Peterkin

That's not my example. I didn't say prepubescent. Apparently, sexual orientation has a wider range of of ages at which people recognize it in themselves than gender identity; it may not happen until after puberty. . https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/sexual-orientation.html I was using this as an analogy for how society can make people hate what they are. I don't know. I suppose it would vary from person to person, the same way it does with heterosexuals. Some confident, outgoing individuals act on their feelings; shy, introverted ones usually don't. But nobody else - who isn't an expert or a very observant parent - would know until they have expressed it, by word or deed. In communities where authoritarian rule is out in the open and non-conformity is closeted, the child would expect to be slapped down, and not express his feelings. In communities where bigotry is hidden behind a tolerant facade, a child might not know how people really felt about 'her kind' until too late to hide it. All depends... Why would they blame themselves for something that's accepted? They are normal, if other people don't convince them otherwise. That cart keeps getting ahead of that horse. The 'dire consequences', like suicide or running away or self-mutilation only happen as a result of persecution, not self-hate. Anyway, trans kids don't. They identify with a gender at too early an age to understand the concept of normal and abnormal. They simply identify themselves as the expression of the gender they feel they are - and then either hit that wall of prejudice or experience that acceptance. Maybe 'we' should not take it upon ourselves to tell anybody anything about themselves.

That depends on how others - and which others - express their wishes. Most early childhood wishing does no damage at all. Wishing you had super powers or were really a princess or a sports hero or a movie star is routine and harmless. But they wish these attributes and successes as something extra - not instead of their identity and personality, but to achieve those goals as their actual self. What makes anyone wish to be other than themselves? This was an insurmountable problem for a lot of boys who realized they were gay at a time when society punished that identity with every resource in its possession from shaming to imprisonment, with frequent beatings in between. Of course they would wish to be accepted - but if that could not happen, they would wish to change. So much so, that they would undergo horrid courses of re-education. That wasn't so long ago, either, and it isn't so far away still. Only 13 states, as of 2019. https://www.history.com/news/gay-conversion-therapy-origins-19th-century Nobody feels 'different' without being told they are. And the family and society who tell a child he or she is different must first be aware that the child does not identify with the assigned label. IOW, it can only be deliberate and unaccepting. Friends do not do this. Parents, coaches, clergy and lawmakers and other bigots do this. If most of us could get over t that prejudice, we don't really need to the door very much wider to get over this one.

Sure. But the thread is specifically about him as the victim. Like I said, they probably had a sick relationship; they probably hit and threw things at each other (which, barring use of firearms, would give him a clear advantage); they probably abused other substances (at least he certainly looks like he's been doing so for a while); neither was helpless or without recourse. In short: not a good example of the topic. I offered some real case studies. I'm done with gossip.

I don't see it proved anywhere that he was a victim at all. It's obvious that he was not helpless. I find him entirely unconvincing as representative of any victims of domestic violence.

If the subject is domestic violence against men, I'm interested, because that's a real problem and real people are not only suffering but also passing on a pattern of toxic relationships to their children. If the subject is the poor little movie star whose only recourse against his terrible wife is a team of 8 attorneys with all the resources of an international law firm, unlimited funds and an army of social media connected fans, I lost interest.

I thought he won a lawsuit for defamation. I'm not aware that she was convicted of abuse. It sounds to me as if the two of them fought and they each say the other started it, just as children very often do. I admit that this sordid pair hasn't interested me enough to find out the details, but I don't see evidence that the man was a victim of abuse. Domestic abuse is a serious issue, and abused men generally do not get justice - even in the rare case when they seek it. To cite this particular man as their representative is to do the real victims an injustice. And, IMO, trivialize and sensationalize and misdirect any discussion of the subject. There is a ton of real information available. We don't need to get our 'facts' from tabloid fare https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=male+victims+of+domestic+violence&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart eg

Where does it stand?

How best to start including men who are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse ? Not with those two people as the standard-bearers for their sex. Domestic violence is a serious issue. This is a frivolous (if pathetic) celebrity lawsuit.

Why start by assuming that they are confused? Which children are confused about what subjects? What is confusing those particular children about those particular subjects? Why are we not asking: Are we confusing children with garbled and contradictory information - or outright lies? How about by our insistence on a version of reality that conflicts with the evidence of their senses and personal experience? I mean, of course, about other things, like God and Democracy, fair play and truth-telling. I don't see the relevance of the question or the provocation to sarcasm.

Nope. Then why do you think they are? They need acceptance, even if they have figured it out and it's not what the parents prefer. How do you mean, I post as if? I'm going by the Canadian Pediatric Society article I cited. They don't seem to think environment (by which I assume you mean how the child is treated) is a factor, except in that if they meet resistance to their gender expression, children try harder to assert it, by insisting on stereotypical dress and demeanour.

So, that door may be closed. How about sporting or youth clubs? How about an existing privately owned adult team establishing a junior affiliate? I really don't know what's possible where you live. Maybe the state legislature needs wholesale replacement? Well, obviously it does! Easy to say; difficult to do.

I know I was supposed to butt out... but I like children, don't approve of bigoted adults making them miserable or depriving them of opportunities to become their best self.

How autonomous is your board of education? How conservative are the parents in your school district? What community recreational facilities exist independently of state control? I think your most effective approach would be at the grass roots level - if the grass on your side of the fence is green enough. If private schools can make their own rules, I imagine a church or youth organization could make its own rules, too: set up mixed leagues for soccer and baseball and accept every child who wants to try out a team, no matter what the governor says. Of course, if you're living a desert, you just have to move to where grass can grow.

How long were you confused about your own gender identity? At what age did you finally decide? The evidence, so far, is that kids are not confused about their gender identity, although many do experiment, since it's not a clear M/F choice, but rather a process of finding one's place in a spectrum. They know, usually by about age 3, what gender they are. They also understand by then, or within a year or two, what their society expects of that gender, what clothes and habits are associated with that gender in their culture. Even if they have been wrongly assigned at birth, by age 7, they generally act the role associated with boys or girls, just like their contemporaries who were assigned correctly. https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/behavior-and-development/gender-identity Adults who don't like change, don't like complication, don't like to be wrong - and most particularly those who refuse to accept that their precious little girl is really a boy, or their big handsome son is really a big ugly daughter - act on the cherished fiction of immature impulsiveness or persuasion by psychologists, or whatever story will let them have their own way, even at the cost of their child's happiness. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/us/texas-transgender-parenting-court-case/index.html Why this 'freedom' rather than simply freedom? Democrats are not 'in power' - far from it. They have the White House , a very small majority in Congress and smaller minority in the Senate. They can pass almost no federal legislation with those numbers - and certainly no bill without amendments and modifications. Even if they could, they have little or no power to affect state legislatures, which have vast jurisdiction over civil issues. One thing citizens can do locally is exert influence over their boards of education, and bring more cases of personal liberty vs state law before the courts. Local courts, obviously, not the present Supreme Court.

That's a very interesting question, though unrelated to sport. There does seem to be a fairly big problem with the identity issue. Children who have been wrongly assigned usually know quite early - age 3-7 - but the adults around them think they're too young to decide. So the transition generally has to wait until the the child is articulate and insistent enough - usually past puberty.

I think I should, having said the little I know and think.

I think the kernel subject has been covered - several times - and the solution is simple, but there are two main objections: some people can't even entertain the concept of changing sports the way they have come to understand sports, and some feel that men who identify as women are still, nevertheless, men, who have a physical advantage. Whether the age cut-off is 10 or 12 or 15 years of age, at some point, they're convinced that all persons identified as male at birth will, at some point, have an insurmountable advantage over all athletes correctly identified at birth as female, and their presence in women's sports would ruin those sports for women. I see no way past that wall.

That's not just up to the father; that's the job of mothers too, and teachers and coaches and sport and film and music idols. Nor is predation and bullying restricted to males against females. Mixed sports would go some way toward preventing that.

If a pair of 15-year-olds want to be together, I'm sure could a better place to play show-and-tell than a public toilet. Besides, they have cubicles, with doors.

misplaced post There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific. All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected. There are statistical differences in how boys and girls behave at a given age - but nobody's raising statistics; we're raising individuals - every child a singularity. Our daughter was headstrong, impulsive and temperamental. Our son was clever, subtle and manipulative. They needed quite different handling - because of their character, not their sex.

There are quite a lot of outdated people in North America. And far too many who put winning ahead of any other consideration.

That's how boys have been expected to play. If you've had much to do with them, you know that children try to live up to adults' expectation of them. And I know this from experience: If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive. If they've only ever been allowed to rough-house with other boys or play house with other girls, they won't learn how to play together. What has been the norm doesn't necessarily have to stay the norm forever. Sure, if there are enough kids to make up more teams. And if they at least give a tryout to every player who wants to be on a team they were not slated for at birth. Neither will a timid, slight boy! And he's way more likely to be bullied by the other boys. And yet again: if you sort by size and ability, rather than age and sex, you're much more likely to give every child a fair chance. You don't think a culture like that needs a reset? Anyway, I'm willing to put up with the unfair advantage of children whose parents are rich and ruthless enough to find a surgical facility corrupt enough to perform that procedure; I imagine those kids will go to private school where they're no threat to normal people, and the parents will die accidentally by own firearms.

I don't believe anyone has claimed that they were incorrectly assigned at birth as human, when they are in fact an android and wish to transition to their true mechanical self. No, I don't see a major threat to school sports from cyborgs. If a child with artificial limbs competes successfully, so what? He couldn't have done it without learning the skill and putting in the practice, just like every other competitor. Nobody's going to replace their child's normal feet with robotic ones, just to win at football. Where children play in mixed sports from an early age, they tend to become better team players and more tolerant, understanding people. It's most important in schools to encourage these traits, rather than aggression and winning at all cost. Two ways to encourage the participation of trans kids is to encourage the participation of all kids, without artificial barriers and arbitrary distinctions. If the team is mixed by gender, it can accommodate four genders as readily as tw - and be the better for it as a team. Another approach is to change the sports, rather thn players. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, we made this stuff up in the first place; we can unmake it, change it, remake it and make new ones any time we like, in any way we like. Why not simply alter the games to make them more inclusive? Not just under 10 years, but all through school, students could benefit from co-operation and inclusion. Maybe fewer of them would grow up reptilian.

Why? Do all 12-year-old boys play dirty soccer? I don't believe that. If everyone abides by the rules, nobody needs to get hurt. Also, at 12, girls tend to be a little ahead on weight and co-ordination. But what's it matter, if all the teams are gender-neutral, selected by size and ability? At this point the trans kids haven't even been allowed to make any physical changes; they're playing as whatever gender they were assigned at birth.

Update on the toothpaste sneezing. It's not the fluoride. I've kept up my treatments, but started making a dentifrice made of salt, baking soda and mouthwash. If use that four nights out five and no sneezing. Has to be some other chemical in commercial toothpaste. Sitting a daft still tends to bring on a sneezing fit - just as uncontrollable though less severe.