Children and gender

[Terrie]

The idea that I would never think "gender variant" for the little girl who wanted to be Batman, wore jeans and loved blue is laughable, because that was me as a child and I am gender variant. I have been mistaken for a guy on paper several times before, and in meat space, I'm very androgynous. I've never considered myself genderqueer, as my gender identity has always been that of a girl/woman, but I have a very difficult time with femininity. I no longer feel the outright revulsion that I did as a child/teen, but I'm always very much aware that I'm playing an artificial role when I do things like wear dresses or makeup. I've never understood why it appeals to some people. I never thought it was bad; it just baffled me. Like people who like football.

I'm sure some people would take this as proof that I have some sort of agenda on this topic, but I'm quite sure what that agenda is supposed to be. That I believe gender variant is a broad category, and people of all ages fall into it and it's not a big deal? Guilty, I suppose.

[Mama Mia]

The idea that I would never think "gender variant" for the little girl who wanted to be Batman, wore jeans and loved blue is laughable, because that was me as a child and I am gender variant. I have been mistaken for a guy on paper several times before, and in meat space, I'm very androgynous. I've never considered myself genderqueer, as my gender identity has always been that of a girl/woman, but I have a very difficult time with femininity. I no longer feel the outright revulsion that I did as a child/teen, but I'm always very much aware that I'm playing an artificial role when I do things like wear dresses or makeup. I've never understood why it appeals to some people. I never thought it was bad; it just baffled me. Like people who like football.

I'm sure some people would take this as proof that I have some sort of agenda on this topic, but I'm quite sure what that agenda is supposed to be. That I believe gender variant is a broad category, and people of all ages fall into it and it's not a big deal? Guilty, I suppose.

I just do not understand this need to put small children in boxes. Currently in my family there are several 4 year old girls. One of them was Superman for Halloween and loves to play video games with her mom, as far as I've seen the characters that are her favorites are all male. Another little girl is about as stereotypically feminine as you could get, and has been since she was old enough to pick up a toy doll. The other two are a little more varied in their interests. The super feminine girl has a little brother who copies absolutely everything she does. It wouldn't even occur to me to be wondering about or questioning or labeling any of them.

How do you even categorize most toys? Wouldn't most little kid toys fall into the unisex category by default? Sure dolls and trucks might scream boy and girl.....but what about stuffed animals, playsets of houses and farms, play dough, crayons, blocks, balls, riding toys, pull-along toys, simple board games, paint, clay, roller skates, books, shape sorters, slinkeys, scooters, slip and slides, sand toys, pop-up boxes, bath toys and the billion other toys kids have? Until recently all of those came in generic colors, even now they aren't all divided into " boy and girl" packaging. Who decides a kid is playing with mostly male or female items?

To most people wouldn't a toddler playing with any toy be just a kid playing with a toy? Why would you notice that your infant prefers a certain color of blanket?

[guidedbybobafett]

I have friends who are raising their daughter in a relatively gender neutral environment. It doesn't go as far as to say "you're not a girl or a boy!", but rather refuses to acquiesce to the idea that because she is a girl she will necessarily want certain things over others. Her room is yellow with a dr. Seuss theme, she has both "girls" and "boys" clothes, as well as toys that are "meant", for whatever that's worth, for both boys and girls. I think its awesome. It isn't about saying "oh, you'll decide later 'what you are'", though I don't think theres anything wrong with that, it's more about trying to minimize the influence that society falsely places on gender in terms of what we like or what we want to do. A girl may very well love frilly dresses and makeup and dolls, but it isn't really fair to assume that without introducing other options into the mix.

[Mama Mia]

I've been trying to figure out why I'm getting more concerned the more I read on the topic.

I know lots of people who are relatively rigid about traditional gender roles for children ( boy children, they don't seem to care so much about girl children doing " boy" things ...which gets back to the feminine being less than) . But the kind of people who would be uncomfortable if a boy was too "girly".

But none of those people would even begin to think about putting any kind of label on such small children. The most archly conservative traditionalist wouldn't place any meaning on an infants blanket color choice, or think anything about toddlers playing with toys marketed for the other gender.

I don't think most people, even those who are very traditional about gender roles, are putting the kind of thought into labeling small children as I see from the people who have blogs and news stories about their kids being transgender or transsexual. They just see little kids as being little kids.

Older kids, closer to puberty, I think is an entirely different discussion.

[Terrie]

The reason that we are "putting labels" on things is because it's really damned hard to take about things if you don't have words for them. The kids who make the news or the blogs are the kids at the far end of the spectrum. They experienced or are experiencing serious distress at being misgendered. Their families put a lot of thought into it, becaue\se they didn't have a choice. The scenario that you keep harping on, "Oh, little Johnny likes pink. He's transgender!" does not exist. The only place that happens in your head.

As for the idea that no one, except those of us over zealously labeling children, cares about the gender expression of little kids, I would laugh if your lack of awareness on this issue didn't make me cringe. There are so many cases of young kids being shamed for being gender variant that I honestly don't know where to start.

[Conuly]

What's wrong with labeling kids? When you call your child a girl or a boy, isn't that labeling them? (And if you keep insisting the correct label is "girl" while they keep telling you they are really a "boy", or vice versa, isn't that label wrong?) How about if you call your kid a "toddler" or a "preschooler" or a "kindergarteners", aren't those also labels? When you call your child a "Christian" or "Jewish" child, guess what, those are labels too!

We give labels to other people all the time. Isn't it better to put a little thought into it for a change rather than just saying "penis = boy" over and over again, even if our child is distressed at the equation?

[Mama Mia]

The reason that we are "putting labels" on things is because it's really damned hard to take about things if you don't have words for them. The kids who make the news or the blogs are the kids at the far end of the spectrum. They experienced or are experiencing serious distress at being misgendered. Their families put a lot of thought into it, becaue\se they didn't have a choice. The scenario that you keep harping on, "Oh, little Johnny likes pink. He's transgender!" does not exist. The only place that happens in your head.

As for the idea that no one, except those of us over zealously labeling children, cares about the gender expression of little kids, I would laugh if your lack of awareness on this issue didn't make me cringe. There are so many cases of young kids being shamed for being gender variant that I honestly don't know where to start.

Really? Of 2 year olds? Can you name one

[Terrie]

How about a 17-month old beaten to death to prevent him from "acting like a girl"? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-r ... 71373.html

There's one.

[Mama Mia]

How about a 17-month old beaten to death to prevent him from "acting like a girl"? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-r ... 71373.html

There's one.

You're right that is truly horrible. There seemed to be a lot of other issues going on with the murderer ( he was very young, not the kids dad, sounds like there were possible drug or mental illness issues in addition to just being a horrible person with terrible beliefs ) but truly tragic.

[ILoveJellybeans]

That's horrible :(

[Terrie]

I grabbed that story because it was bad enough to make the news, so there was documentation. But this sort of thing plays out on a smaller scale all the damned time. A lot of it overlaps with homophobia, because if your child doesn't fit neatly in the gender box assigned to them at birth, they could be.... GAY! Cue the scare chords.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I see what Terrie is saying about having a vocabulary to discuss the issues...but I also see Mrs S2004's point about not labelling.

I guess part of my discomfort is that very young children are really still developing their view of gender and the world. It's a fluid time in their lives. That's not a way of saying, "oh, all kids are naturally gender typical!" It's a way of saying that (1) children can absorb messages from media like sponges (we inadvertantly brainwashed our son when he was 2 by leaving a DVD about a Hasidic Jew in the DVD player, where he watched it about 1,000 times. Suddenly, the kid was totally convinced that he was the main character, and acted out the scene constantly - even though it was a film for adults in a foreign language with subtitles), (2) kids don't have a great sense of what is possible or not possible (ask any child who wants to be a bunny or fairy or superhero), and (3) if you don't tell a child that something is gendered, they don't always realize that it is.

The labelling bothers me as well because it's stuck on the child, not on the behavior. I'd rather say that some behaviors are typically seen by a culture as being male or female, but that not all children follow these conventions. Saying that a child IS variant suggests (1) that this is something intrinsic to the child, and that this defines their identity, and (2) that the child so labelled is not normal.

[RachelB]

I see what Terrie is saying about having a vocabulary to discuss the issues...but I also see Mrs S2004's point about not labelling.

I guess part of my discomfort is that very young children are really still developing their view of gender and the world. It's a fluid time in their lives. That's not a way of saying, "oh, all kids are naturally gender typical!" It's a way of saying that (1) children can absorb messages from media like sponges (we inadvertantly brainwashed our son when he was 2 by leaving a DVD about a Hasidic Jew in the DVD player, where he watched it about 1,000 times. Suddenly, the kid was totally convinced that he was the main character, and acted out the scene constantly - even though it was a film for adults in a foreign language with subtitles), (2) kids don't have a great sense of what is possible or not possible (ask any child who wants to be a bunny or fairy or superhero), and (3) if you don't tell a child that something is gendered, they don't always realize that it is.

The labelling bothers me as well because it's stuck on the child, not on the behavior. I'd rather say that some behaviors are typically seen by a culture as being male or female, but that not all children follow these conventions. Saying that a child IS variant suggests (1) that this is something intrinsic to the child, and that this defines their identity, and (2) that the child so labelled is not normal.

I both agree and disagree with you on that last part.

I agree that labeling done by someone else is pretty odious. This is part of why I have never and would never tell my nibling how to identify. That's not my job. That is my nibling's job.

Our society's tendency to treat gender as if it's both fixed and binary is pretty pervasive. And it can be really frustrating and alienating to be an adolescent, realize your experience doesn't fit into a default category* in some way, and not have the language to understand and talk about your experience. I see human variation as an utterly normal thing, but I also recognize that we live in a society where a lot of people don't agree with me on that. And I think it's wise to recognize that a child whose preferred attire and behaviors don't neatly fit into a stereotypical box-- because, really, most of us don't fit neatly into stereotypical boxes--might benefit from a bit of extra support from people who love him/her/hir to pieces exactly as is.

*By "default category," I mean "category that people assume you fit in unless you say otherwise." Our society treats heterosexuality as a default. As a result, no one ever asks straight people when they're going to come out as straight.

[Terrie]

A part of me is giggling, because with all the doom-tinged concerns about "labelling" kids you'd think we were going around pinning purple "V"s to their shirts. (Purple, of course, to show they don't fit into the neat blue/pink dichotomy). Given that Rachel and I have both stated we're gender variant, I think we'd both agree that it's perfectly normal. The message that it's not normal comes from society, not us.

And here's where I think the two sides diverge so dramatically. There seems to be an underlying belief in these concerns that if we don't say anything, kids will go forth in a neutral gender space and figure out who they are for themselves. Sorry, but that's nonsense. Kids are bombarded by millions of micro-messages from society every day. Those messages tell them what is "normal." Those messages tell them that your behavior and identity are determined by the doctor looking at your genitials when you're born. Even explicitly stating "Trans and gender variant kids exist" doesn't fully counter the sheer mass of those messages. Not mentioning it doesn't avoid forcing a label on kids; it simply forces the "cis" label on them.

In case anyone was wondering about the concept of cis privilege, or any privilege really, this is one of its more insidious effects. The ability to ignore the messages that those of us who deviate from the statistical norm are all too aware of.

In light of that, avoiding the labels "gender variant" and "trans" won't prevent labeling. There will just be different labels: tomboy, mama's boy, effeminate, butch, sissy, lesbo... If you're so worried that "labeling" a kid will somehow warp their gender expression and gender identity, consider that with the overwhelming message that cis is "normal," cis is "the default," if labeling worked the way you claimed, there would be no gender variant or trans people, because they were always told they were cis. So, no, I don't worry that masses of kids are going to be horribly damaged by the rising awareness of trans and gender variant children.

Personally, I see it like identifying a child as left-handed. If I don't say anything, the behavior will still be there. By acknowledging it, I can provide the support they will need when "normal" society tells them they're doing it wrong.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I guess I'd rather label a society/culture as having rigid gender roles or being accepting of varied behavior.

I'm not denying that it's important to have language to discuss an experience. I'm worried that the language we use can shape our understanding in a way that may ultimately put the focus in the wrong place.

Yes, society can be cruel and use nasty labels on kids. I don't think that the solution is to use newer and less nasty labels on kids. The problem isn't with the child at all. It's with societies that have rigid gender roles and expectations, which happen to vary from culture to culture, and from one time period to another, and which are too narrow to capture the full range of children's personalities. So, I wouldn't phrase it as a child sticking out for being gender variant. I'd say that a child may experience discrimination by a society that is intolerant of any deviation from its arbitrary rigid gender roles.

I think it's important for kids to know just how gender expectations can vary. Think about a show like Cake Boss. Clearly, Buddy comes across as male, and in his culture, cooking and even baking can be male activities. In some other cultures, something like cake decorating would be seen as a stereotypical activity. When I was born, the overwhelming majority of doctors and lawyers were male (eg. only 5% of lawyers were women in 1970). Thirty years later, women made up approximately 50% of med and law students. When I was studying Freud, he'd talk about the image of the father as the strong disciplinarian. When you watch American sitcoms, you often see the mother as the one setting the rules and the father as an overgrown child.

Also, how many kids are always conforming, or always variant? From what I see with my kids and those around me, it varies depending on the area. My son loves hockey - but will tell you that the strongest defense on the team is played by a girl. When he's really tired after a game, he'll cuddle up with his pink teddy bear blankie. My middle child, who loved her pink butterfly wings, is also a math whiz and was my toughest and most fearless toddler. My oldest loves both nail polish and assembling furniture.

ETA: I'm talking about labelling KIDS. The issue of adults choosing their own language to define themselves is very different, and I don't have any issue with that.

[Terrie]

That’s a lovely idea and one that is the luxury of privilege. Personally, I would compare it to something someone once pointed out to me about racism, “When a person says they ‘don’t see color’ what they’re really saying is ‘I don’t have to notice that some people are treated differently because of the color of their skin.’†For people who buck the system defaults, it is very much obvious that these categories exist. Your entire argument would require that children are somehow immune to the messages of society, but they are as aware of them as the rest of us.

Here are some examples of how society deals with gender and the messages it sends kids every single day. I was looking at shirts in the Land’s End catalog. They sell several styles that are for both men and women, but many of the colors I want are only sold in the men’s sizes, and I’m too slight to wear those. Message: This one’s pretty basic. Some colors are for men only, and some are for women only. Here’s one a little subtler. You pointed out there’s a girl on your son’s hockey team, but she’s tougher than some of the guys. Message: Girls can do guy things, but only if they’re good at it. If the girl was lousy , but just loved playing, she wouldn’t be worth mentioning. I’m sure you’ll say that’s not true, but look around you. I’m sure you can find lots of boys playing hockey who aren’t very good, but where are the girls? Consider why you felt it was important to mention that she was just as good as the boys, rather than simply saying she played. Here’s another one. The concerns about “normal child development†potentially being ignored. The message: Normal kids have phases. If it’s not a phase, they are abnormal.

Kids, like adults, swim in the soup of these messages every single day. And just like adults, they have the right to have words to describe their experiences. Go back and look at the definitions I gave earlier in this thread (seriously, did no one bother to read those?). When I talk about kids being gender variant, I’m not talking about kids who occasionally stray from the standard gender expression, I’m talking about kids who deviate from the standard roles fairly consistently in all aspects of their lives. If you think they don’t know they are different, you’re kidding yourself. They have the right to have words to describe their experience. You have no idea how isolating it can be to think that you are so “out there†and “broken†that there isn’t even a word for it. Having a word for it tells kids that there are other people like them and that others have had the same experiences in the past and present. It gives them power over themselves.

Gender roles aren’t a flexible in modern America as you might think. If you want proof, put your son in a skirt and send him to school, or use the men’s bathroom yourself the next time you’re out in public. And if these ideas bother you, ask yourself why. We don’t live in that ideal flexible society that you’re describing, and glossing over the existence of the existing issues with projected ideals rather than confronting them in their ugliness will simply perpetuate the current system.

[jaelh]

a discussion with a colleague, talking about sex-orientation and labels: woman formerly in a lesbian relationship, several children with her partner. now in a relationship with a man. personal id: described a lesbian in a relationship with a man. perceived id: bi. actual person: liz.

Terrie, you say giving people labels gives people power. To an extent, I agree with you. But labels can be as dangerous as they are powerful.

If gender is a construct (and I admit I skipped a few pages is in the middle there so forgive me if this isn't accepted generally) then the expectations of gender is hugely problematic. (disclosure: i think gender is, and I think the expected performance of obligations of sex is crap.)

you're right, labeling provides a mechanism by which to identify groups that are discriminated against: if we don't have a label, paramaters the group doesn't exist. (If we don't have a label, we can't have stats, to start with). but once we start identifying the boundaries of what normative conduct is for a particular identify, we're entrenching that normativity - or at least, making is much harder to displaced. I wonder why identifying children who are perceived as "different" because of their behavior and preferences, as "different" (gender variant) isn't just reinforcing that conduct actually as different, rather than just simply child is being a child. how do we normatise "tom-boy" conduct, for anyone; "princess" play; toys of any damn colour if we tell people, transgressing the boundaries isn't normal?

to bastardise butler: the person that you say requires a label to give them power doesn't live externally to the labels that we give them. They're a product of those labels. There is fundamentally no identity that is separate from the its construction. by giving that label, we create the very thing we're seeking to act in response to: the artificial construct of the feminine and masculine. it's an act of social justice that necessarily participates in subject position it opposes: exclusion. and yes; labeling allows us to name that which has been performed against us; but in doing so, it requires those who take on such a label to identify themselves as victims; to understand their experience as victimhood. it also places artificial limits on how we understand discrimination (the whole men who have sex with men category in public health, as opposed to sex-id labels, identities and communities.)

anyway: I get what you're saying. I really, really do. And I go back and forth on this, all the time. I don't know. yes; we need to be able to assist in processing understanding to those who are discriminated against; and better ways of behaving to those who belong to the dominant id. i don't know if it's even possible to do so without creating this eternal splintering of hierarchical, artificial dichotomies. but more labels? always more labels? dog I hope there is someway of doing it better.

[Terrie]

Jaelh, I don't believe that gender is purely a construct. Gender roles, yes, gender, no. I do believe that we should be striving for a world where the need for the term "gender variant" is gone. (Trans identities are a very different issue there. I don't believe that we can eliminate them, nor should we). But as I noted, we don't live in that world right now, and avoiding the term for fear of "labelling" reads like an attempt to erase the existence of such people.

As for the idea that having a labeled identity requires identifying yourself as a victim, I find that claim bizarre. Would you tell a gay man or a black woman that they are embracing victimhood?

[jaelh]

As for the idea that having a labeled identity requires identifying yourself as a victim, I find that claim bizarre. Would you tell a gay man or a black woman that they are embracing victimhood?

You're right: a label doesn't require an identify as a victim. And certainly not all labels are so disposed. But the label you're proposing is in response to the [negative] experience of their performance of gender. That's not a good enough reason: that's an identity that exists only because of the experience of victimhood.

They have the right to have words to describe their experience. You have no idea how isolating it can be to think that you are so “out there†and “broken†that there isn’t even a word for it. Having a word for it tells kids that there are other people like them and that others have had the same experiences in the past and present. It gives them power over themselves.

Words to describe an experience don't require identities. Is the tomboy a person that's been given crap because of how they dress; or are they gender variant?

Is it because of how they act, or who they are?

If you want to run a politics of difference argument, I could buy that (or at least, be more persuaded by it). But you're not.

to give some context to my ranting:

I used to work with women and children who experienced trafficking; return and reintegration. The women that came through the return centre had all been horribly, horribly victimised. This was also in a very conservative country - they were all subject to enormous social ostracisation.

and overwhelmingly, the single key determining factor in their rehabilitation was their decision not to be a trafficked person: they were women that had experienced trafficking; they were not trafficked women. they did not allow their experience to define who they were.

The problem though - with social services being delivered to "trafficked women"; with the international community wanting to provide support and funds to support "trafficked women"; with communities being told to support "trafficked women", it was *really $&%^ hard* to not be defined by an experience; by an act. The experience of trafficking became who they were.

in a different perspective: there is a whole lot of writing done on how people seeking asylum, in becoming refugees, have to perform "being a refugee" : they have to articulate their personal narrative. The narrative, which might have until that point in time, been a narrative of extraordinary personal struggle, heroism and endurance, has to become a narrative of prosecution, of victimisation. Because that's what refugees are: victims. We created the refugee, because we don't go out to help those who bravely and heroically seek to overthrow their government in a civil war; we help refugees, victims, pitiful beings. Many people see prostitutes as suffering the inevitable consequences of their actions; yet the line between the experience of a some prostitutes and some trafficked women is all but indistinguishable but for the details.

As I understand your arguments for a gender variant ID in children, they are predicated on a need to respond to the suffering of children who behave in ways that are not gender typical. A good and noble objective.

But why do we need to label children as X? in so labelling, we're creating the very thing we're reinforcing that there *is* something different about particular performances of gender; that's it's a variation; that's it's not the norm.

Children aren't X; children *do* X. children are just children.

anyway. this long enough and it's late, and i'm afraid i'm not making a great deal of sense. I want to say, I also have sympathy for the need to count arguments; for the if we don't define we don't exist arguments; etc... there are good points. Should they trump though? again, i go back and forth, but... for me, they can't; they don't.

On the gender existing or not; agh. another day another time. have a good day all.

[Terrie]

All I can say is please go back through the thread and read where I defined the terms I'm using and how I'm using them. That may help explain some of my viewpoint. Gender variant is not being used to describe a gender identity.

[RachelB]

a discussion with a colleague, talking about sex-orientation and labels: woman formerly in a lesbian relationship, several children with her partner. now in a relationship with a man. personal id: described a lesbian in a relationship with a man. perceived id: bi. actual person: liz.

Terrie, you say giving people labels gives people power. To an extent, I agree with you. But labels can be as dangerous as they are powerful.

If gender is a construct (and I admit I skipped a few pages is in the middle there so forgive me if this isn't accepted generally) then the expectations of gender is hugely problematic. (disclosure: i think gender is, and I think the expected performance of obligations of sex is crap.)

you're right, labeling provides a mechanism by which to identify groups that are discriminated against: if we don't have a label, paramaters the group doesn't exist. (If we don't have a label, we can't have stats, to start with). but once we start identifying the boundaries of what normative conduct is for a particular identify, we're entrenching that normativity - or at least, making is much harder to displaced. I wonder why identifying children who are perceived as "different" because of their behavior and preferences, as "different" (gender variant) isn't just reinforcing that conduct actually as different, rather than just simply child is being a child. how do we normatise "tom-boy" conduct, for anyone; "princess" play; toys of any damn colour if we tell people, transgressing the boundaries isn't normal?

to bastardise butler: the person that you say requires a label to give them power doesn't live externally to the labels that we give them. They're a product of those labels. There is fundamentally no identity that is separate from the its construction. by giving that label, we create the very thing we're seeking to act in response to: the artificial construct of the feminine and masculine. it's an act of social justice that necessarily participates in subject position it opposes: exclusion. and yes; labeling allows us to name that which has been performed against us; but in doing so, it requires those who take on such a label to identify themselves as victims; to understand their experience as victimhood. it also places artificial limits on how we understand discrimination (the whole men who have sex with men category in public health, as opposed to sex-id labels, identities and communities.)

anyway: I get what you're saying. I really, really do. And I go back and forth on this, all the time. I don't know. yes; we need to be able to assist in processing understanding to those who are discriminated against; and better ways of behaving to those who belong to the dominant id. i don't know if it's even possible to do so without creating this eternal splintering of hierarchical, artificial dichotomies. but more labels? always more labels? dog I hope there is someway of doing it better.

An analog for how I feel in this situation:

Henry Louis Gates, addressing an audience: "Race may well be a construct. But that doesn't make it any easier for me to get a taxi in some neighborhoods."

When I was a kid I thought abolishing gender entirely as a concept was the way to go. ("The Story of X"? Loved it.) At a certain point, though, I got a clue and realized that it's insulting to tell people who are experiencing dysphoria that if we could just change society (as if doing so were simple), or-- even worse-- if they just cared less about how other people acted toward them, they would feel at home in their bodies.

I still think that there's a lot we could do to make gender categories more flexible and less oppressive. But that's not a solution that will fit everybody.

[jaelh]

All I can say is please go back through the thread and read where I defined the terms I'm using and how I'm using them. That may help explain some of my viewpoint. Gender variant is not being used to describe a gender identity.

I read it.

And I know you're describing conduct.

Yet if it's describing conduct you say children who act in gender variant ways.

You don't say gender variant children.

Anyway.

[2xx1xy1JD]

An analog for how I feel in this situation:

Henry Louis Gates, addressing an audience: "Race may well be a construct. But that doesn't make it any easier for me to get a taxi in some neighborhoods."

When I was a kid I thought abolishing gender entirely as a concept was the way to go. ("The Story of X"? Loved it.) At a certain point, though, I got a clue and realized that it's insulting to tell people who are experiencing dysphoria that if we could just change society (as if doing so were simple), or-- even worse-- if they just cared less about how other people acted toward them, they would feel at home in their bodies.

I still think that there's a lot we could do to make gender categories more flexible and less oppressive. But that's not a solution that will fit everybody.

That's a good quote from Gates. Saying that something is a social construct doesn't mean that it doesn't have a real-world impact on how someone is treated. It does mean that how someone is treated will depend on how other people perceive them racially, which may have very little to do with how that person self-identifies. [i can think of plenty of examples of either mistaken ethnic identity, or "passing".]

Anyway, about jaelh's point, I first learned about the reasons to avoid labeling from people with disabilities. I just saw this article, which explains it really well:

http://www.aish.com/sp/so/A-Life-Not-with-Standing.html (link unbroken because it's not a blog)

[Terrie]

I read it.

And I know you're describing conduct.

Yet if it's describing conduct you say children who act in gender variant ways.

You don't say gender variant children.

Anyway.

Actually, in this case, no, I don't say that. I suppose there are some good arguments for why I should, but I find the structure of "People who act in gender variant ways, transgender people and trannsexual people" to be awkward compared to "Gender variant, transgender and transsexual people" when the focus of the discussion is the similarities and differences between the three groups.

[Mama Mia]

I hated Story of X as a kid. I resented the idea that if I had only been more exposed to male toys and activities that OF COURSE I would automatically enjoy them and be good at them. I liked the girly stuff, and no matter how many hot wheels or baseballs were shoved inmy direction, I just didn't Want to play with them. I didn't like the implication that if I didn't want to play with typically boy stuff I just wasn't well-rounded enough.

I did very much like William has a Doll though.

I do like that I recently saw some major department chain ( or maybe it was a local ordinance, I just saw the end of a news story ) decided to stop labeling toys aisles and/ or packaging as " boy" or " girl".