or being raised in a racist environment? If that’s what you think, what is it that makes gender identity so much more significant than other things that contribute to how someone builds their identity and personality?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Is racism a core facet of their identity? Is religion? If it changes I would bet not.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah! The Not a true Scottman falacy! A true classic!

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Why not? Why is it impossible (despite evidence to the contrary…) for someone who based the core of their identity on racism or a specific religion unable (even tho, again there’s evidence that they can and do all the time and you’re ignoring that for the sake of your argument) can’t change?

So everyone whose racist or extremely religious can’t and doesn’t change? Ever? At all?

My husband’s uncle and I had this whole moment where he apologized to me for his racism and his behavior towards me. He did this because he knew I was pregnant with my first kid and he wanted to be there to see his nephew’s family. He claims to love my son and put years of effort into repairing our relationship and the one he has with my husband.

But nah… I guess he’s just a racist who lied. So he could build a relationship with people he hated. Idk people are weird.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I’m not saying he wasn’t a racist I’m saying if he changed that racism wasn’t a core component of his personality.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If think if you’re a skinhead with Nazi tattoos and memorabilia in your home it’s pretty deeply imbedded but say what you need for your argument lol

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I’m not saying he wasn’t a racist I’m saying if he changed that racism wasn’t a core component of his personality.

It's interesting that you're making these claims so soon after the death of former South African president Frederik Willem de Klerk. You think racism wasn't a core part of de Klerk's personality - and the personality of other Afrikaners of his and previous eras?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I have no idea who that is.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're discussing racism and "identity" as though these are topics on which you have expertise, but you don't know who de Klerk is? Oy vey. That's really embarrassing. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone who supposedly cares about "diversity and inclusion" doesn't know who de Klerk is. Especially since a principle of gender ideology is that sex segregation is akin to apartheid.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Formative years social pressure tells you that the things you like are only for some other group. You identify with that group.

But the vast majority of children and adults who "identify as" the opposite sex don't really "identify with" members of the sex they want to identify into, do they? Because that would mean seeing members of opposite sex and their own sex as people first and foremost, people who come in the form of individuals. If they saw members of the opposite sex and their own sex as people, they'd see them as fully fleshed-out sentient beings with living, breathing bodies that exist in material reality, and with personalities that are multifaceted, complicated and often contradictory - and which vary greatly from individual to individual.

But it seems to me that people who adopt an opposite-sex gender identity, natal females just as much as natal males, usually do something very different: First, they reduce everyone of their own sex and the opposite sex alike to one-dimensional, cardboard caricatures defined by a very narrow set of sexist stereotypes based on superficial aspects like clothes, hairstyle, toys and interests, which you sum up as "the things they like." Then they hyper-focus on "the things they like" that they associate with the opposite sex and build their sense of self solely around those "things they like," pretending all the while that "the things they like" which they associate with the opposite sex somehow outweigh and erase the actual sex of their own bodies.

You know how kaleidoscopes make ordinary sights look like a fascinating, rich array of patterns and colors? Well, it seems to me that people who regard the world through the lens of genderism do that in reverse. They look at human beings through a genderscope that strips every person of all the fascinating, rich diversity of styles, personality types and quirks of individuality that make him/her unique and different. The genderscope instead reduces everyone in its sights to a bland sameness based solely on superficial sex stereotypes that constitute what genderists focus on exclusively because they believe that a few surface and obvious "things you like" = who you are.

society teaches you at an early age what you should like. If you like what one gender is supposed to like

I suspect dysphoria has a biological root in brain structures but that wouldn’t cover trans identities that claim to have never suffered from dysphoria

So which is it? Do people with dysphoria who try to resolve their distress by developing or claiming to have an opposite-sex gender identity possess an innate sense of gendered self that they're born with and is hard-wired into their brain structures? Or is it mainly about "the things you like," or rather some of them that genderists fixate on, being at odds with the sense obtained in childhood about society's rules regarding "what you should like"?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

We are talking about formative childhood. Archetypes are how you function at that point.

So which is it? Do people with dysphoria who try to resolve their distress by developing or claiming to have an opposite-sex gender identity possess an innate sense of gendered self that they're born with and is hard-wired into their brain structures

I think it’s both. Like I think dysphoria has a biological root but it’s worsened by social pressures. But again I’m only speaking for dysphoric trans people though. I don’t want to dismiss non dysphorics but I also don’t get it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

We are talking about formative childhood. Archetypes are how you function at that point.

At which point in "formative childhood" exactly is it that "archetypes are how you function"? How many months of age? How long does this point last?

You seem to think that growing up in a physical, sexed body in the material world surrounded by persons, animals and plants that also have sexed bodies has zero impact and influence on the psyches of developing children. Your view seems to be that in "the formative years of childhood," only "things" - specifically "the things you like" - and now "archetypes" matter.

What about toilet training and learning names of body parts? IIRC, little kids are very much into anything and everything that has to do with how, where and why they and others urinate and defecate. They're very interested in the fact that girls and boys have different anatomy that causes them to urinate from different places in markedly different ways. They're also extremely curious about where babies come from, and many beg for information about how they themselves came into being.

Unless they have been raised in Germany or Austria, little boys handle and look at their penises numerous times a day, each time they urinate. Many tug on, scratch, rub and otherwise touch their penises and balls numerous other times a day too. And once they reach a certain age, boys all get spontaneous erections and have wet dreams. What are the archetypes that override all that sensory input from the material world to convince a boy he's really a girl?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You seem to think that growing up in a physical, sexed body in the material world surrounded by persons, animals and plants that also have sexed bodies has zero impact and influence on the psyches of developing children.

I’m making a distinction between the superficial and things that are too deep set to be flexible. I’m in fact directly saying we are influenced by outside experiences. But when they hit you effects how hard they hit you.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I’m making a distinction between the superficial and things that are too deep set to be flexible. I’m in fact directly saying we are influenced by outside experiences. But when they hit you effects how hard they hit you.

You're all over the place, LOL.

First, gender identity is determined by "the things you like" and whether society says it's okay to like them. Then just a few hours ago, you said that "archetypes are how you function" at some unspecified point in formative childhood. I asked you pointedly

At which point in "formative childhood" exactly is it that "archetypes are how you function"? How many months of age? How long does this point last?

But instead of answering, now you say there's "a distinction between the superficial and things that are too deep set to be flexible" and "we are influenced by outside experiences" whose impact is determined by "when they hit you." But still you don't bother to give any these influences names, nor will you say at what point or points in childhood you're referring to.

Tellingly, none of the vague forces you intimate are of paramount influence at some unspecified point or points in "formative childhood" ever have anything to do with having a sexed body, with being a flesh-and-blood sentient being who lives in material world and urinates numerous times each and every day of one's life. Or with the specifics of male urinary and sex anatomy that I've mentioned - and which play a huge role in the psychic and physical development of male children and have led to quite a few "archetypes."

Please provide some specifics to back up your previous claims before skipping off to make another, wholly different claim. Thanks.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

There’s not some clean psychological developmental timeline.

Children lean to function in society by learning appropriate behavior in contexts and gender roles are pushed then. How is that controversial to you?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There’s not some clean psychological developmental timeline.

Children lean to function in society by learning appropriate behavior in contexts and gender roles are pushed then. How is that controversial to you?

I'm not contesting that this happens, LOL. The question the OP asked, and you have been pressed on, is exactly how and when do children form their "identity" and "gender identity"? And what are the processes and steps involved in, and the explanations behind, a child developing a "gender identity" of the opposite sex?

As to your claim that "there’s not some clean psychological developmental timeline" in babies and children, actually there is. There's some variation in exactly what happens precisely when chronologically, but kids go through very distinct developmental stages physically, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, socially as they grow up - and these stages occur in sequences. Children develop in pretty uniform ways, with progressions and regressions that can be predicted well ahead of time. There are actually development timetables and charts that are used to determine if children are developmentally within the norm and more or less "on track," or if their development is delayed or precocious.

By far the best baby and child development books/guides I've read are those from the Gesell Institute at Yale. There's one for each year of children's lives, and the books describe all the stages kids go through as they develop step by step. Especially in the first years of life, children's development progresses week by week.

If you're genuinely interested in this area, I recommend Gesell's work and that of all the child development theorists who have followed in his footsteps. It's not like Gesell's theories and insights are exactly new. His theories are nearly 100 years old now:

Gesell’s theory is known as a maturational-developmental theory. It is the foundation of nearly every other theory of human development after Gesell. Early in the 20th century, Dr. Gesell observed and documented patterns in the way children develop, showing that all children go through similar and predictable sequences, though each child moves through these sequences at his or her own rate or pace.

This process is comprised of both internal and external factors. The intrinsic factors include genetics, temperament, personality, learning styles, as well as physical and mental growth. Simultaneously, development is also influenced by factors such as environment, family background, parenting styles, cultural influences, health conditions, and early experiences with peers and adults. Gesell was the first theorist to systematically study the stages of development, and the first researcher to demonstrate that a child’s developmental age (or stage of development) may be different from his or her chronological age.

https://www.gesell-yale.org/pages/gesell-theory

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m not talking about functionality. I’m talking about identity. What’s the precise mechanism and time for any of the mental issues tied to childhood trauma?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This isn't even word salad. It's just buzz words strung together that say and explain nothing:

functionality... identity.. mental issues... childhood trauma.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Are you saying the combination of you having dysphoria and also being pressured by male socialization that you rejected while you somehow absorbed female socialization is why you know you’re not a man/are a woman?

Because that’s an entirely unique experience that no man or woman who isn’t trans expériences. So i think what the rest of us aren’t getting is how your dysphoria and socialization means tou aren’t the gender that traditionally goes with your sex.

That’s what you never explain. How your feelings and personal sense of self mean so much that they overpower biological fact.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Are you saying the combination of you having dysphoria and also being pressured by male socialization that you rejected while you somehow absorbed female socialization is why you know you’re not a man/are a woman?

Growing up dysphoric effects the lens of the attempted socialization. Feeling alienated from the ideas pushed on you in a way most people don’t shapes the effects of that attempted socialization.

I wouldn’t say I have female socialization. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call me a man. Whether I am a woman is a point in open to discussing. It’s not that important to me personally. However not being a man is a point that I am dead set.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Okay…

Socialization still has nothing to do with what gender someone is. Gender is based on sex. It’s not personal, it’s not chosen individually. It’s societal. So whatever You socialization you absorbed or rejected, and however you feel inside, is irrelevant to gender.

Gender is another thing that doesn’t care about your feelings

Also, man and woman aren’t genders so none of this would really matter. Even if your gender were "female", you’d still be biologically male, that’s would mean technically speaking you’d still be a man because that’s the sex based term for biological male adults.

The issue is not the language, it’s the weight You personally put on words that literally only exist to distinguish male humans from female humans.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again- you being personally dead set on not being a man is not enough to change biological facts. You have to prove TW are not men, and you have never done that. Sex, gender, fact, Langauge, reality, truth- all things that don’t care about anyone’s feelings.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You conflate gender and sex in a way that we don’t then use it as a language shell game.

Sex and gender aren’t the same. My sex is regrettably male. But my gender is in no way man.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. Your gender is in no way man.

Nobody’s gender is man.

Because man is not a gender.

(Neither is woman)

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A man is an adult human male. It has nothing to do with sexist stereotypes and all with biology.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And I don’t agree with your definition, as you know. Repeating it accomplishes nothing.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And you know we don't agree with your definitions and yet you keep repeating the same arguments. What is the difference?