Talk:Childhood gender nonconformity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fascinating

This is a great start to a fascinating topic. There remains so little on the social pressures to conform to gender norms, and this page is an important point of departure. Nicely done! Natjolly (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)natjolly

WHAT?!?

Sorry, I'm a little aggravated that at no point in this article does childhood gender nonconformity even get defined. In fact, gender nonconformity doesn't even get defined. Also, this article was clearly reflects a bias. It appears as thought half the article is trying to say that homosexual orientation is the result of childhood experiences.Gold1618 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Femeales too

I fins this article quite subjective. I'm a woman, there were men around me when I was a kid, as well as women. Then I'm a lesbian, but not for this reason I loved playing with cars and doing sport when I was a kid. I'd like to modify this article so as to try to do it more objective, but my English by the way isn't good enough.

Females.

Can't agree with this. I'm a raving tomboy & there have been no men at all in my family. I was raised by a Mysandristic mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you or anyone else can find reliable sources as citations, then feel free to add them. One's personal opinion is appropriate for a blog, but not an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Badly written

This page is incredibly badly written to the point where it cannot be understood. For example:

• "Strong verbal affirmation of a cross-gender identity ("No, I'm not a boy, I'm a girl", or "no, I'm not a girl, I'm a boy.")". Is the former statement uttered by a boy or girl? the meaning of this point is completely different depending on which it is.

• "Toys for girls tend to be round and pink, while toys for boy tend to be angular and blue." who decides this? surely it is the toy manufacturers and the parents not the child?

• The subtle characteristics of toys may differentially appeal to the developing brains of female and male children. Keyword here is "MAY" as in this statement is not supported by the facts.

• "No preference for colour was found" yet "Toys for girls tend to be round and pink, while toys for boy tend to be angular and blue" so something other than child preference is determining this stuff - perhaps this is worthy of discussion?

The list of faults here is very long and the page reads like some daft hybrid of the "Daily Mail" and an appalling sociology essay written by a dim 1st year student. I'd say that in terms of quality this page is amongst the worst in the whole of wikipedia.

Content revision

For my article entry I am going to discuss the parent effect on gender non-conforming children and the needs of gender non-conforming children and families. This is going to improve the article page because it is going to give readers an understanding of what tools gender non-conforming children must have to continue living a successful life during their transformation. It will also allow readers to understand the different types of families that affect gender non-conforming children. Below is a summary of the work I am putting together for the page.

Parental reactions/effects on Gender nonconforming children

Parents with gender non-conforming children often do not know where to turn to express their feelings. Many parents accept their child’s choice but are more concerned for the overall well being of the child. In some cases families are not accepting of their child’s non-conformity and cannot understand that their child truly feels that they are another gender. Regardless of the stance a parent decides to take on gender non-conformity, it will affect the child and the child’s relationship with the family.

Transphobia can occur when gender nonconforming children are met with others who do not understand or accept what they are going through. Dr. Diane Ehrensaft states that, “Transphobia is the anxieties, prejudices, aspersion, aggression, and hatred cast on individuals who do not accept the gender assigned to them at birth but instead play outside that definition of self or perhaps any binary categorizations of gender, possibly to the extent of altering their body (Ehrensaft 2011). " Transphobia can become a serious conflict within the family and can damage the relationship the child has with his or her family.

Parents who recognize that they have gender non-conforming children sometimes experience a feeling of loss and mourning, shame, and grief (Ehrensaft 2011)

Ehrensaft cites that there are three family types that can affect the outcome of a child gender non-conforming journey to finding themselves: transformers, transphobic, and transporters (Ehrensaft 2011)

Transformers are parents that are comfortable in supporting their child in their gender variant journey and can easily identify their child as a separate person. Ehrensaft states, “these parents will stand a good chance of overcoming whatever transphobic reactions may reside within them to evolve into parents who both meet their child where he or she is and become an advocate for their gender nonconforming child in the outside world (Ehrensaft 2011).”

Transphobic parents are not comfortable in their own gender, and may not understand that gender is fluid. Transphobic parents may feel their child is an extension of themselves and respond negatively when their child is faced with his or her own adversity. Ehresaft believes these parents deny their child with an excess of negativity and transphobic “reactivity” this allows the child no room for nonconformity and undermines the love the parent claims to have for the child.

Transporters are parents that appear to be completely accepting of their child’s gender nonconformity but on the inside have doubts about whether or not it is an authentic conformity. Transporter parents may say things like “ It’s just a phase,” or “he or she will grow out of it.”

Needs of Gender Variant Families and Children

There is still controversy regarding the best approach for gender non-conforming children (Riley, et al. 2013) but as gender nonconformity becomes more widely accepted many parents and professionals have identified things that gender variant or gender non-conforming children need to easily adjust to their transformation.

Parents have suggested that their children need the ability to discuss their gender non-conformity freely with their parent, to be loved throughout their transformation, and to be permitted to make choices regarding their gender on their own. They have also suggested a peer support team and supportive counseling in addition to support from their school and schools administrators and authorities (Riley, et al. 2013).

In regards to their own needs, parents have suggested that they need information regarding gender non-conforming children that can better assist them and their child in making a transition. Additionally, parents have stated they need increased education on gender non-conforming children, support from surrounding friends and family to help build parental confidence. Parents have also suggested they need counseling to help provide direction, support from medical professionals and peers, and access to transgender people to help provide them with a positive portrayal of transgender communities.

Nrudisill (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes I have Made

I added two sections: Parent reactions to gender non-conformity and needs of gender non-conforming children and families. I used various sources and research articles to write the sections. If anyone has suggestions or can offer additional tips for the article please let me know.

Nrudisill (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nrudisill ,

Great topic! I really enjoyed both parts of the Wiki page you have added. Not sure if it is supposed to be formatted this way (I had some trouble with mine) But why is there one sentence and then a space? especially where it starts with the sentence "Dr. Diane Ehrensaft" in your part about parent reactions? It is a set up a little strange. On the upside when they are divided like that it is easier to read so maybe keeping the number of sentences more consistent would be better. Regarding the second section it seems as if it is fact after fact and there is no flow to the addition, I think that adding it so that you can connect each fact a little better would make a big contribution to your part.

Overall really great job! I like your topic! Lauren Taylor 455 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I like what you have added to this page! For my topic I wrote about Gender Creative children, which is basically the same as gender non-conforming. One thing that I noticed that you did that I wish I would have done was to talk more about how fmailies react. I think that it is great that you actually talk about the fact that sometimes families have to mourn the loss of the fact that they thought that they were having a child who does not feel like the gender in which their parents expected. You added a lot to this page! Great job. I agree that the formatting could use some work....but I think this has been a little tricky for everyone. Other than that, great job! Tarak7 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

removing or changing the Reparative therapy section

The only source for citations in this section is Zucker himself. The other source I can see for the foreseeable future being cited in this section is people arguing against him. Miiohau (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The section clearly needs improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

“Reparative therapy”

Seeking opinions on the ‘Reparative therapy’ section: My main issue with it is that Ken Zucker wasn’t trying to intervene or repair childhood gender nonconformity, but rather, alleviate severe gender dysphoria. I know it comes under the same umbrella. Maybe it could be retitled as ‘Intervention attempts’ or something of the like? But then such a title could be taken the wrong way, some form of: “you should intervene and it will make your child gender conforming”. No doubt it could somehow be framed in an appropriate manner. There have been some pretty harsh interventions on gender non conforming children; e.g. those promoted by Narth/Rekers to ‘prevent’ a homosexual orientation. I just don’t think Ken Zucker can be attributed with ‘reparative therapy’ of ‘childhood gender nonconformity’ given the children were still gender nonconforming after they felt more comfortable with their sex and they grew up to be gay/lesbian. Just to clarify, to avoid looking like I am on ‘team Zucker’, his methods such as taking away gender atypical toys from children were cruel – but does that make him a reparative therapist? That term largely relates to the actual sexuality/gender identity. I could be wrong and maybe I’m taking the definitions too literally? Seeking opinions from other editors. Thanks. Sxologist (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the "reparative therapy" heading should be changed per it being a non-neutral descriptor used by some LGBT activists to describe Zucker's methods. As indicated in the Kenneth Zucker article, Zucker doesn't consider his therapy to have been conversion/reparative therapy. This Global News source is clear that Zucker and his defenders state that because most prepubescent children with gender dysphoria will cease to want to be the opposite sex by puberty/adolescence, he encourages prepubescent children to feel comfortable with their assigned sex. They argue that if the child still wants to be the other sex by puberty/adolescence, Zucker is not against then looking to assist the child in socially and medically transitioning. And the terms conversion therapy and reparative therapy are overwhelmingly used to refer to trying to change another's sexual orientation. More commentary from me on that latter sentence is seen at Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 23#Conversion therapy is also something that is practised on transgender and non-binary people. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "Behavior modification therapy": [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 06:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to comment, I recently re-read Colapinto's As Nature Made Him and it does give a few pages regarding Kenneth Zucker. It appears Zucker did actually support intervention to prevent a homosexual outcome, and he was particularly supportive of John Money's efforts to rear Reimer as a girl. He also told Colapinto that a silent contributor to one of his papers on this matter was in fact, John Money. He did have one contrasting case the John/Joan case in which one boy was reared as a girl and stayed a woman in adulthood, but all of their partners have been female. I don't know if there is any value in adding Zucker's belief about sexuality back into this section. Such a statement seems more validating of a fringe belief than encyclopedic. I read that Richard Green (Zuckers predecessor as editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior) eventually adjusted his position on homosexuality towards one influenced by biological factors, so of course it's possible to start from a nurturist position and evolve. I have seen Zucker answer a question in one speech in 2013 where he says it's unlikely that early childhood factors would make a boy gay (although he didn't sound particularly enthused). He was particularly supportive of Spizters gay conversion therapy study, and expressed some defensive remarks on twitter recently – but I guess that's his old school nature. All in all, of the recent publications I have seen he mostly deals with gender. I'd say we just leave it as is. Sxologist (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are interested in the pages about Zucker, they're p. 249 - 252. Sxologist (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

Can the pronouns in the "Parental reactions" section be changed from "he or she" to they. It is a bit off-putting that right after it talks about gender outside of the binary, it neglects to use inclusive pronouns. Some bits in the section may need to be reworked. A simple swap may leave readers confused on who "they" is referring to. MiVilkku (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria section is ridiculously out of date

None of the things listed there have been true since 2013 due to the DSM-5 changing the definition to gender dysphoria. It's wrong to refer to the things listed there as gender dysphoria because they would have actually been diagnosed as gender identity disorder in childhood. Amekyras (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

There is no evidence, as well as some reference in the text, that the maternal antibodies from the fraternal birth order "can disrupt" sex hormones, such as testosterone, and thus cause homosexuality and/or gender nonconformity in childhood, this part of the section should be removed, also because it doesn't make a logical connection between gender nonconformity and sexual orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.17.52.164 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elchavez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

University of Virginia Study on "Childhood Gender NonConformity and Children's Past Life Memories"

Hello User:Crossroads, I see you reverted my reference to this study as WP:FRINGE. While reincarnation may not be the mainstream view, therefore making it a WP:FRINGE theory, it does not have WP:UNDUE weight in this article. While it may not be the majority view, it is a significant-minority view. On the WP:UNDUE page, it says you can tell if a view has a significant minority if it is easy to name "prominent adherents." This is very easy to do for reincarnation as all Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains (four Indian religions) believe in reincarnation, numbering over 1 billion people worldwide. Famous adherents therefore include Hindus such as Kal Penn, George Harrison, and Julia Roberts; and famous Buddhists such as Ayushmann Khurrana, Chris Evans (actor), and Benedict Cumberbatch. The study I reference was peer-reviewed in the International Journal of Sexual Health, and conducted by the University of Virginia. Among the other "reincarnation" studies it references by Dr. Ian Stevenson, "The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance" is peer-reviewed in Medical Hypotheses, "The explanatory value of the idea of reincarnation" is peer-reviewed in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, and "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects" was peer-reviewed in two journals: Omega, and the Journal of the American Society for Physical Research. According to WP:FRINGE, publications in peer-reviewed academic journals are enough to establish growing acceptance of a fringe theory. Dr. Ian Stevenson's work, where he supposedly proved reincarnation is real, is not listed on the WP:FTN or Wikipedia Fringe Theory Arbitration Cases board. Even if it was, this study still interviewed 469 children ages 2-12 across 23 countries who both exhibited gender nonconformity and spontaneously started recalling memories of a "past life", and discovered that 95% of them recalled the "past life" of someone of the opposite sex. Don't you think that deserves a mention on the Childhood Gender Nonconformity page? I.e., I don't think a sentence referencing it here would have WP:UNDUE weight, because reincarnation is a belief held by a significant minority, and according to the Fringe Theory page, one of the pillars of Wikipedia WP:NPOV requires articles to mention both majority positions and significant minority positions. Even if reincarnation wasn't a belief held by a significant minority, you could argue fake memories of the opposite sex manifesting in gender non-conforming children's brains is notable. User:RoxySaunders suggested I could add a line referencing it here instead of on the Transgender page; I was hoping the three of us could come to a consensus on referencing this article on this page. Thanks Roxy for your advice so far :) It's cool if you don't want to help with this; just know you're one of my favorite editors I've encountered so far because you thanked me for that one edit and that was my first "thank" on Wikipedia, lol LightProof1995 (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No. We are not talking about reincarnation here. You’ve already bludgeoned this to death on the main Transgender talk page, if you do the same here you WILL be reported. What Benedict Cumberbatch has to do with this I can’t fathom; he is not to my knowledge the foremost expert on gender studies. Dronebogus (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think you are being culturally sensitive or following WP:NPOV. Also WP:BITE. Go ahead and report me I'm sure they'll be on my side. LightProof1995 (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You’ve been here long enough that WP:BITE isn’t an excuse in this particular area. Also, WP:NPOV is not treating fringe theory with WP:UNDUE weight because of “cultural sensitivity”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I want you to agree with me lol. I feel like you're simply not reading everything I write, nor are you carefully reading the WP:NPOV page. (I feel your phrase " treating fringe theory with WP:UNDUE weight because of “cultural sensitivity”" precisely defines WP:NPOV even though you say it doesn't). You said you can't fathom how Benedict Cumberbatch relates to this, even though I stated it very clearly. If you can articulate back to me how Benedict Cumberbatch relates to the inclusion of the UVA study here, I will believe you are truly trying to follow WP:NPOV otherwise it feels you're attacking everything I say (even my WP:BITE comment, when I've still only been active on here a month, and that page says there are no hard or fast rules... I feel my first WP:BITE on the transgender talk page was not acknowledged and it really upset me and I'm trying hard to edit correctly here.) without good faith in regards to editing Wikipedia. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Fringe theories Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

When the policies speak of a viewpoint being held, they are talking about in reliable sources - not as a mere religious belief. Almost no reliable sources support the idea of reincarnation being plausible, and it is as fringe as it gets because it violates all known principles of physics and neuroscience (showing that consciousness arises from brain activity and that there is no plausible method of information transfer from a past life). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Crossroads, according to this reference, "We do not fully understand the biological function of energy in the brain or how it relates to the presence of consciousness in the person." So it has not been proven either way. Furthermore, my edit didn't try to claim reincarnation was real. All I did was reference this study to say that 95% of the children in it who claimed to remember a "past life", had memories of someone of the opposite sex. I pointed out that even if these memories are fake, then fake memories would still be notable. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The study you've been attempting to use as a source only has a sample size of 496, from 23 different countries - seems to be too small a sample size with too many potential confounding variables to follow the guidelines for medical sources listed in WP:MEDASSESS as the article is a case control study, middle of the pyramid of medical evidence. It is an interesting topic, just not one studied enough or considered notable enough to make itself into the Wikipedia article. This happens to me all the time where I'll be reading an article, thinking that what the author is saying should be on Wikipedia, but then when I read the methodology of said article I realize I can't use it. Feralcateater000 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey User:Feralcateater000, thank you for your reply! I think you are correct; this is only one study, and it's not enough for a mention here. At first I was thinking, even this one study could be worth a mention because a 95% correlation is a very statistically strong number. However, I read more about gender non-conformity in children and realized that usually it is due to same-sex orientation, instead of gender dysphoria. So, that number didn't actually make sense to me, if they counted crossdressing and the opposite-sex-playing/playstyles as gender non-conformity, I'd think those children wouldn't recall "past-life memories" of the opposite sex... I looked back at the study to confirm their definition of gender nonconformity included crossdressing and opposite-sex-playing/playstyles (it does), but I also believe I misinterpreted their results chart -- I believe it actually says 80% of the children displaying gender nonconforming traits, recalled memories of a "previous-life", and 95% of children who recalled a same-sex "past-life" , didn't display gender non-conforming traits. So, I feel more studies would be needed to draw more parallels between gender dysphoria and "recalling past-life experiences" of the opposite-sex. The study does mention that Dr. Ian Stevenson himself noticed a trend between gender non-conforming behaviors and the children recalling past memories of the opposite sex, and the studies go back 50 years. However, at this point I am leaning more towards mentioning that on the Wikipedia pages about Dr. Ian Stevenson, or maybe even his section on the Reincarnation page. Also I'd like to apologize if I've upset anyone with these edits; I understand it's a sensitive topic and I know this probably doesn't help much, but I just want to say no one was particularly happy about these reincarnation studies. As a Christian, for me to believe in reincarnation is a stretch. Even Hindus' beliefs didn't quite match up with these studies, as the reincarnation seems to be random (but not geographically distant), instead of karma-based. While the observations of the children are scientifically gathered and documented, we are nowhere close to linking any physical/chemical/quantum science with the phenomenon of consciousness, and we are especially distant from proving people have "souls" that literally travel from one body to another. We probably never will. However, if the reincarnation is real, I think that the part of who we are that is defined by our bodies -- including our genetics -- only applies in our current life. So I felt, while some gender non-conforming people may not feel this applies to them, for others it could help them with their gender dysphoria, and the idea alone could even reduce trans violence especially in places in Brazil where a significant portion of the population believes in reincarnation Spiritism, but now I realize that is not WP:NPOV, that is WP:GREATWRONGS. As far as WP:NPOV goes, you've convinced me the connection between gender-nonconformity and the past-life memories of the opposite sex isn't quite clear enough and more studies are needed, especially since the Gender dysphoria in children page has a reference that says "gender-variant behavior in children is indeed more predictive of same-sex orientation in adulthood rather than gender dysphoria." That reference even talks about the difference between children wanting to be "like" or wanting to "be" the opposite sex, and says data for children wanting to "be" the opposite sex, is much rarer. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help! Your thought process is understandable - statistics from singular studies are difficult to draw conclusions from, that's why meta-analyses are more reliable, but I agree the study is probably notable enough to warrant a mention on Ian Stevenson's page. Feralcateater000 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Addition of non-MEDRS & anecdotal evidence content

The edit in question
Other studies as well as testimony of a growing wave of detransitioners attribute this phenomenon to social contagion References

Regarding this content: Sources given are not wp:MEDRS. This https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-proceeds-ban-puberty-blockers-sex-reassignment-surgeries-minors Fox News is lacking a valid medical view. Fox News as a source on science is dubious. This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL3WoKBCyco YouTube video of Chloe Cole is a non-medical person giving her opinion which is not MEDRS. The content is wp:FRINGE, NPOV, not MEDRS, and sould not be added. Adakiko (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial: notifying recent editors. Adakiko (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Cheers. Yeah that's very poorly sourced. The "other studies" bit would require at least one of those that met MEDRS to be cited, or ideally a review article of those multiple studies. As for the rest, a YouTube video and a Fox News piece do not seem suitable enough to warrant inclusion in the article body, much less the end of the lead. Looks like good removals to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)