idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
1. Not one person in this thread but you has claimed that every cross-dressing child is a candidate for trans therapy. It's a straw man, and a dumb one at that.
Um... Except that... wait for it... it's the question asked in the OP
. The question was asking how young is too young to consider/conclude that a child is transgender. I've just made the logical extension that this also requires that we ask when parents should switch from discouraging the child's cross-gender behavior to encouraging it. Isn't that the key point here? Or did you miss that with those big blinders on your face?
My answer (if you read it) is that 3 is too young for this, but 10 might be the right age. WTF is wrong with that answer?
2. The very act of encouraging them to adopt social norms for the sake of their own happiness necessarily stigmatizes a norm outside of that construct. Do you ACTUALLY not see that?
No I don't. I think that's a typical response from someone who can't see beyond their own politically correct glasses though.
What that act does is recognize what societal norms are and what they mean. It recognizes that anyone who is outside those norms will suffer some negatives for it (stigma if that's the word you prefer). The person encouraging their child to conform to those norms didn't create the norms and didn't create the social negatives one might suffer for existing outside them.
Saying "Don't run in traffic because you might get hit by a car" isn't the same as actually threatening to run someone over with a car if they don't comply.
If you tell a child that they are going to be happy if they act like a man or a woman, but unhappy if they don't exemplify those roles, you stygmatize it.
That's a bizarre interpretation of my argument. Why would you assume I'm saying that you should tell the child he'll be happier if he acts this way versus that way? I'm saying you simply encourage them to act in a given manner. You're confusing why the parents teaches a child to behave a certain way with the method actually used.
That's what active encouragement is. And this is precisely why children shouldn't be pushed towards any gender role, trans or heteronormative.
You can say that, and that may sound great in a politically correct context. But the reality is that parents are still going to dress their boys in pants and their girls in dresses. They're still going to put ribbons in the girls hair and not in the boys. They're still going to buy the girls dolls and the boys toy trucks. Why? Because that way their kids will "fit in".
I'm just the messenger. I'm pointing out how the world really is. Feel free to wail and gnash your teeth and whatnot, but it's not my fault that those are the standards of dress and behavior that our society expects and that most people are going to want to align themselves with those standards, if for no other reason that that they'll feel more comfortable doing so.
The idea that we should discourage parents from doing this because once in a great while a child might be transgender and suffer harm as a result is catering to the minority while harming the majority. Most kids will be more harmed by not being encouraged to conform than will be harmed in the other direction. You think that the boy who's parents never told him that boys don't wear dresses isn't harmed the first day he arrives at school wearing a dress? You don't honestly think that only transgender boys might do this if we did what you suggest and avoid pushing children towards any gender role?
3. Not being personally interested in minority issues, and wishing to actively encourage people away from supporting minorities, are two very different things.
Are you saying that I'm trying to actively encourage people away from supporting minorities? That's a pretty interesting all-or-nothing argument you've got there. Stop thinking only in terms of whether something is for or against a group and you might understand what I'm saying.