Staying on topic- threads in general

Thinking about*Doodledog*'s assertion that the reason more men help with childcare now is because both parents are working made me realise that people are either unaware of gender norms in the 1950s, or of the role of working class women in the 1950s. My mother worked full time from the time I was about 7 years old (part time before that). My dad didn't do housework, or look after children. He would play cricket with us, or cards, or take us to the park occasionally and for that he was regarded as a wonderful husband. A lot of dads didn't even do that. One of the jobs my mum had was leading a team of catalogue women, who took mail order catalogues door to door,
I imagine most of them did all the housework and childcare.
So both partners were working then, but housework and childcare were women's work. Gender roles have changed and now women expect men to do their share and the working situation is irrelevant. Men are learning to be more caring and look after their children

Rosie51 there are quite a few different studies if you are interested, most seem to conclude there's a high possibility of brain differences. But I agree more research is needed

trisher I've read the study you linked to, and would need a lot longer to fully examine it, but I'm not at all sure it's the conclusive evidence you seem to think it is of there being 'homosexual' brains. It says within the article, which is not a comprehensive peer reviewed study, that there was data they didn't have due to technical difficulties. They also recommend many variables that need examining in future studies, so nothing definite at all. Interesting, and maybe indicative of something, but inconclusive overall.

If people are revolted by their bodies in genuine dysmorphia, that is different, isn’t it? That is a question, not a statement, incidentally. It still has to be a learnt response to their body though, doesn’t it, as gender norms vary so much?
But has often been pointed out physicality doesn't vary so revulsion with a body has absolutely nothing to do with gender norms it is to do with the body. There may be a reason which will eventually be discovered either in the brain, exposure to hormones or some other factor. There is no evidence that this is learned behaviour.

Further, as far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't matter why people want to transition. It is their choice, and their lives, so nothing to do with me, and if someone chooses to do it there is no question of 'blame'.

All I object to is the erasure of women through the co-option of the language, and the colonisation of research results and safe spaces that women have fought for for so long, by allowing anyone who wants to to claim female status with no questions asked.

It wasn't a point, but a question. I had already made the point that gender 'norms' are not innate, but learned, as evidenced by the examples given, that they change over time and are culturally specific. Therefore, someone male wanting to 'present as female (and ^vice versa^) can't 'know' that they are in the 'wrong' body unless there is more to it than being drawn to the trappings of the female gender (or ^vice versa^).

I then said If people are revolted by their bodies in genuine dysmorphia, that is different, isn’t it? That is a question, not a statement, incidentally. It still has to be a learnt response to their body though, doesn’t it, as gender norms vary so much?
It may not be as clear as it could be, but what I meant was that (1) a rejection of learnt norms is simply that, so (2) it is possible to remain as one's own sex, but choose to conform to the gender norms of the other (or pick and mix), so I was asking (3) how someone who looked at their body, as opposed to the transient trappings of gender identity and knew it was 'wrong' arrived at that conclusion. Doesn't the same apply? (ie the 'fact' that a male body needs to be associated with what we, in this time and place, see as 'male' norms is just learnt behaviour.

There will, no doubt, be both body dysmorphic transpeople, just as there are body dysmorphic non-trans people. I don't see people in terms of that 'divide', however. Nor do I see dysmorphia as a phase, or blame anything on mothers, and didn't suggest that I did.

I don't think I claimed that drag queens were new or that women haven't worn trousers. I was repudiating the idea that transpeople are just people who want to dress differently and if we let them do that they would be fine. There are people who choose to dress and present differently they are not transpeople. Transpeople believe they have the wrong body. Personal assertions may be interesting but they do nothing to deal with people who really feel they are in the wrong body. All they prove is that if you want to dress a certain way you can do.

Doodledog I'm afraid I still don't understand your post about gender dysphoria. When I asked if you thought there were two sorts of transpeople the gender dysphoric and others you chose instead to assign that belief to me which realy doesn't answer the question does it?
I was thinking that your post reminded me of some of the things which used to be said about gay people. "Oh it's just a phase," "She'll grow out of it" Or their mothers were blamed for being too controlling and turning men off women.
We now know that there are differences in homosexual brains www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z
In the future sciencce may identify differences for transpeople.

In Shakespeare's time the women's roles were played by men, and the men were dressed accordingly.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202110/medium-134464-screenshot-2021-10-26-at-19-33-50.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202110/medium-211148-screenshot-2021-10-26-at-19-54-13.png

The two images Trisha shared do not IMO show a man and a woman challenging gender stereotypes. Drag queens aren’t new. Women working in trouser suits - definitely not new.

No. Here are some less recent examples. What they prove, apart from that anyone can Google Image search, I'm not sure; but they definitely show that neither women in trouser suits nor men in drag are new.

The two images Trisha shared do not IMO show a man and a woman challenging gender stereotypes. Drag queens aren’t new. Women working in trouser suits - definitely not new. I was doing it in the 60’s, my mum looked wonderful in okeated trousers with turn ups, a plain blouse and hacker in 1947.

I ageee with those who worry our children, well our grandchildren, are overly exposed to specific gendered toys

Galaxy
That's why we have to fight the stereotypes and the notion that there there is a way to live or dress 'as a woman'

Hallelujah.

That reading was lovely

I live with men. I am tall and strong and masculine. I do a male job. I am quite literally the only woman in my workplace at times. I like male interests and wear practical clothing which isn't at all feminine. I'm sure the men I worked with would think I was ludicrous if I said I felt like a man and the most difficult thing about it was managing to urinate in the actual toilet bowl. As for wanting to use their toilets...

Galaxy

That's why we have to fight the stereotypes and the notion that there there is a way to live or dress 'as a woman'

Hallelujah!

Here is Jazz Jennings reading "I Am Jazz".

youtu.be/BF5D2lsPfsU

It's almost 100 years since boys were kept in dresses and it was never to do with gender roles. A boy in a dress was still treated as a boy.

That's exactly the point.
Just as women in trousers was once considered to be a shocking idea, now most women wear trousers and are, of course, still recognised as women.

I think it's very unlikely you'll find any account of a "trans child" that doesn't give reference to clothes, hair, toys as "proof" of the child being the opposite sex.
Adult trans people often make similar claims.

Oh and for the hundredth time most of us know many people with gender dysphoria, and er lots of them are gender critical.

That's why we have to fight the stereotypes and the notion that there there is a way to live or dress 'as a woman'

I think society is much more gendered than it used to be, particularly for children.

So are you saying there are two sorts of trans people Doodledog the "real" transpeople who suffer from gender dysphoria and others who do not?
No, but if you want to divide people on dysphoria lines, go ahead.

AS for the "its' because both parents are working" argument some of it may be true but I think there are a significant number of young men who love their children and actually want to be actively involved in raising them. It's a step towards men being caring and emotional, something which they were expected in the past to reign in.
Maybe. Probably, actually. My husband stayed at home for a couple of years when ours were little, and would have loved the children and been actively involved in raising them even if he hadn't. But it's the fact that women are now able to work for the same rates as men that made that possible. If my father had wanted to do the same, my mother wouldn't have been able to earn enough to pay the mortgage and support a family, as it was legal to pay women less than men.

So are you saying there are two sorts of trans people Doodledog the "real" transpeople who suffer from gender dysphoria and others who do not?

AS for the "its' because both parents are working" argument some of it may be true but I think there are a significant number of young men who love their children and actually want to be actively involved in raising them. It's a step towards men being caring and emotional, something which they were expected in the past to reign in.

No.

I don't think that it has to do with trans at all.

Gender norms are not always challenged - they morph with time and over cultures, usually for political reasons.

Shared childcare responsibilities are more likely to be a result of the need for both parents to earn a living, and of fewer women being prepared to be financially dependent.

I repeat for the hard of thinking - the example of boys in dresses was simply to show that what is now seen to be a challenge to gender norms once was the norm. An example of how norms change over time and are not inate.

If you read my post for content, rather than for ways to pick holes, you will see that I clearly said that body dysphoria was different.

So do you agree that gender norms are now being challenged Doodledog? That women can do far more than at any stage in our history? That more men are now taking responsibility for childcare and what were once called "women's jobs" Of course it hasn't gone far enough and there are huge steps to undertake. But really that is nothing to do with gender dysphoria which is an accepted medical condition.
It's almost 100 years since boys were kept in dresses and it was never to do with gender roles. A boy in a dress was still treated as a boy. He was never treated as a girl. His role in life was clear. It was a way of fooling the evil spirits who killed more boys than girls (it was easier to toilet train as well). Girls were still treated differently.
But as I said this is nothing to do with gender dysphoria.
I supose you could argue its to do with non-binary people but I don't think you meant them did you?

And between 'gender bending' fashion and either of the above.

foothers to judge.

For others to judge!

And whilst I'm here, yes, I know the difference between drag and trans. And between transvestism and transsexuality. ?

trisher, I didn't say it was 'just' about shaving your legs or having certain hairstyles. I said that they were examples of how gender norms were created by society. The 'boys in dresses' example was about the way that all children wore dresses until they were 5 or so, as a norm. Nothing to do with wearing them as a challenge to norms. In the context of my post, I would say that anyone taking it another way must have been looking for ways to find fault, but I will leave that foothers to judge.

As for my comment on gender dysphoria - why did you feel the need to add 'like it or not'? I was careful to say that I was asking a question, not passing a judgement. Why would I 'like it' or 'not like it'? What an odd comment.

Thank you, SueDonim, for your response. And to you, Rosie for your understanding of my post.