I was around five years old when I first told my mother I was a “girl trapped in a boy’s body.” Some of my earliest memories are of me talking to a therapist about why I felt that way.
You are clearly a strong and independent minded male. I'm a female who grew up in the 60's and 70's, and my inclinations and abilities are considered masculine. Fortunately, Big Trans was not around with their scalpels and needles, but I was too often asked by their predecessors why I hated being a female. I didn't hate being a female, but the simpleminded hated me not conforming to their rigid male/female code, much like Big Trans pushes today. It's hard to watch the permanent damage being inflicted on children these days.
The regressiveness and incoherence of gender ideology is something that needs to be drilled into every person who supports trans nonsense. It needs to happen every time the issue is discussed. Thank you for writing this piece. I notice that I, too, met six of the eight criteria for childhood “gender dysphoria” in the 80s. I grew up to be a gay dude-bro.
Thanks for the read and sharing your story. Society has certainly found itself in quite the alarming situation. The discourse over identity has really muddied the already confusing process of growing up and finding how you fit in the world.
If a person were to say that he or she wanted to have a hand cut off and an eye removed because he/she believed they were a pirate trapped in the wrong type of body, they would be labeled "crazy" or mentally disturbed. The desire to cut off breasts or penises is nothing more than another instance of mental illness or simply self-deception. There is no need for self mutilation in order to live the life you desire. There are many, many very feminine women who participate in what are routinely stated to be masculine endeavors and many, many masculine males who participate in routinely stated feminine endeavors. What society declares is masculine or feminine is nothing more than opinion, opinion which is often incorrect.
Five of the eight childhood gender dysphoria characteristics are regressive gender stereotypes, mostly targeting kids who will grow up to be gay. Insisting to be the opposite sex sounds like magical thinking. However, the dislike of one's sexual anatomy and the desire of the opposite sex anatomy are more concerning to me. No, I don't think they are a sign that a child is "trans". They do, however , seem like potential red flags for sexual abuse or some type of trauma and need to be probed more carefully. (It may end up being nothing but unlike wanting the toys of the opposite sex, these characteristics probably need to be taken a bit more seriously).
This was an outstanding article with such an important message Pear! Instead of forcing kids to become Trans if they don’t fit gender norms or expectations, let’s celebrate diversity and emphasize acceptance of feminine men and masculine women. Every parent across this country needs to read this article. Just because a child fits one of those eight criteria doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination they are Transgender. They could be A) going through a phase, B) gay or lesbian or C) a feminine boy or masculine girl. Gender-affirming care for minors should be illegal period. That won’t cause them to take their own life, to the contrary it will save their life. Do parents want their children to get permanent physical changes to their bodies that they’ll come to regret later in life? Do they want them to have to suffer through the negative side effects of puberty blockers? If you are a good, loving parents you will NOT just affirm their belief, you will question it and take them to a responsible professional. Or and here’s another thought I had, what if that child has autism? These are all valid concerns that I and many others share with Pear. I am 100% for Trans Rights. But this has nothing to do with that. This is about protecting LGBT and autistic youth and creating a society where all people regardless of sex or gender are free to be who they are 100% without being labeled wanting to be the other gender and talked into having a life-altering operation. I would recommend to everyone to read “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shirer and “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality” by Helen Joyce.
> "I was around five years old when I first told my mother I was a 'girl trapped in a boy’s body.' ... "
Seems rather precocious at best if not some reason to doubt the veracity of the tale being told.
Though the outline of it and the horrors detailing the phenomenon seem plausible enough.
However, your "typically associated with assigned gender" is something of a fly in the ointment if not the tip of the very serious iceberg -- the conflation of sex and gender. Absolutely NO ONE is assigned a gender at birth, only a sex. Two entirely different kettles of fish -- you might take a gander at Merriam-Webster's more or less sane and succinct delineation of those differences:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits."
We have all heard the “gender and sex are two different things” argument over and over again from ideologues. We are all aware that gender ideologues have spread this ideology so effectively that they managed to get the definitions of certain words changed in dictionaries. Many organizations and individuals are pretending to agree with these beliefs out of fear of being “cancelled” if they don’t comply or follow along with these new definitions of words.
& your implication that I’m lying about what I said as a child is ridiculous.
Did you bother to read that Merriam-Webster quote? The rest of their entry?
No doubt there are incoherent, wooish, and quite unscientific definitions for "gender" in particular. Though likewise for "sex".
But there are also useful ones -- like MW's for gender -- that get to the heart of the matter: profound differences between, on the one hand, psychological and behavioral traits typical of but not unique to each sex, and, on the other hand, what it means to be male and female in the first place.
Something which your own use of "feminine" and "masculine" underlines if obscurely. A more cogent and illuminating outlook is provided by an analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia -- hardly a gender ideologue:
“The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics … distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
For details and elaborations on those themes, you might take a gander at my Welcome post, particularly the section on Rationalized Gender:
I know exactly what male and female are. And cases like khelif are vanishingly rare. The heart has 4 chambers. There are cases of birth defects where the heart has 2 chambers. But we still know that thr heart has 4 chambers. Exceptions don’t make a rule.
So you should be able to say exactly what it takes to qualify as male and female? Able to provide citations of reputable biological sources that endorse that view? 🙄
Did you bother to read any of what I linked to and quoted?
But I'm most certainly not arguing that Khelif is a female. In all probability he is neither male nor female. Certainly many of the intersex are in that boat -- for example see the photos of these "women" in the "Signs and Symptoms" section:
They have female genitalia and an external female phenotype -- any red-blooded Amurican boy would jump their bones at the drop of a hat. But they have a male genotype -- XY chromosomes -- and internal but non-functional testicles.
And the prepubescent are also in that same boat -- sexless until puberty kicks in. Only "assigned" a sex at birth.
But you might try responding to the relevant comment and not previous ones.
Ok let me tell you how I conceptualize this issue. I’m not interested in a dictionary definition. I’m a pediatrician and have studied these issues.
There are 4 levels to determination of biological sex.
Chromosomes
Internal genitalia
External genitalia
Secondary sexual characteristics
Obviously these 4 levels are related and interrelated. Obviously errors can occur at any of these levels creating a form of intersex or exception.
Still at the end of the day the sum of them (really not including the 4th as that occurs at puberty) is so small to not effect substantially whether we call a baby a boy or a girl. We don’t ‘assign’ we observe.
Sex is defined by the gametes your body is genetically programmed to produce (regardless of whether actual production happens or ceases). There are only two types of gametes — large immobile and small mobile. Eggs and sperm. That’s it and it’s the same across all animal species. If we could all just accept this very clear definition, at least we’d have a cogent basis from which to start discussing the ideological nonsense. Genital appearance and secondary sex characteristics are almost always reliable for observing sex but can vary and are not definitive. Today’s article in the Boston Globe by evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven is worth the read. https://archive.ph/9tC5u
Well, I'm an electronics technologist -- retired so I'm not so young myself. 😉🙂
But I've likewise studied the issue in some depth, and I kind of think your "four levels" are no more than proxies, traits that correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with the primary one of what it MEANS to have a sex in the first place:
And the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. A rule with NO exceptions.
With your, presumed, scientific background, you might at least try reading this essay on "What are biological sexes?":
Depends on what you mean by "male" and "female", on what you think it takes to qualify as such. You, and too many others, seem to think it's just a matter of genitalia: "boys (males) have penises and girls (females) have vaginas -- the Kindergarten Cop "definitions".
But that is how Imane Khelif wound up competing in women's boxing at the recent Olympics. So hardly "ridiculous".
You might try looking at and thinking about the actual biological definitions for the sexes, not the fok-biology versions peddled by various so-called biologists and philosophers like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne.
For example, see the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (tweet, Patrick Killeen);
And see my open letter to the nutcases at the erstwhile reputable biological journal which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
I know what a proxy measure is. I’m not even sure what we are debating about if anything. I recognize that sexual differentiation can get ‘messed up’ on multiple levels (as I delineated) leading to true intersex individuals. But these cases being so rare o would state that the statistical correlation of a newborn appearing male actually being male is way over 99%. Hence I don’t think the word ‘assigned’ male at birth for example is accurate because it implies a haphazardness to that classification.
NSYA: "I know what a proxy measure is. I’m not even sure what we are debating about if anything."
Not sure that you do. The issue is what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place, not what are more or less useful proxies for the condition.
NSYA: "... the statistical correlation of a newborn appearing male actually being male is way over 99% ..."
Technically, by the standard biological definitions for the sexes, newborn babies don't have a sex and don't ACQUIRE one until the onset of puberty. Though a pretty solid bet that, for example, some 98% of the baby penis-havers turn out to be males -- mirabile dictu.
You really should try reading that last link which asks, "What are biological sexes?"
You are clearly a strong and independent minded male. I'm a female who grew up in the 60's and 70's, and my inclinations and abilities are considered masculine. Fortunately, Big Trans was not around with their scalpels and needles, but I was too often asked by their predecessors why I hated being a female. I didn't hate being a female, but the simpleminded hated me not conforming to their rigid male/female code, much like Big Trans pushes today. It's hard to watch the permanent damage being inflicted on children these days.
Great piece. Thank you.
Great article Pear. I sense it took a considerable amount of courage and integrity to write it. Good for you.
Thank you!
The regressiveness and incoherence of gender ideology is something that needs to be drilled into every person who supports trans nonsense. It needs to happen every time the issue is discussed. Thank you for writing this piece. I notice that I, too, met six of the eight criteria for childhood “gender dysphoria” in the 80s. I grew up to be a gay dude-bro.
Thanks for the read and sharing your story. Society has certainly found itself in quite the alarming situation. The discourse over identity has really muddied the already confusing process of growing up and finding how you fit in the world.
Clearly the trans youth phenomena is at root very regressive.
If a person were to say that he or she wanted to have a hand cut off and an eye removed because he/she believed they were a pirate trapped in the wrong type of body, they would be labeled "crazy" or mentally disturbed. The desire to cut off breasts or penises is nothing more than another instance of mental illness or simply self-deception. There is no need for self mutilation in order to live the life you desire. There are many, many very feminine women who participate in what are routinely stated to be masculine endeavors and many, many masculine males who participate in routinely stated feminine endeavors. What society declares is masculine or feminine is nothing more than opinion, opinion which is often incorrect.
Five of the eight childhood gender dysphoria characteristics are regressive gender stereotypes, mostly targeting kids who will grow up to be gay. Insisting to be the opposite sex sounds like magical thinking. However, the dislike of one's sexual anatomy and the desire of the opposite sex anatomy are more concerning to me. No, I don't think they are a sign that a child is "trans". They do, however , seem like potential red flags for sexual abuse or some type of trauma and need to be probed more carefully. (It may end up being nothing but unlike wanting the toys of the opposite sex, these characteristics probably need to be taken a bit more seriously).
This was an outstanding article with such an important message Pear! Instead of forcing kids to become Trans if they don’t fit gender norms or expectations, let’s celebrate diversity and emphasize acceptance of feminine men and masculine women. Every parent across this country needs to read this article. Just because a child fits one of those eight criteria doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination they are Transgender. They could be A) going through a phase, B) gay or lesbian or C) a feminine boy or masculine girl. Gender-affirming care for minors should be illegal period. That won’t cause them to take their own life, to the contrary it will save their life. Do parents want their children to get permanent physical changes to their bodies that they’ll come to regret later in life? Do they want them to have to suffer through the negative side effects of puberty blockers? If you are a good, loving parents you will NOT just affirm their belief, you will question it and take them to a responsible professional. Or and here’s another thought I had, what if that child has autism? These are all valid concerns that I and many others share with Pear. I am 100% for Trans Rights. But this has nothing to do with that. This is about protecting LGBT and autistic youth and creating a society where all people regardless of sex or gender are free to be who they are 100% without being labeled wanting to be the other gender and talked into having a life-altering operation. I would recommend to everyone to read “Irreversible Damage” by Abigail Shirer and “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality” by Helen Joyce.
Thanks for your support 🙏 I completely agree with everything you said & will definitely check out those books you recommended
> "I was around five years old when I first told my mother I was a 'girl trapped in a boy’s body.' ... "
Seems rather precocious at best if not some reason to doubt the veracity of the tale being told.
Though the outline of it and the horrors detailing the phenomenon seem plausible enough.
However, your "typically associated with assigned gender" is something of a fly in the ointment if not the tip of the very serious iceberg -- the conflation of sex and gender. Absolutely NO ONE is assigned a gender at birth, only a sex. Two entirely different kettles of fish -- you might take a gander at Merriam-Webster's more or less sane and succinct delineation of those differences:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#:~:text=%3A%20sex%20sense%201,other%20words%20or%20grammatical%20forms
We have all heard the “gender and sex are two different things” argument over and over again from ideologues. We are all aware that gender ideologues have spread this ideology so effectively that they managed to get the definitions of certain words changed in dictionaries. Many organizations and individuals are pretending to agree with these beliefs out of fear of being “cancelled” if they don’t comply or follow along with these new definitions of words.
& your implication that I’m lying about what I said as a child is ridiculous.
Thank you for reading & sharing your thoughts.
Did you bother to read that Merriam-Webster quote? The rest of their entry?
No doubt there are incoherent, wooish, and quite unscientific definitions for "gender" in particular. Though likewise for "sex".
But there are also useful ones -- like MW's for gender -- that get to the heart of the matter: profound differences between, on the one hand, psychological and behavioral traits typical of but not unique to each sex, and, on the other hand, what it means to be male and female in the first place.
Something which your own use of "feminine" and "masculine" underlines if obscurely. A more cogent and illuminating outlook is provided by an analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia -- hardly a gender ideologue:
“The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics … distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
For details and elaborations on those themes, you might take a gander at my Welcome post, particularly the section on Rationalized Gender:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/welcome
I know exactly what male and female are. And cases like khelif are vanishingly rare. The heart has 4 chambers. There are cases of birth defects where the heart has 2 chambers. But we still know that thr heart has 4 chambers. Exceptions don’t make a rule.
So you should be able to say exactly what it takes to qualify as male and female? Able to provide citations of reputable biological sources that endorse that view? 🙄
Did you bother to read any of what I linked to and quoted?
But I'm most certainly not arguing that Khelif is a female. In all probability he is neither male nor female. Certainly many of the intersex are in that boat -- for example see the photos of these "women" in the "Signs and Symptoms" section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
They have female genitalia and an external female phenotype -- any red-blooded Amurican boy would jump their bones at the drop of a hat. But they have a male genotype -- XY chromosomes -- and internal but non-functional testicles.
And the prepubescent are also in that same boat -- sexless until puberty kicks in. Only "assigned" a sex at birth.
But you might try responding to the relevant comment and not previous ones.
Ok let me tell you how I conceptualize this issue. I’m not interested in a dictionary definition. I’m a pediatrician and have studied these issues.
There are 4 levels to determination of biological sex.
Chromosomes
Internal genitalia
External genitalia
Secondary sexual characteristics
Obviously these 4 levels are related and interrelated. Obviously errors can occur at any of these levels creating a form of intersex or exception.
Still at the end of the day the sum of them (really not including the 4th as that occurs at puberty) is so small to not effect substantially whether we call a baby a boy or a girl. We don’t ‘assign’ we observe.
Sex is defined by the gametes your body is genetically programmed to produce (regardless of whether actual production happens or ceases). There are only two types of gametes — large immobile and small mobile. Eggs and sperm. That’s it and it’s the same across all animal species. If we could all just accept this very clear definition, at least we’d have a cogent basis from which to start discussing the ideological nonsense. Genital appearance and secondary sex characteristics are almost always reliable for observing sex but can vary and are not definitive. Today’s article in the Boston Globe by evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven is worth the read. https://archive.ph/9tC5u
Just ignore this guy.
Well, I'm an electronics technologist -- retired so I'm not so young myself. 😉🙂
But I've likewise studied the issue in some depth, and I kind of think your "four levels" are no more than proxies, traits that correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with the primary one of what it MEANS to have a sex in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
And the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. A rule with NO exceptions.
With your, presumed, scientific background, you might at least try reading this essay on "What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
The number of babies who have sex assigned to them (not at birth) is so small as to render this concept of assignment of sex at birth to be ridiculous
Depends on what you mean by "male" and "female", on what you think it takes to qualify as such. You, and too many others, seem to think it's just a matter of genitalia: "boys (males) have penises and girls (females) have vaginas -- the Kindergarten Cop "definitions".
But that is how Imane Khelif wound up competing in women's boxing at the recent Olympics. So hardly "ridiculous".
You might try looking at and thinking about the actual biological definitions for the sexes, not the fok-biology versions peddled by various so-called biologists and philosophers like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne.
For example, see the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (tweet, Patrick Killeen);
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441;
And see my open letter to the nutcases at the erstwhile reputable biological journal which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
Ok will read later. My four levels do correlate with clinical medicine/findings. I’ll read what you sent and get back later
I know what a proxy measure is. I’m not even sure what we are debating about if anything. I recognize that sexual differentiation can get ‘messed up’ on multiple levels (as I delineated) leading to true intersex individuals. But these cases being so rare o would state that the statistical correlation of a newborn appearing male actually being male is way over 99%. Hence I don’t think the word ‘assigned’ male at birth for example is accurate because it implies a haphazardness to that classification.
NSYA: "I know what a proxy measure is. I’m not even sure what we are debating about if anything."
Not sure that you do. The issue is what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place, not what are more or less useful proxies for the condition.
NSYA: "... the statistical correlation of a newborn appearing male actually being male is way over 99% ..."
Technically, by the standard biological definitions for the sexes, newborn babies don't have a sex and don't ACQUIRE one until the onset of puberty. Though a pretty solid bet that, for example, some 98% of the baby penis-havers turn out to be males -- mirabile dictu.
You really should try reading that last link which asks, "What are biological sexes?"