Because it’s a free country, asshole!

The comments here at Heretic TOC have long been enriched by the hugely informative wisdom of “A”, whose only fault is to have chosen a pseudonym that is absolutely useless as a search term; locating her back-catalogue of contributions is thus a bit of a nightmare. Today, though, she steps into the spotlight with a guest blog you will definitely want to bookmark in your own records if you are interested – as I think we should be – in the difficult decisions faced by children and adolescents who find themselves struggling with gender dysphoria. Following my own explorations of the theme in Trans kids 1: Insistent, consistent, persistent, “A” made an insightful comment from her own perspective as a former “tomboy”. This now appears below in an extended version. “A” describes herself as “a law-abiding but pro-AOC-abolition BL and GL woman who had a tomboyish, but never gender-dysphoric, childhood”. With an academic background in linguistics, including research-level training, she has undertaken varied work around the world. She tries, she says, “to reconcile MAP politics and feminism”.

PERSISTENCE AND DESISTANCE: A TOMBOY’S VIEW

I highly recommend the blog Trans Research. [Link removed, March 2022, following notification that this blog site is no longer extant. I would consider replacing it with another appropriate information source but am  do unable to at the moment, as I am no longer up-to-date with the best sites in what is a very rapidly developing field. Sorry.] Much of the most up-to-date research is Dutch, as much of the most ‘advanced’ treatment of gender-dysphoric kids is Dutch. Here, for instance, is a Dutch long-term follow-up study of puberty suppression and here‘s another.
According to this Dutch study children should probably not be allowed to transition socially before they are ten. This recommendation is based in part on the experiences of five natal girls who had effectively lived as boys for some years, then during puberty wanted to ‘switch back’ to being girls. All had “significant feelings of shame for their earlier boyish appearance” and some worried about being teased or excluded by classmates over the switch back. Two are quoted about their difficulties with this. While it seems that the girls did in the main manage to switch over to more feminine appearance and behaviour relatively smoothly, one struggled for years, first fearing that she’d be teased if she wore earrings and bracelets like the other girls, and then actually being teased after the move to high school, which she’d hoped would help her “make a fresh start”. The gender-dysphoric boys, however, had not dressed as girls full-time during elementary school and had been perceived by the other children as boys, just different boys. Perhaps if they’d been effectively living as girls, rather than feminine boys, some of them too would have struggled with switching back.
The tomboy makeover is a major trope in our culture. “My little tomboy now wears satin and lace” go the lyrics to Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen. Tomboys who grow out of it are all over classic girls’ literature: I remember being, at age twelve, quite irked by the ending of Carol Ryrie Brink’s 1936 novel Caddie Woodlawn, in which an eleven-year-old frontier girl who does everything her brothers do finally decides to settle down a bit and learn sewing. In the film Now and Then, a less-than-entirely-successful but quite popular 1995 attempt to make a Stand By Me for girls, a sporty twelve-year-old binds her growing breasts — till she gets attention, and her first kiss, from a cute neighbour boy who likes her basketball skills.
It’s a trope for a reason, and part of that reason is that it has a lot of truth to it. When I was fourteen or fifteen and we were all changing after PE, one of the other girls remarked, apropos of what I can’t remember, that when she was younger she’d wanted to be a boy, and almost every girl in that room said she had, too. An acquaintance working on a neuroscience PhD recommended to me Lise Eliot’s book Pink Brain, Blue Brain and Rebecca Jordan-Young’s book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, both of which I recommend in turn. Jordan-Young’s book deals extensively with girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or CAH, “a genetic disorder which causes overproduction of androgens from the adrenal glands…[and] is the most common cause of genital ambiguity”. Girls with CAH on average have more masculine interests as children than unaffected girls. In chapter eight of her book, Sex-Typed Interests, Jordan-Young examines this Swedish study of CAH and non-CAH girls ages two through ten.
The CAH girls in the study spent less time playing with ‘girls’ toys’ and more time playing with ‘boys’ toys’ than the control girls. But the other side of the story is that the most popular toys among the control girls, as measured by number of seconds spent playing with a particular toy, were Lincoln Logs and a garage with four cars. Jordan-Young points out that “the normal control girls spent three times as long playing with the garage and toy cars as they did playing with the baby doll. The only ‘girls’ toy’ that was in the ballpark…with these boys’ toys was a pair of Barbie and Ken dolls. (I suspect that Barbie and Ken were riding around in some of these cars.)” At the end of the study, each child was offered one of a car, a doll and a ball to take home, and while no girl from the control group picked the car, control girls were roughly 36% more likely to choose the ball than the doll. Granted, this was in Sweden. But maybe ‘boys’ toys’ are just more fun for many kids, regardless of sex!
However, of course, almost all women are happy to be women. My experience suggests that if you stand in a crowded urban train station at rush hour, say, you’ll be in the presence of at least a couple of women who as girls were hardcore tomboys — to the point of insisting on short haircuts and gender-neutral nicknames, being delighted to be mistaken for boys, frequently wishing to be boys, becoming distressed at puberty and covering up their developing bodies with baggy clothes, etc. — but who are now happy to be women. Some are feminine women; others remain quite androgynous or ‘gender non-conforming’; most are heterosexual, though a disproportionately high number are lesbian or bisexual; and most, it seems, end up in long-term relationships with men and have kids of their own. And many will tell you quite forcefully that as children they would have jumped at the chance to transition, but that they now feel this would have been the wrong choice for them, and are glad they didn’t get to make it.
Social transition is sometimes set in motion alarmingly early these days, with very young kids ‘going stealth’, like this little trans boy (natal female), who transitioned socially at five:

“The week before he starts school, he changes his name to one that sounds more male. The principal and his teachers know his gender status, but to everyone else he’s just one of two hundred little boys showing off to each other on the playground. He worries about his body betraying him, turning him into a woman against his will, and we tell him that doctors can help him with that, if it’s still what he wants when the time comes.”

But if it’s not still what he wants when the time comes, won’t he find it awfully difficult to change back if none of his friends from kindergarten even know he was born a girl? So what does not letting kids transition socially before ten look like? Maybe something like this. The seven-year-old natal girl in question is allowed, as she should be, to present and act as she wishes, but she’s still known by a female name and female pronouns, and “at school, everyone knows she is a girl” though “no one has ever known her to look or act like one, so she gets treated more like a boy”. Her parents are willing and ready to support whichever path she eventually takes, including social and medical transition, but are well aware that that’s far from an inevitable outcome.
The son of blogger Bedford Hope, aka Accepting Dad, walked a similar middle road in middle childhood. He wore long hair and pink skirts and was fine with either set of pronouns as long as you weren’t making fun of him, but he was clear that he was a boy. At thirteen, the age when kids tend to be at their most ruthlessly conformist, he was already deep-voiced and nearly six feet tall, and he went underground with his femininity for a while, to the point of forbidding his parents to mention it. At fifteen, he was out again as a male-bodied person who likes to wear skirts and loves fashion. His parents, too, were willing and ready to support social and medical transition if it came to that, but in the meantime it was watchful waiting. It worked: partly because the parents handled it well, partly because the family lives in a socially-liberal East Coast area of the US, and partly because of the kid himself: he has great social skills and always had a lot of friends both male and female, and he responded robustly to teasing — asked on the playground why a boy would want to wear a dress, he replied “BECAUSE IT’S A FREE COUNTRY, ASSHOLE!”
A shy, awkward, sensitive kid would have required more support in walking the middle road. But then, shy, awkward, sensitive kids require more support with a lot of things. With the best will in the world, though, there are going to be at least a few kids who need to transition socially before ten, who can’t be happy any other way, and I think they should be allowed to. Yes, there’s a risk to that, but there’s also a risk to letting kids play out by themselves or have sex or even try out for the school play.
Another observation from the first study I linked is that, at least in the Netherlands, the age range ten through thirteen is often when kids end up moving towards their eventual path: ‘persisting’ in their wish to transition medically or ‘desisting’ from it. Before this four-year span, outcomes are difficult to predict. After it, kids are much less likely to change their minds, whichever path they’ve picked. But I do wonder if sometimes ‘desistance’ isn’t seized upon too eagerly, if the books aren’t closed prematurely — after all, fourteen is awfully young to know you’re cis ;)! There does seem, according to the Dutch study discussed here, to be a group of ‘persisters-after-interruption ‘: young people who try in adolescence to make it work as cis homosexuals, but who then come back to the clinics in early adulthood requesting transition. I wonder if there isn’t also a group of ‘underground persisters’ whose desires to change sex continue, but are hidden. The blog post from Transparenthood above contains an example of what many people say to the parents of tomboys:
“I had a cousin that was a tomboy. She dressed like a boy and played with the boys until she was fifteen. Then she suddenly blossomed and now she is the most beautiful, fashionable woman you’d ever meet. Don’t worry, she’ll grow out of it.” And if you scroll down, there’s a rather sad comment:

“I became one of those 15 year olds who allegedly ‘blossomed’ into femininity, boyfriends, makeup, and eventually heterosexual marriage (white gown and all) and motherhood…Guess what? That strong cross-gender identification is still there, half a lifetime later…I still think about it every day. I still wonder whether I should have pushed harder to be my true self, even though in the 1960’s there was no support for such thinking and certainly no medical options.”

Someone who in my view talks a lot of sense about this stuff is one Catherine Tuerk, a nurse, married with grown kids, who started a support group for gender-variant children and their parents after realising that the advice she’d been given to stamp out her son’s childhood femininity — he’s now a gay man — was wrong. Here she describes her 1950s tomboy childhood as her “glory days” and wonders, as I have myself, why some tomboys today don’t have more fun “liking to be boys”.
Here she says what many wouldn’t dare to: “Parents have told me it’s almost easier to tell others ‘My kid was born in the wrong body’ rather than explaining that he might be gay, which is in the back of everyone’s mind. When people think about being gay, they think about sex — and thinking about sex and kids is taboo.”
Indeed: it’s almost an article of faith among many socially-liberal cis people that the little natal boy who loves to dress up as a princess or mermaid isn’t expressing anything to do with a sexual orientation, because prepubescent kids aren’t sexual: (s)he’s expressing his (or her) gender identity, which is entirely separate from sexual orientation and which flows simply and purely from the innocence of children’s unsullied, unsexual hearts. “Why are you thinking about what’s in my six-year-old’s underwear?” is the devastating, unanswerable rejoinder to those who object to trans children using the ‘wrong’ toilets.
Some true believers in gender identity as entirely separate from gender expression and sexual orientation (the ‘Genderbread person‘ is popular now) wonder in all sincerity where the trans girl tomboys and feminine trans boys are. Well, there are probably never going to be many of them, but there may be a few. The Transparenthood blog post above describes a child who may, or may not, be a trans boy but isn’t hyper-masculine, and this post describes a “tomboy trans girl”. I do wonder, though, where we have ended up when a five-year-old who wears dresses every single day and prefers tea-sets to trucks but has lots of physical energy and likes to swordfight with sticks can be described as a tomboy, or a child who likes romantic comedies, small dogs and elaborate hairstyles, who prefers hip-hop dancing to sports and who wrestles with male friends and plays Barbies with female friends is deemed, at the tender age of seven, unmasculine.
Gender roles for kids are in some ways more restrictive than they were when I was coming up. Remember teenage girls in the mid-90s, all baggy jeans and flannel? And Lego, as many have remarked, isn’t for everyone anymore: there’s boy Lego and girl Lego (Lego Friends).
I’ve watched some video footage of child trans activist Avery Jackson, who appeared on the cover of National Geographic. I am not in the least qualified to diagnose Asperger’s, and even people who are cannot of course do so on the basis of a few minutes of video, but the way she talks does remind me a bit of some of the ‘Aspies’ I know. The documentary Kids on the Edge: The Gender Clinic, about trans kids being treated at the Tavistock Clinic in London mentions that about half of the kids seen at the clinic show “autistic traits”. That can, of course, mean many things. It can mean “this child is somewhat socially awkward and quite obsessive but is within the normal range of personality and behaviour and doing fine”. It can mean “this child is really struggling and becoming increasingly unhappy and it’s obvious to everyone that they are on the autism spectrum and desperately in need of the help a diagnosis would bring, but the money-starved public services are dragging their feet on diagnosis, so we have to say ‘traits’ for now”. Then again, it can mean “this child has a lot of symptoms of different conditions that tend, as these neurodevelopmental things do, to co-occur and overlap, and they might get an ASD diagnosis or they might not, but right now we’re focusing on the dyslexia and dyscalculia/the Tourette’s/[etc.], because that’s what’s causing the worst problems”. Trans Research has an Asperger’s/Autism subsection.
The 1997 book FTM: Female-to-Male Transsexuals in Society by Canadian researcher Holly, now Aaron, Devor contains some interesting information on child sexuality. Several of the men interviewed recalled the sexual things they’d done as girls: one started masturbating as a girl of three or four; another’s first partnered sexual experience occurred when he, then she*, was twelve, and involved ‘heavy petting’ with another twelve-year-old girl; a third was having penis-in-vagina sex with adult men beginning when he, then she, was a girl of fourteen. Heartwarmingly, one met his soul mate at school when they were girls of twelve. They were inseparable at once, and at the time of the interview they’d been together ever since — over two decades.
Finally, two more articles I like, and recommend: S/He and What’s So Bad About a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress?
*Sorry about all this he-then-she stuff, trans readers. I know it isn’t the most up-to-date or respectful terminology but it’s what Devor uses in the book.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

131 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Another false-binary for brainiacs? Circa 5% of U.S. young adults say their gender-id differs from their birth-sex, but how many are psychologically Bi-Tri-Multi-Gender AC-DC-MAP even after surgery. And if so, so liberal Swingin’ 60s ‘whatever turns you on’?

Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org › fact-tank › 2022/06/07
07 Jun 2022 — At a time when transgender and nonbinary Americans are gaining visibility in the media and among the public, a new Pew Research Center …

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/

Last edited 1 year ago by HappyHumpingPup

Link to Trans Research https://transresearch.info/ no longer functional

A recent article http://www.lakartidningen.se/Klinik-och-vetenskap/Klinisk-oversikt/2017/02/Kraftig-okning-av-konsdysfori-bland-barn-och-unga/ examines the incredible increase in cases of gender dysphoria referrals in Sweden in recent years. See the graph, there is also a summary in English. Interestingly the authors (in a reply to one of the comments) note that there is a strong overrepresentation of transsexuality in children/young people on the autistic scale.
Changing social and parental acceptance probably explain some of the increase in referrals, but the cynic in me (white middle aged male taxpayer) wonders if some children are being “overgroomed” by overenthusiastic parents with an agenda!
(It’s a bit off topic but see also this illustration of how care can go over the line and become abuse https://www.bioedge.org/indepth/view/only-in-sweden-but-why/12361)
A, I don’t come here so often nowadays, but it is wonderful as always to see you in full flight! Tom says in his intro that you try “to reconcile MAP politics and feminism”. It would be a real privilege to hear you expand further on that.

Thank you, gantier! It is great to see you too! I’ve been here only patchily myself lately, with long gaps, so I’m glad I could catch you in passing, as it were. I believe Dissident is going to write a guest blog on MAP politics and feminism and I’m looking forward to it.
Thanks for your links — v. interesting stuff.
About adults with an agenda: sometimes that agenda can be ‘close your eyes to the fact that feminine boys are likely to grow up to be gay, and may well be having homosexual attractions and experiences already’. I don’t approve of keeping people with the ‘wrong’ genitalia out of whichever public toilet they wish to use — I’ll never forget a comment I once read about a female-to-male person who had scars on his face from a knife attack when someone decided he was in the ‘wrong’ bathroom — but I also don’t agree that bathroom bills involve unwarranted ‘sexualisation of children’ as is argued here: https://collegian.com/2013/03/stop-sexualizing-transgender-children/ Here https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/my-son-looks-like-a-girl-so-what/ someone states that her 12-year-old feminine son is “currently as gay or straight as your average kitchen table”. Maybe he doesn’t have much in the way of sexual interests yet (who knows, maybe he’ll be one of the small minority of people who don’t ever) but it’s pretty likely that he is already experiencing sexual attraction, masturbating to fantasy and maybe fooling around some with other kids.
In the Dutch study I linked to in my original post, a couple of the ‘desisting’ boys stated that the lessening of their gender dysphoria was linked to an increase in sexual feelings and activity around puberty. ‘Desister # 12’ said: “At around the age of 12, I discovered there were a lot of things you could do with your body…in a sexual way, I mean. I became aware that this was a good side of being a boy, something that would not be possible if I were a girl.” And ‘Desister # 3’ said: “At a certain moment, I noticed that I could do things with my genitals; since then I lost interest in becoming a girl or a woman.” Nobody wants to face up to that kind of thing either.

Thanks A. and looking forward to Dissident’s upcoming guest-blog on feminism and MAP politics.
I can really identify with the Dutch desisters you mention! Finding that I could do things with my bits was a great consolation to the 12-year-old me, who had up to then entertained (very, very secretly) ideas of wanting to be a girl… I found I could fantasise about other boy’s bits too, and (Oh! The memory!) even found that some boys liked to play with mine.
What a mess I might have got into, in today’s mixed-up world. I might even have got conned into taking puberty blockers, and missed out on all sorts of nice stuff.
I find myself agreeing with those that say giving children too much choice, and indeed asking them to out their innermost thoughts for all to see, means taking unnecessary risks with their future mental health.

I just bought a video game of the last ones that have come out to the market (65 $ has cost me), and in just 4 hours of game they have left 2 lovely and humane lesbian terciary characters. I do not want to know what awaits me, like a quest about a cute gay couple or use transgender bathrooms. And the game is Japanese. Imagine how liberal lefties Western games should be. I’m too homophobic (and hebephilic) for this post-Gamergate generation. I’m in trouble. Im not going to play Pokemon again, not even for some sexy 14yo PokeTrainer girl in shorts. Help here please.

The following is a response to A in an exchange down below, which I’m putting up here so my response and any subsequent responses from her to do not become thinner than a strand of angel hair. I will endeavor very hard to be succinct, I promise!
Older women would, I think, more easily put aside their jealousy of younger women if certain conditions were in place: a social safety net that didn’t leave women in the lurch as struggling single mothers with bad or no health insurance if their male partners upped and left for someone younger (or older, whatever);
I fully agree, and in fact, you may already know that I’m a socialist, and fully in favor of eliminating a system that runs on money altogether, where no one would ever be subject to financial insecurity or hardship. This would include removing all financial considerations from relationships, so that love and mutual trust could be the only things keeping a couple together. Others who are “merely” social democrats and only seeking to “tame” capitalism rather than abolish it would likely support such a strong social safety net to greatly alleviate the type of hardship you describe. The libertarians, though… well, you’re on your own unless you can find some charitable organization or happen to have very charitable relatives.
a different kind of social safety net, in the form of loving and close family and friendship ties, and the lessening of the expectation that the romantic and sexual pair bond will meet all of one’s emotional needs;
I also agree. People who happen to be incels (short for “involuntarily celibate”; individuals who are inexplicably sexually/romantically unattractive to most people, a phenomenon only recently garnering serious study) are forced to do the above to meet their emotional needs, since they absolutely cannot rely on romantic love to provide any of that. I believe many MAPs are likewise in that position for obvious reasons.
more openness about what bodies, especially older bodies and bodies that have been pregnant, given birth and lactated, actually look like without airbrushing;
No argument there. I am not against supporting acceptance of the above for those with a preference or strong attraction to mature women as being part of the package (much as those with a preference for younger people have to accept their often fleeting and mercurial emotional attentions as part of the package), but I also support safe scientific methods to reverse the above effects for women who may choose such an option once it becomes viable and available.
less emphasis on penis-in-vagina sex as THE sex and more emphasis on other kinds of sex that tend to be much more satisfying for women (this would likely also have the bonus of reducing rates of unwanted pregnancy and STI transmission among adolescents);
Fully agree, especially as a hebephile whose sexual desires do not have a strong emphasis on the act of intercourse, as seems to be the case with typical teleiophiles. In fact, one thing I’ve had to learn to do as a law-abiding MAP who does not want to be celibate is to adapt myself to the sexuality of adult women, who very clearly expect ample amounts of penetration. I think pornography likewise spreads (pun not intended) such expectations, because it focuses far more on the act of penetration than it does on foreplay or most forms of outercourse other than oral. I’m not saying pornography as such should be banned, but maybe adult erotica that focuses on the many pleasing forms that outercourse can take should be on some company’s immediate agenda?
more social acceptance of sex and relationships between older females and younger males (things have moved some way in this direction already).
Agreed. For what it’s worth, and as you noted parenthetically, I do think relationships between older women and younger males are much more acceptable in Western culture than the reverse. This is likely because of the beliefs that female sexuality is less “threatening” than its male counterpart, and because males of all ages in general are considered less likely to be “taken advantage of” then younger women. Also, female seduction in general is viewed as sensually erotic, whereas male seduction is much more often viewed as simply predatory and selfishly exploitative. These are more carry-over elements from the Victorian mindset modified to fit more contemporary prejudices. Maybe Macron’s marriage can help pave the way for some of this! ??
Bit of an ask, but one can hope!
Never give up hope! This is all doable if enough of us keep fighting to achieve it.

I hope it is doable! Though in my lifetime I am probably going to see really major effects of climate change and I sometimes think that that struggle, which affects all of us to some degree, is going to overshadow everything else and be a heck of a game-changer in all kinds of ways.

It may actually be to the benefit of our civilization in the long run if we have to focus our collective efforts on undoing all the damage that capitalism has caused, such as global warming. It would be great if people were more dedicated to saving the world’s ecosystem than they were with expending time, effort, and emotion with policing each other’s sexual propriety.
And wow, you really made up for lost time here! 😀

The problem with climate change is the political correctness that goes with it. We can agree with carbon dioxide, emissions etc, But climate ‘policy’ is another issue, such as replacing cheap fuels, reliable vehicles, with expensive and unreliable sources of energy, and the means of gathering alternative fuels. Look at electric cars, hardly anywhere to plug them in. And the people on the bottom will be affected the most.

Hence, the problem of putting a financial price tag on necessities like transportation and energy production, and only providing policies and means if they enable some fat cat to make a profit off of it. Efficiency and profitability are often mutually exclusive when it comes to many things, since efficiency frequently demands things that the profit motive compromises (e.g., cutting corners; scarcity; the easy ability to limit people’s access to it if they cannot pay; lack of concern for environmental consequences).

Thus for, Dissident, I’d say Costa Rica is the most environmentally successful thus far, When you consider that its still a developing country. Their geothermal incentives are quite promising.

Definitely!

My friend started up a new blog. If you are interested, here it is:
https://propedofront.wordpress.com

A good blog where I shall fit in too, and will follow it.
BTW, we have to fight for both our rights and children’s rights.
There is nothing selfish about fighting for only one of those, in any case.

I agree that both children’s as our rights are to be fought over, not only one of them. You cannot plant a tree without the tree itself and without water. In fact, I believe that children’s rights specifically are to become the catalyst for the pedo movement to finally take major foot into the real world completely. The way I see it, even if they are disregarded as not having authority to own their thoughts, antis are more likely to listen to them at first insight than pay heed to us, and if a lot of them were to come out in support of us, I would see some individuals rethinking their positions eventually.

I hear you, Propedofront, but the thing is, antis and “ordinary” laymen in the general public, as well as various academics, have long ignored or dismissed what youths have had to say on the matter unless those underagers happen to say things they want to hear. If they do not, it’s claimed they have serious emotional problems, or are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, etc., and that they require “therapy” rather than society’s objective ear. A lot of them are spouting nonsense if they claim they listen to kids when they speak contrary to the common narrative. Such kids have most often been censored or disciplined (again, frequently in the form of “therapy”) when they have contradicted the popular party line.
It takes a while for any oppressed group who have been indoctrinated to consider their oppression part of the natural way of the world to wake up en masse and actually view themselves as an oppressed minority. Until then, they often tend to rebel in various ways on an individual level, and for the underage youth community, these forms of non-political, disorganized rebellion often take the form of running away from home, “acting out” against adults, early substance abuse, heavy suicide rate, playing hooky, and telling “dirty” jokes or “playing doctor” in privacy to show contempt for adult censorship rules. As the youth liberation movement picks up steam, this is likely to begin changing, since social media is enabling more and more younger people to be introduced to political ideas that identify them as a specific oppressed minority; as well as letting them see the true capabilities of younger people once they remove the metaphorical shackles placed on them.

You have made me see this from an angle I have seen many times before, and even though I did, it is after you point it out that I realize it. Yes, you’re completely right! Children are seen rebelling themselves more than ever and hopefully they get their messages across at some point.

It’s a new blog with just three entries thus far (i.e., last time I checked), but it look great with a lot of potential. I think you should give it a look and consider adding it to your links, Tom 🙂

A couple of movies to recommend: many people have seen Céline Sciamma’s excellent Tomboy, about a ten-year-old girl who decides to pass as a boy with her new friends when her family moves house over the summer, but fewer are aware of Mariana Rondón’s intelligent and subtle 2013 film Pelo Malo, in which a nine-year-old boy fails to live up to the standards of machismo required by working-class Venezuelan society and appears to have something of a crush on the youth in his middle or late teens who runs the local newsstand. The little boy’s grandmother is glad of his girlishness – he likes dancing, wants his hair straightened and plays with the girl next door rather than with other boys – since at least this way he’s less likely to end up shot, but his mother tries desperately and quite cruelly to butch him up. The great irony of this is that she’s not a paragon of classic femininity herself: she’s a single mother working as a security guard, and in one scene we see her pick up a man she doesn’t know for casual sex in which she calls the shots. In another, she arranges for her son to watch her having sex, as part of her attempt to cure him. The grandmother doesn’t fit the feminine stereotype, either: she doesn’t like babies.
There’s also The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros — the Tagalog title, Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros, apparently means The Female Puberty of Maximo Oliveros – which was a smash hit in the Philippines in 2005. It’s about a feminine twelve-year-old boy from a loving Catholic family of petty criminals in the Manila slums. He’s a a bakla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakla and has a group of similar friends. One day, he suffers an attempted sexual assault in an alley and is rescued by a hunky young policeman, Victor, with whom he falls head over heels in love. Reactions to Maxi’s crush on an adult are remarkably tolerant by our standards. The other policemen tease Victor about his “girlfriend”; Maxi’s elder brother asks during an argument “Did you do it with him?” and comforts Maxi when Maxi’s love note to Victor goes unread: “He’s not the only guy in the world. You want me to kick his ass?” In one sequence of scenes, Maxi finds Victor unconscious after a beating and tenderly bathes his inert body, then the next morning sneaks a peek at him as he’s dressing and, emboldened by Victor’s “You’re looking very pretty this morning”, steals a kiss on the cheek. “Go home”, says Victor, smiling. “They must be looking for you.” Maxi runs off elated. According to the DVD commentary track by the director, Aureus Solito (now Kanakan Balintagos, an openly gay man and indigenous people’s rights advocate), Filipino audiences burst out in whistles and cheers at the stolen kiss, while US audiences sat in dead silence! The Philippines also gave us, way back in 1978, Ang Tatay Kong Nanay, a film about a bakla hairdresser who competes in drag beauty pageants and is raising a beloved adopted son.
There’s also Pink Boy, a fifteen-minute documentary that can be watched at Short of the Week, here: https://www.shortoftheweek.com/2016/09/08/pink-boy/ The director’s original intention was to make a film about a feminine boy rather than a trans girl, but he wound up capturing the beginning of his subject’s transition. Jeffrey now lives full time as a girl, Jessie. To me, he looks like a kid who would have been fine with the more restrained wait-and-see approach, rather than being so distressed he really needed to transition at six. On the other hand, if he was removed from his mother at two months old, it’s not at all unlikely she was drinking a lot during pregnancy, which may have affected him in ways that make him less well able to express his feelings than most people his age, or then again, she may have some difficulties with learning or functioning that were passed down to him. It’s not a certainty by any means, but it is a distinct possibility. We just don’t know everything that’s going on behind the scenes, and B.J., his great-aunt and adoptive mother, seems like a sensible person who knows her child well, so whatever it looks like, transition could well have been the best decision for him (now her).
Jeffrey’s behaviour makes me think of Accepting Dad’s proposed ‘tomgirl profile’: http://www.acceptingdad.com/2009/09/29/the-tomgirl-profile-commonalities-among-gender-variant-or-gender-non-conforming-boys/ These kids, in his experience and that of other parents, often present in a very specific way: they prefer dress-ups to nurturing play, love princesses to bits, go for all things hyper-feminine, etc. I wonder if that’s solely a social thing, i.e. going to the extremes of femininity as a reaction against having to live in the male gender role, or if there’s something else going on. It’s interesting, for instance, that we find gay men in musical theatre in our culture, bakla “renowned for their beauty pageants” in the Philippines, hijra dancing at weddings in India and so on. You can see a link with the love of costume and performance kids like Jeffrey often display. Then again, people whom a society just about tolerates but doesn’t respect or fully include often wind up in roles and jobs as entertainers for lack of anything else.

I’m a naturally short sleeper, so I do actually have an hour or so more in the day than some. Not that I’m always productive with it. I also at one point had a night-shift job during which I had very little to do. It was only a temporary thing, under a year, but I sure did get lots of reading done during that period…

Thank you, as always, for these recommendations, A!
Reactions to Maxi’s crush on an adult are remarkably tolerant by our standards.
That’s an awesome thing. I do see a greater degree of tolerance for something like this from a Filipino audience than an American based on your description. Nevertheless, I think many Americans–while obviously discomfited by Maxi’s “kiss-stealing” scene you described–would be more or less tolerant of a 12-year-old having a crush on an adult. There are many pubescents and young adolescents in America who frequently and openly speak about how “hot” this or that adult celebrity is, or this or that teacher is, etc., and who have posters of such celebrities tacked to their bedroom walls (though pics of adults they knew and admired in real life would certainly be frowned upon!).
However, what is not acceptable is for adults to reciprocate the crush. I have yet to know any American adult, including myself, who has had the nerve to put posters of underage celebrities on their walls. And I highly doubt the Filipino audience would have accepted Victor had he reciprocated Maxi’s feelings in any overt way. Rather, I would bet the police officer would have lost his “likability factor” entirely, no matter how honorable and heroic he behaved towards Maxi and others in the film.
In such a case, Victor would have been perceived as “taking advantage” of Maxi’s feelings for him, and of just “using” him. Never would it be accepted that Victor could possibly have had real feelings for Maxi or considered him a full human being that it would be an honor to date romantically, and the officer would be seen as “worse” than any murderer he may have ever arrested. In fact, he would have been considered “no different” than the rapist he rescued Maxi from at their first meeting. The many nuances would have been ignored, and Victor would have been pilloried as the same type of person as that genuine rapist he saved Maxi from, only one who uses “grooming” instead of force to achieve his “seflish” gratification. You would even hear viewers shouting things like, “In some ways Victor was worse than that other rapist, because unlike the first one he ‘betrayed’ Maxi’s trust and pretended to be a friend rather than a predator!”
That is how the narrative goes, as we all know, and to explore any nuances or look at such a relationship outside the context of the narrative would be considered “extremely controversial,” to the point of being “radioactive.” It should be noted that based on your synopsis of the movie, Victor behaved exactly as an adult would be expected to in such a situation: embarrassed and somewhat annoyed by Maxi’s obviously smitten attentions, and something he would never have taken seriously. Okay, maybe it was simply that Maxi was a mesophile and Victor was not a hebephile, but the whole matter was never explored. At least I’m presuming that based on your synopsis.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the film isn’t worthy of being watched and considered on the merits it may provide, which appear to be plenty. It could even be seen as a film which depicts an unrequited mesophilic attraction that observes enough boundaries that the object of the mesophile’s desires is able to remain a likable hero by remaining “appropriate” according to societal expectations.

Yes, I think you’re absolutely right in your interpretation. I remember being irritated by a Western review which said that the kindly Victor is “well aware that he should limit the amount of time he spends with a young boy” or something of the sort. The only ethical way to act, to that reviewer’s way of thinking, is not only to discourage the crush, but not to spend much time around the kid at all! But not everybody thinks along these lines: elsewhere in the vast reaches of the Net I once found this comment, by a woman:
“I grew up in a more ‘innocent’, pre-Catch And Castrate A Predator era (aka the late ’70s/early ’80s). An adult family friend who I had a BIG ol’ crush on — he must have been in his late 20s, I guess (he was a colleague of my dad’s, so he was about a decade younger than my parents) — wound up being a very important (and utterly platonic) presence in my life. I could talk to him about stuff I couldn’t talk to my parents about. I could ride my bike over to his house and do my homework on his porch when I didn’t feel like dealing with being at home. He bought me Clash records and came to the opening night of the plays I was in (usually with one of his girlfriends) and sent funny birthday cards. He did all this with my parents’ knowledge and without ever, ever harming me in any way or crossing any line; indeed, he helped me feel smart and funny and at ease with being myself at at time when I desperately needed to feel those things — and, crucially, at a developmental moment where all the positive reinforcement from my parents was going to ring hollow. And so while my crush faded after a year or two, my fondness and gratefulness for his being such a kind, generous adult in my life has never wavered more than two decades later.”

Thank you for sharing that beautiful comment (or excerpt thereof, as the case may be). The first ‘narratively correct’ statement from that reviewer you quoted was obviously designed, more than anything else, to show the reviewer’s support for the heavy age segregation in a general sense our gerontocentric society practices. It’s not just about suppressing and policing intergenerational sexual contact, it’s about suppressing any form of “unauthorized” interaction between the age groups. Youths of various ages are confined to only socializing as equals with others in their general age group, as if in one big but mobile prison or camp, with the “authorized” adults in their lives acting as the equivalent of their warden (e.g., parents; teachers; camp counselors) and security guards (e.g., other adult relatives; coaches).
A common prejudice is promulgated that insists nobody “that age could possibly have anything in common with someone that age. WEIRD society insists that it’s “weird” for someone of one age group to want to be friends with someone of another age group. Adults in particular are seen to view only fellow adults as equals (outside the job, that is), whereas younger people are viewed as inferiors who need to be either avoided or controlled. Victor could have contact with Maxi only in the capacity of a police officer, but not as a friend or anything more than that.

” whereas younger people are viewed as inferiors who need to be either avoided or controlled.”
Unless the subject of Brexit comes up, Then wisdom of age is reversed onto the young. Then its the young reining in the old and bigoted. I’m all for youth liberation but the odium that ‘old people’ were on the receiving end of is something sinister to say the least.

I believe that this, Libertine, is an example of only applauding the “wisdom of the young” if the youths in question happen to say or do something that the gerontocracy wants to hear, or which they approve of. I’m sure the opposite camp of Brexit are saying all the usual things about younger people, including many among the youth population who opposed it.
With that said, I agree that the youth liberation movement should never swerve into the “identity politics” nonsense that demonizes the former oppressor, and loses sight of the fact that the oppressed can easily become the oppressor if such circumstances present themselves. The example that the right-wing Israeli government and its ethno-centric culture & laws provides should be the most “textbook” of all the textbook examples of this today. Younger people as a group are quicker than older people as a group to vote for change, and that is often a good thing, but not always.

Indeed — a common objection to age-gap relationships between adults is that they couldn’t possibly have anything in common, so the older person must be interested in the younger just for their body, or, worse, wanting to use their greater experience to shape and manipulate the younger person. A lot of this fear and prejudice would surely fade away if the generations mixed more freely, because people would be reminded that genuine liking, affection and mutual support are possible across a wide age gap. It also can’t help that even many adults who come into regular contact with children — I’m thinking here of a museum educator I met who often gives presentations to school groups — see them in packs. Humans don’t tend to be at our best in large groups! Getting to know someone one-on-one is better, but with regulations in e.g. Scouts requiring that an adult and a child never be alone together, it’s often impossible.

Funny that you mention that the late 70’s, early 80’s was that last time sexual freedom actually existed. In HS and College during that era I can recall vividly that teens was not pedophilia and actual pedophilia was considered perverted but nothing to the level of the current hysteria in modern day.
Men could look at underage females or males with other men as the case may be and whisper comments of attraction from benign to vulgar. The worst reaction would have been you’re a perv or ‘I hope you don’t end up in jail’. Now if one is younger than say 50, you might be shocked to know that most men would have agreed(privately) during that time it’s okay to have sex with teens 13-17 if you “don’t get caught”.
Actual pedophilia was looked upon as a “sickness” and in need of therapy not prison or castration. People back than would have LOL if someone claimed sex with a 13-17 year old was “pedophilia”. More like “scumbag” but only if the guy was over 30. A sex offender list would have at the time been looked at as absurd for a number of reasons. Why not murderers?
These historical observations are important to especially younger people. Social norms can change drastically even in a short period of time. It’s hip these days to hate pedophiles. But remember that was not always the case.

After our bans from Minds, someone needs to write about the issue of free speech and pedophilia. Nobody seems to understand these issues. Look at this post on Minds:
“There is also this cross definition you need to consider when dealing with this stuff. A paedophile is a very concrete thing in the law. Having a sexual attraction to children is not against the law.
What is is advocating openly that sex with children has or should be performed. They went that extra step. Seriously, this is the part you are not getting.
Posting something like ‘Law should be changed.’ is one thing, posting ‘I fucked X child and X child loved it’ or ‘Sex with children is great’ or even ‘I had sex with a child’ is against the law. Plain and simple, freedom of speech is free until it is not.”
I don’t think I was making any of those claims. Even if I was, how is saying any of that illegal? Even if someone admitted to having sex with a child, how is simply saying that a crime? It might get you investigated though.
What about the book a Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure? It was a book written in 2010 by Phillip Greaves. Was that book protected under the first amendment even though it violated Florida law?

On this web page, he goes into detail about why pro-pedophilia content is illegal. Will someone please debunk this idiot?
https://www.minds.com/UnquietContention

I’m not a legal eagle, but I hope somebody who is does. Do they in fact have any evidence of ‘grooming’ or is that nonsense? I see he says “In the US, you cannot express the desire of sex with children and claim it is advocacy.” As far as I know, it is perfectly legal to go around saying that if murder were not against the law, you’d kill your boss, but as long as it is, you won’t. Is there any chance of circumventing him by somebody saying “I wouldn’t have sex with kids even if it were legal, but I nonetheless think it should be legal”?

I am no legal eagle either (I haven’t heard the expression “legal eagle” in eons, so it was awesome to see it used again!), but I do believe I know this much: It’s illegal to actually openly incite people to break the law. So basically, if you blatantly encourage MAPs or any other adult who may take a fancy to this or that underager to pursue a full sexual relationship with them, then that would indeed be against the law.
However, simply saying you do not agree with the laws, that you will oppose them via entirely legal means, that you would have such relationships if they were not against the law (but only if!), but that you otherwise follow the laws for as long as they are on the books and encourage all others to follow them also–well, that is not against the law, and in fact currently constitutes protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. I cannot speak for other countries, however; I recall a few years ago that Poland passed a law which effectively criminalizes all non-condemnatory speech of pedophilia (and likely hebephilia too? Assuming Polish law even recognizes a difference–legal definitions often differ from scientific and academic nomenclature).
It should be noted that many antis and child protectionist pundits are so hateful of the very thought of intergenerational sexual/romantic contact that they have assumed simply being a MAP was somehow against the law. It is even common (albeit more so in the previous two decades than this one) for the media to refer to a Kind person indicted for unlawful sexual conduct as being a “convicted pedophile.” That term is entirely non-sensical, and is not official legalese but rather deliberately loaded use of language to give the implication to readers that being Kind is tantamount to being a status criminal. Such individuals were indicted for unlawful sexual conduct and/or possession of CP, not simply for being a MAP. And of course, there are many sex offenders against youth and situational child molesters who are not actual MAPs, but are conflated with them in the media due to the lurid sensationalism that the term “pedophile” brings to any given article. The word serves the duel purpose of providing a titillating hook to attract a lot of readers and to demonize all intergenerational sexual contact, as well as child sexuality itself.
All of the above results in many misconceptions about what is and what is not illegal regarding MAPs, including the hateful and extremist wishful thinking of antis and beneficiaries of the child abuse industry. Just like many of the same people will insist that a simple photograph of a 10-year-old girl in a bikini while holding a hose and washing off a car, or a simple casual nude painting of an underager, should be considered “kiddie porn”–at least if in the possession of, or even just viewed by, someone with Kind predilections.

As you likely know, the German Social Democrat MP Sebastian Edathy ran into trouble in 2014 over downloading photos and videos of naked boys ages 9-14. Depictions of simple child nudity, as opposed to depictions of children engaging in sexual activity, are apparently not illegal in Germany, but Edathy was left in a kind of grey area: he had to resign, and while criminal proceedings against him were halted, he was fined five thousand euros. One Thomas Fischer wrote a forceful article in Die Zeit, ‘Please excuse us, Mr Edathy’, saying that Edathy should have been left entirely alone as he was not breaking the law: http://www.zeit.de/2014/10/staatsanwaltschaft-fall-edathy

It appears, as if often the case, that while Edathy’s legal situation wasn’t ultimately in question, his character evidently was.

Under such rules, arguing for the abolition of any unjust or inhuman law will be entirely impossible, since to persuade people that the law should be abolished, you should explain them WHY it should be so. And to do it, you have to spread information about the violations of the law that you intend to abolish, and show that these formally illegal actions were not harmful or coercive as proponents of the existing law claim, but were harmless and consensual. And when you should claim that the positive nature of the actions makes the existing law unjust and inhuman, and argue for its abolition so that further similar positive actions would no longer be formally illegal and therefore no longer forbidden and persecuted by state.
Every argument described above would itself be perfectly legal. It can only become formally illegal if you will directly state that people should perform the actions you want to legalise before the law is changed.
Yet, factually and not formally, the acceptability of the arguments – and of actions – is based not on laws, but on a current level of social influence of the particular groups and forces. Nowadays, the Authoritarian Rightists are ascending socially, so their social influence is growing fast. Because of it, they may defy – and do defy – formal laws by posting neo-Nazi stuff, and they are unlikely to be banned despite formally illegal nature of their content.
When the public thought and sentiment is increasingly on one’s side, one will have support no matter one’s deeds are legal or illegal. In the same way, gays in the Liberation era could openly perform acts that were formally illegal and have massive support that protected them. They had that support even when they forcibly resisted legal authorities that tried to interfere with their illegal activities – the Stonewall Riots.
Yes, as long as one remains factual, rational and humane in one’s thought and action, one cannot compare the gays, who defended themselves from the entirely real, inhuman and unjust – even, let’s not forget, formally legal! – violence, and (neo-)Nazis who want(ed) to repress and genocide anyone they disapprove(d) because of their insane mythology / ideology. Defensive violence (such as one of Stonewall Riots) is not even remotely the same, both ethically and pragmatically, as aggressive violence (such as the one as the military aggression of Nazi Germany).
But, since a damn lot of people are evidently neither factual nor rational nor even humane in their thought and action, they will attack and silence people who try to defend themselves against aggressive repression – or, as in the case of Paed-Lib and Child-Lib, even simply argue, in an entirely peaceful and formally legal way, that the repressive acts are not justified and should be given up. Instead of it, they will follow the general tendencies of the larger society – the tendencies that are, nowadays, are favourable either to neo-Nazis and neo-Fascists (which allow them to act illegally, with the approval of the substantial part of population) or to SJW-styled Regressive Leftists (the same informal massive permission to act illegally work for them as well), and yet hostile to the Libertarian Socialists (let alone Anarcho-Socialists, as it my case).
We’re facing a dark era, when the simple act of vocalising humane positions will require real courage. It will not last forever, I hope. Successes of Jeremy Corbyn prove that hope is still present – yet it is important to ask ourselves how much his successes are thanks to the massive dissatisfaction with the Liberal Center that to conscious dedication to the Libertarian Left ideal.
Modern “Centrist” social order is obviously dying – and it is vitally important that the uprising people would be presented with a libertarian and progressive alternative. Otherwise, they are would be left to mercy of reactionaries and authoritarians, be it the hateful neo-Fascism of the Alt-Right or the hysterical neo-Stalinism of the SJWs.

The main problem, as I see it, is that the general progressive public continues to support the centrists because they have been bamboozled into thinking two things: 1. The centrists are the only viable “left” alternative to the fascist far right; and, 2. The parties controlled by the centrists can somehow be reformed and replaced by politicians who are left-of-center and actual socialists if they just get the right people elected, or the base leans on the party enough.
The fact remains, too many people on the progressive left believe that the centrists, like it or not, are the “face” of progressive politics in the mainstream. Hence, the belief is that they should be tolerated and supported just to keep more openly right-wing candidates out of office, and that is pretty much as good as it gets. And they continue to ignore how the centrists have all but taken economic issues vital to the working class off the table, and replaced them with social identity issues that distract from the economic matters and pit different factions of the working class against each other in a relentless competition for the biggest crumbs the ruling class allows them. And the working class is so filled with hatred and distrust of different factions within their own class, and immigrants, that they’re more than happy to accuse each other of being “oppressive” and “beneficiaries” of the system, whilst the true handful of beneficiaries laugh all the way to the bank, and all the way into the top echelons of government office to serve the class that pays them for running and mediating their system.
And then there are the libertarians, who while good regarding civil rights issues, insist that bureaucrats alone be blamed for inequality and power disparity, with capitalists given a free pass since they consider it the epitome of freedom to allow people to ruthlessly fight and compete with each other in a race to the top where few individuals will actually make it, and while most of those at the top actually inherit the few positions of obscene privilege enjoyed the ruling class.

…and, as I feel obliged to point out every time this comes up, Macron had a teenage romance with a female teacher more than twice his age at the time, and it went so well that they got married and are still going strong: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/01/a-teen-and-his-teacher-emmanuel-macrons-unusual-marriage/
(Not that I’m a big fan. Flinching a bit in anticipation of the policies he’s going to start implementing. And Le Pen likely has her eye on 2022.)

I agree we should be listening to Varoufakis.

Hmmm, could Macron possibly be a celebrity mesophile? There is admittedly no evidence at this point in time that he has always harbored a preference for significantly older people, but it’s certainly a distinct possibility that does indeed bear repeating. This is especially the case since his wife–whom he obviously loves and adores–would be considered a “predator” by mainstream WEIRD thinking. In fact, if their genders were reversed, I highly doubt the older partner would be keeping house with the younger politician, but would instead be in jail keeping cell with a big tattooed indicted murderer named Roscoe.

Macron grew up very close to his grandmother. I wonder if this contributed to his apparent attraction to older women? He was 15 or 16 when they began a romance, and the French age of consent is 15. Mme Macron has repeatedly said that she’s not going to reveal when they first had sex.
There was a famous case in 1968, that year of upheaval, in which a 32-year-old female teacher, Gabrielle Russier, had a romantic and sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy pupil. His parents initially accepted the relationship, but took a dislike to it after a while. He was sent to boarding school, his letters to Russier were intercepted, he threatened to kill himself and ran away, she went to meet him and refused to reveal where he was hiding…long story short, he ended up being sent to a closed psychiatric clinic, she was convicted of corrupting a minor and sentenced to a year in prison and a fine, and she killed herself. There was a lot of sympathy for Russier at the time. Her letters from prison were published in 1970, and the case is still remembered well enough that it was turned into a lightly fictionalised TV movie (which I haven’t seen) in 2009.

Mike responds to Hypersonic:
In 1994, while on trial in a magistrate’s court for possession of erotica involving boys, a letter that I had written to a friend of mine was read out by the police prosecutor. I had written: “We are now ten years past George Orwell’s 1984 and still we have no Thought Police…”. This was part of a series of thoughts extolling the benefits of what I saw as our last great freedom. That is to say, the endless realms of thought and imagination. In this letter, of which the po-lice had managed to gain a copy, I said that no-one can ever tell you what to think, or when to think it — that the realms of the mind have no limits.
So, I should explain that, in Australia at that time, serving po-lice officers could serve as prosecutors. It was therefore not surprising that this copper thought to use this letter against me: to high-light HIS idea of my ‘criminal thoughts’. For him, to THINK like a paedosexual was a crime.
The magistrate, fortunately, was an educated man and he poured biting scorn and some fairly acid abuse on the hapless cop; explaining to the court that the whole thrust of Orwell’s dystopian novel supported my view that thought, ideas, and even most speech-acts ‘cannot be seen as the commission of a crime’. In my case, or any other.
So, does this mean that the educated lawyers who would act for the prosecution in the higher courts of Australia would not fall into the same trap? Sorry, yes they would! There has been a wholesale adoption of the principle in the courts, here, that ‘criminal thinking, or talking’ — without an overt act — can be seen as a crime. A defendant can appeal to a judge and most will respond positively, but too often the inference is that thinking and speaking of say, paedosexual matters, is indeed a crime. This is because it promotes that crime. A crime that is not a crime until there is an overt act!
I wish you luck, Hypersonic, in trying to get this simple idea over to the block-heads! They won’t understand and that is partly because some of them simply can’t get their heads around something so abstract; and there will be others who DO understand – but dare not say so…
Mike.

Part of the major hurdle here is to convince these people that children, and even young adolescents, are fully realized human beings with far greater capabilities than societal attitudes give them credit for, and which laws restrict them from expressing and achieving. Even if good evidence is presented–and it certainly can be in this day and age of social media–it will not sway the majority at this time, because regardless of the merits younger people may routinely display when given the opportunity, the fact remains that the majority of contemporary adults do not want them to achieve this independence. So they will continue to rationalize suppressing their right of full citizenship and treatment based on their individual proven merits as being in their best interests. Even though in actuality, these rules are enforced in the best interests of adults retaining their hegemonic position over younger people.
They will also continue to assume that Kinderfolk can only be interested in “one thing.” This is part of their belief system that younger people cannot be worthy companions of adults, either socially or romantically, so they insist on strictly enforced age segregation that denies younger people this type of networking and contact where they would be able to prove otherwise. it is the equivalent of when white-dominated society harbored a belief system that black people are incapable of learning to read or write that is supported by laws which make it illegal for anyone to provide them with opportunities to learn, so they remain unable to prove their full capabilities. This, of course, was only in the best interests of the white plantation owners maintaining their chattel slaves.
Just as the growth of the factory economy in the North gradually peeled away at the roots of the moribund plantation economy of the South, resulting in freedom of black people in America, the rapid fire growth of social media is now providing younger people with an ability to express themselves and network with both each other adults in ways that cannot be effectively stifled by the adult gerontocracy. They are slowly providing too much evidence for the defenders of the present day status quo to ignore, despite how hard they are trying to both ignore and suppress this evidence. It will take some time, but progression of communications technology and the unprecedented ability it allows virtually everyone in the world to achieve mass networking on a global basis, will play a major hand in the future emancipation of youth.
When that happens, prejudices against MAPs will not just suddenly disappear, but they will no longer have legally enforceable legs to stand on.

Youth, possibly; but not children. Young children, like farm and domesticated animals, are unable to secure their own best interests, and certainly not their liberation.
Except that younger and younger children are increasingly gaining access to social media at exponentially younger ages, and are likewise proving themselves to have far more capabilities than have been imagined since the progression of the Industrial Revolution. This does not mean they do not have real limitations that older children to adults do not have, but it does mean they are deserving of rights that can and should be preserved. Look, for example, and this video of young Phoenix the Mechanic.
He has proven, that at 5 years old, he is capable of learning the intricacies of auto mechanics under the guidance of his father, who is playing the same role that apprentices and mentors played in the years before children lost all of their rights. The only major difference between now and then is that Phoenix’s work is treated as “just a hobby” and he’s not paid for it. His father is also quite responsible as a mentor. And due to the proven benefits of team teaching at the democratic schools that follow the basics of the Sudbury methods, I am betting that in just a few short years, Phoenix can act as a mentor to younger children, and even some older kids, who are displaying an aptitude for auto mechanics. Not all mentors need be adults; one can take on apprentices as soon as they, as individuals, develop enough aptitude and responsibility, and likewise develop the requisite teaching ability (teaching can be a skill unto itself).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1228137/Phoenix-kid-mechanic-fixes-wheel-Dad-s-car.html
Now I don’t want to make this response too long, but I think I need to add this, lest it be claimed that Phoenix is some kind of prodigy, and is not typical of younger children: an increasing number of children in Phoenix’s age group are displaying this type of alacrity, and have videos posted all over YouTube. It is not hard to find them with some diligent use of the search engine. This is true for many other vocations too, which includes the many girls who at surprisingly young ages are creating tutorials for everything from make-up, to creating fashion, cooking, to design work of various sorts, etc. These videos are not hard to find, and I believe they provide ample evidence that such capability is widespread, and not limited to a few odd prodigies.
They need benign adults.
I think many people would differ as to what “benign” means in relation to adults. So I will make the following contention: younger children do need extra guidance, but said guidance should not only come from adults, but also from community committees which are comprised of adults, adolescents, and even older children who have each proven merits of competence and an ACLU-like dedication to youth rights–and clearly recognize the difference between reasonable restrictions (e.g., Phoenix’s father deciding his son is not yet ready to use power tools) and protectionist laws (e.g., a demand that children not be allowed to do this or that because of their age alone). Leaving this “benign” advocacy to adults only, let alone just a few specific ones with a genetic stake in the child, is a long-proven recipe for disaster, as adults have most definitely not proven either willing or capable of adopting such “benign” intentions on a wide scale. Youths and adults have to work together to assure the rights and reasonable guidance of younger children, and this has to be taken up by the entire community, not just one or two specific adults who are in a position where their objectivity is likely to be compromised.
Is doesn’t help to cast adults in general as the enemy, against whom a class war must be won.
Can you please show me where I either said or implied this, Tom? Because either you may have misread something I typed, or something I typed may have lacked clarity (in which case I apologize and will clarify). Youth liberationists most definitely do not cast adults as the enemy; they cast adult power and hegemony as the enemy, much as they would do the same with white or male power and hegemony. In fact, I have often cautioned my fellow youth liberationists about adopting a version of the “identity politics” extremist nonsense that would demonize adults in general rather than adult supremacy (i.e., gerontocracy) as the core problem, much as I dissuade people on the Left from pinning white male cis-gendered heterosexuals as the core problem of social inequality as opposed to hegemony of said groups. The goal of youth liberationists is to have youths and adults work together to achieve a better world, not youths completely taking over and throwing adults under the bus in their place. The majority of adults have proven they can have their dedication to freedom, objectivity, and all lofty principles compromised as easy as any younger person no matter how many years they have lived, so while they deserve a place at The Table, they do not deserve to control The Table; all groups at The Table must have an equal say in how society is run.

If I may add a bit more evidence of child competency here, since this was just reported on the Free-Range Child blog:
As Lenore Skenazy reports on her most recent blog, a 7-year-old girl took over driving a car from her father when the latter passed out, evidently due to drugs. I’m not sure how many of us would consider a 7-year-old to be a younger child or an older child, but I would argue we could compromise that it’s on the “cusp” of the younger-older child divide.
http://www.freerangekids.com/brooklyn-girl-7-drives-car-after-dad-passes-out/
This is just one of numerous serious, literal life-and-death situations I’ve collected of younger people–including younger children, not just older children and adolescents–handling these sudden situations with a degree of competence that belies the common narrative. It happens often enough, and randomly enough, that it would be nothing short of miraculous if every single one of these kids turned out to be prodigies or uniquely suited to handle the situations in some way.
So what does this mean?
I’ll first quote Skenazy herself from her blog:
“Just more proof that kids are far more competent than we give them credit for. It shouldn’t take a near- tragedy to remind us that they are quick-thinking, problem-solving humans, not just precious cargo. – L.”
The news article where this was reported from (see link on blog) had a police officer who was on the scene, Arlene Garcia, quoted as saying this about the girl:
“She wasn’t scared at all. She was so great. All she was worried about was getting grounded for driving without permission.”
As for the girl’s father, who was 37 years old, where was all the competence and wisdom attributed to adults in his case? He evidently took an overdose-level of drugs shortly before taking the wheel with his young daughter in the passenger seat! It was her competence that prevented the situation from ending in tragedy for both of them, not his (he was rightfully arrested and charged with reckless endangerment).
Again, this is not to say that this girl and other kids her age need no adult guidance, of course, or that any given child is necessarily more competent or quick-thinking than any given adult (so please do not misread what I’m saying here, people). But it does provide yet more evidence of the following two things, IMO: 1. Whatever limitations even younger children may genuinely have, they also show much evidence they have considerably more capabilities and potential than we give them credit for; 2. Contrary to popular belief, adults all too often do not “know better,” and do not merit being the sole arbiters of decision-making in society.

I have been banned from the forum where I wrote pro-pedophilia stuff, only 13 days I have had the account. My pro-MAP posts eliminated too. And in that forum is allowed to speak everything, without exception … except in favor of pedophilia, it seems to be, that the Nazis talk about killing people is irrelevant, what rabble. There was also an homosexual obsessed with pedophiles and the Catholic Church, all to justify their homosexuality, I do not know how all of you do not hate those people.
At least I have +6000 views in my posts in total.

I want to put in a word also for Laverne Cox, actress and trans activist. She tried to kill herself at eleven because she was attracted to the boys in her class and had been bullied for acting feminine. Now she’s a success story, and she goes around being intelligent and saying things you aren’t supposed to say, such as “I was raised by a working-class single mother.” ‘Working class’ is not a term really mentionable in polite society in much of the US. Does Laverne care? Apparently not. She talks about race, poverty, unemployment, sex work, how the obsession with trans bodies draws attention away from the problems of discrimination and violence against trans people. I really like what she has to say, and boy were a lot of political trans people mad when Caitlyn Jenner, the rich white trans woman who likes to talk about makeup, was given centre stage instead. Fortunately the Jenner stuff seems to have died down. I hope Cox has staying power.
I can see the transgender tipping point occurring around me as relatives of mine who previously would have been wildly uncomfortable with the whole idea start referring to Chelsea Manning as Chelsea and she without a second thought. How much things have changed in fifteen years can be seen from this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/magazine/about-a-boy-who-isn-t.html Change in attitudes around sex and gender happens quickly once it gets a head of steam behind it, I guess is the message.

My friends and I were banned from Minds. The co-founder of Minds claimed that our content was legal, so our accounts would not be taken down.
https://www.minds.com/archive/view/734561767996268553
Look at the post that someone just made. He seems to think that most pedophile activism is illegal.
https://www.minds.com/archive/view/734642753408868365

Yes, John Ottman. He is a liar.
I don’t know if it is dominated by people who think “inciting” child “molestation” is a crime. There were a few people who defended my right to free speech.
They banned all of the Heart Progress members too. Currently, AutumnHaley’s account is still standing though. Her account might be next.
https://www.minds.com/AutumnHaley
If Minds does not support this type of speech, then their service is just as useless for us as Facebook and Twitter.

Here is what James Carter (one of the most serious people from Heart Progress) has said. First:
“Most of us are on minds.com – Minds now. It seems to be a pretty non biased site as far as subjects that you can post about. It is another one that claims they value the right to freedom of speech, no matter the subject. They give you the ability to boost your posts to larger audiences. A lot of antisemitic neo nazis, I believe to be mostly children. We were booted from SeenLife with no warning and had our IP’s blocked. We did get another website though, same web address. The reason the last one was taken down was because when it crashed it’d show the host. They didn’t have a problem with us until they were told by bigots that we were posting child porn and ludicrously threatened them with legal action for allowing it, which we weren’t. The new one is based out of another country and doesn’t listen to unsubstantiated claims and when it crashes it doesn’t show their name. We are still working on the site though. ”
Next:
“I have made the personal decision to leave Minds.com due to the unregulated hate it allows on its site. All though they did allow me to freely speak my mind, they still allowed hate speech which in no way should fall under the umbrella free speech. It ranged from homophobia, holocaust denying, racism, transphobia, Islamophobia, pro nazism and every other form of bigoted hate speech in existence today.
It was a painful decision for me to leave the countless followers that I gained during my time on it, but it was just too much hate for me stomach. It was a great place place to for me to speak freely about the social injustices that are plaguing society, but I refuse to return to it until they clean up their site and make it more accepting to all minorities. But as of today it seems to be a safe haven for hatemongers. Minds, clean out the hate so we can all feel welcome, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and religious beliefs. “

They left because they were banned from Minds. James is trolling more. He does it all the time.

There have been a trolling attempt on LSM’s blog recently, but someone who obviously tries to present himself as James Carter from the Heart Progress:
https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/comparing-paedophilia-homosexuality/#comment-2619
Read LSM’s long reply to him for links to his previous troll-comments under different pseudonyms.
I don’t know whether this is a real James Carter or just some troll deceptively using his name and words. He used other masks before, as you can see from the links in the LSM’s reply.

As said LSM, this “James” troll is the same person (same IP) as the one who made the fake “reporting to LICRA” comment:
https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/comparing-paedophilia-homosexuality/#comment-2601
The latter comment is copy-paste of two posts I made on Google+, see
https://plus.google.com/+AgapetaWordpress/posts/fpusYhSC1ks
https://plus.google.com/+AgapetaWordpress/posts/a4XtwKGaSyQ
and the troll “James” comment you link to is just a copy-paste of the above quote I made of what the real James Carter said on Google+. James and others have said that there are “doppelgängers”, trolls who imitate them.
Learn to distinguish what the real James and Clive said (coherent)and what troll imitators say (rubbish).
NB. Contrarily to others like LSM, I don’t publish troll comments, I mark them as spam.

Lots of good stuff here, all: https://contexts.org/articles/the-hearts-of-boys/ Male BL readers may be particularly heartened by the last contribution down at the bottom: “The youngest boys, from 12 to 14 years old, particularly doted on male teachers, shadowing them throughout the building and sticking around after school just to hang out. Groups of young boys were eager to connect with teachers who were willing to teach them a new hobby like playing the guitar, or spoken word poetry.” But everything in the article deserves a careful read.
My copy of a book mentioned in the article, Niobe Way’s Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection arrived a little while back and I’m making my way through it. A book about male friendships written by a woman must be taken with a fair amount of salt, but I’ve seen positive reviews of the book written by men and that convinced me to try it. I don’t think it succeeds in having as wide a scope as it aims to, if you see what I mean — the survey of other research is a little thin and the conclusions Way draws from interviews with a relatively small sample of boys are maybe a little sweeping. But I do think it’s a very valuable book: it shows us boys speaking with love and sensitivity about their friendships with other boys, and unlike many books on the ‘boy crisis’ it doesn’t restrict itself to upper-middle-class white boys.

On the subject of Transgender, Anyone remember Barbara from League of Gentlemen:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rRA8GYzU8E

Avoiding the emotive language, Here is some interesting News about the consent of those over thirteen:https://uk.news.yahoo.com/12-year-old-victim-sex-abuse-denied-compensation-voluntarily-walked-attacker-woods-104633490.html

On the one hand, any acknowledgement that kids can consent is great. On the other, I can see why some people would be angry about this, because having drunk alcohol with somebody and then walked with them into the woods does not of course mean that they then didn’t rape you. It’s difficult to condense these kinds of things into a headline or short article and impossible to pass judgement without having read much more about it, and often still impossible if you have.

I agree…We don’t know how much alcohol she drunk, Or whether it was consensual to be fair. Like you said, its good cos its addressing a wider point about consent. I often point out to people how up until the 1880s in England, The age of consent was twelve. Were we all hebephiles lol, I think most men are anyway.

Many individuals have argued that hebephilia is more a WEIRD cultural construct than an actual attraction base, due to both the laws and attitudes towards adults being intimate with, or simply openly admiring, younger adolescents. Judith Levine said as much in Harmful to Minors when she opined that in her estimation, hebephilia doesn’t actually exist. So does it?
This is my opinion on the matter: I have little doubt that romantic liaisons between older people and younger adolescents & pubescents would be quite a bit more common if legally allowed in a world where youth liberation was a reality. But would it be the “norm”? My guess is that it wouldn’t. I define hebephilia thusly: an attraction base where older adults have either a romantic preference for pubescents and younger adolescents over members of their own age group; or have an attraction to them that is significant to the point where it routinely equals that of their attraction to members of the same age group. Is that all adults? I do not personally think so, since preferences are so diverse among all age groups.
But I do agree that the great majority of adults likely can become attracted to younger adolescents and even pubescents, but simply either deeply suppress it for obvious reasons, or their lack of outright preference for them makes it relatively easy not to acknowledge it.

I agree with you. I think there’s a lot of (understandable) wishful thinking going on, with some GLs for instance claiming that all men would be having relationships with 13-year-olds if it were legal. It would certainly become a lot more common, with many men and some women who wouldn’t otherwise have identified as hebephiles discovering or acknowledging that they do in fact fancy pubescents — and find them fun to hang out with! — but I doubt it would become the norm.

Indeed, A. That is the opposite type of wishful thinking that many older women have, which seems to think that if all adult men were legally forced into not having the option of forming romantic liaisons with younger women or girls, they would just accept having to choose older women as romantic partners, and eventually learn how “wonderful” they are and just come to accept or even prefer them. The truth, however, is that only adult (and younger) men with a natural preference for older women would find them truly wonderful and appealing, whereas those who do not wouldn’t change their preferences, but would end up extremely unhappy and bitter.
This is why there is so much animosity between MAP adults of the male variety and older women: each feels personally slighted by the other, and the rather extreme but opposite-direction wishful thinking of both groups is the result of that mutual animus.
GLer’s need to understand that the liberation of youth will not mean that intergenerational relations will quickly become “the norm,” and we shouldn’t be concerned about that at all. Our only concern (for pro-choicers) should be that we earn the right to have these relationships, and that they are accepted on their own merits. Displaying ire against older women is only compromising the ethical integrity of Kind people and causing needless inter-group conflict that makes us not so kind to a group of people who are as worthy of respect as any other group.
Conversely, older women need to put their jealousy of girls and younger women aside, and realize that there will always be a big available pool of older men and even younger men (of mesophiliac inclinations) who will prefer romantic liaisons with mature women. Human sexuality seems to have one overriding rule: diversity. Also, they need to seek out relationships with partners who have a natural preference for them and the specific physical and emotional traits they have to offer. Displaying ire against men (or women, as the case may be) of their age group who do not have a natural preference for them is about as productive as men displaying ire, and feeling insulted by, lesbians who do not have a natural romantic preference for the physical and emotional traits of men, and thus supporting laws and societal rules that effectively give lesbians the dubious choice of either forcing themselves to pair up romantically with men or remain celibate. They cannot currently legislate against older men and younger women of legal majority pairing up with each other, but at least in America they attempt very strongly to shame it out of existence.
Furthermore, we all need to accept the fact that only a portion of the human population are going to be pansexual. We cannot force pansexuality into being the norm; it will exist naturally in individuals whom nature endows with it, and it will be absent within individuals whom nature endowed with a more narrow attraction base. Acceptance of diversity, and even celebration of it, is IMO the only way for society to achieve peace and harmony across the social spectrum. Whatever ends up as “the norm” has to occur naturally, and society should not attempt to be enforce a synthetically created “norm” by law and/or set of moralizing standards.

Older women would, I think, more easily put aside their jealousy of younger women if certain conditions were in place: a social safety net that didn’t leave women in the lurch as struggling single mothers with bad or no health insurance if their male partners upped and left for someone younger (or older, whatever); a different kind of social safety net, in the form of loving and close family and friendship ties, and the lessening of the expectation that the romantic and sexual pair bond will meet all of one’s emotional needs; more openness about what bodies, especially older bodies and bodies that have been pregnant, given birth and lactated, actually look like without airbrushing; less emphasis on penis-in-vagina sex as THE sex and more emphasis on other kinds of sex that tend to be much more satisfying for women (this would likely also have the bonus of reducing rates of unwanted pregnancy and STI transmission among adolescents); more social acceptance of sex and relationships between older females and younger males (things have moved some way in this direction already). Bit of an ask, but one can hope!

Nice article, thanks.
The bit about comfort in her body makes me think of a quote from a GL man in Sarah Goode’s Understanding and Addressing Adult Sexual Attraction to Minors: “It’s clear to me in hindsight that as I went through puberty I grew increasingly nostalgic for girls as equals, with the physical confidence they had as pre-adolescents.” It’s clear from Goode’s comments that this struck a chord with her, as it would, I think, with many women. Another GL man, interviewed for Rüdiger Lautmann’s Attraction to Children, said, “Some girls begin on their own. A major portion of them, maybe half or so, began approaching me erotically on their own initiative. They say, ‘Now I’d like to see you naked’ or, ‘I’d like to touch you.’ ” How many of those girls still had that sexual confidence and freedom a few years later, I wonder?

I remember, as a 19yo helping a lady retrieve furniture; We stopped at her friends house where she had a daughter (half-caste) very attractive looking!
I was going around with a hole in my trousers. while I was seated she lay on the floor, Then I realised she was looking into the hole curiously. Some may say just curiosity, Then again I was a good looking lad (self-proclaimed haha)!
She was very helpful to me, showing me the toilet, bringing me some tea etc: I think she fancied me. BTW the daughter was around nine I’d say.

That’s a nice memory to have!
Another Lautmann interviewee recounted an affectionate situation with two children in which sensuality came about naturally: “When they get up at about six in the morning, the two nine- and ten-year-olds get into bed with me to cuddle and chat. I also pay no mind to whether I get a hard-on from it. I’ve sort of encouraged this a bit. For some reason or another they found it very amusing that they could incite such feelings in me. Of course they also really took hold of my penis.” The whole book is available at Ipce: it’s a valuable and somewhat overlooked study, full of such stories.

That book sounds like it may fit the category of “promoting paedophilic behaviour”.

Virtually any book that doesn’t outright condemn intergenerational contact, or simply accepts the possibility of nuance in the common claims, can be tagged as “promoting pedophilia.” It’s commonly argued that if you do not reject a certain thing out of hand, then you must somehow be promoting or endorsing it as opposed to just accepting it.

Mike, in reply to Nada.
Thank God for one parent at least who rejoices in the child as she IS!
I once lived on an idyllic Malaysian beach with my British-Australian family next to a French family. My wife and I had two sons; the French neighbours had four girls and a boy. Two of the French girls were true tomboys, with barked shins from climbing trees and cuts from throwing stones with the local Malay boys. The other two girls were purely girls, with frilly dresses, dolls and tea-sets!
My point is that all of those seven kids had very robust ribs from being hugged so much. They were loved for what they WERE — not for what their parents wanted them to be.
Oh yes, and not one of the boys was circumcised — it being decided by both sets of parents that we didn’t have the right to do that, without it being some kind of medical emergency.
Mike.

“Just because I look like a boy doesn’t mean I am a boy” says Mili Hernandez, eight: http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/19553403/nebraska-soccer-tournament-bans-8-year-old-girl-team-looks-boy Her teammates cut their own hair in solidarity: http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/19585101/nebraska-girls-cut-hair-short-honor-disqualified-soccer-teammate-mili-hernandez but apparently the story’s a bit more complicated, and the poor official responsible for the disqualification has actually been getting death threats: http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/19571063/a-typo-rules-violations-led-dq-nebraska-soccer-team-player-looks-boy-plus-death-threats-tourney-director

Strange. Rules aside, is it too much of a taboo to consider mixed teams or a team of girls playing against boys?
Swedish article about the latter: https://www.dn.se/sport/fotboll/flicklaget-som-utmanar-normerna/

A couple of girls on Mili’s team apparently did play occasionally on a boys’ team. And this recently happened in Spain: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/sports/soccer/girls-soccer-team-won-boys-league-spain.html Girls around 11-13 sometimes have a bit of a physical advantage over boys of the same age due to having hit their first pubertal growth spurt sooner, which makes them temporarily bigger; then the boys catch up and soon outstrip the girls in size, strength and speed. I can see a need both for mixed teams and for single-sex teams: kids do need some single-sex spaces sometimes.

In my original post, I linked to an article from a Quaker publication in which a parent talks about her five-year-old transgender son (this: https://www.friendsjournal.org/we-think-he-might-be-a-boy/). I’ve since stumbled across an interesting update on the child: “…my six-year-old son has recently begun taking gymnastics, and it turns out he is very talented at it and devoted to it. He is currently in the gym’s pre-team program, which puts him and other promising boys in the gym three hours a week, working intensively toward the skills he needs to begin competition…the first thing some friends brought up when my son was invited into the competitive gymnastics track was their idea that he’d have advantages in strength and flexibility over cisgendered boys during the elementary school years. I’ve been interested to learn since then that there aren’t significant strength differences between boys and girls at this age, but people assumed girls had an advantage, that he would also have this advantage, and that this might somehow be unfair to other kids. It’s so strange, this instant focus on perceived advantages a trans athlete might have, even when we’re talking about 6-year-olds. And even if there is an advantage, why not lump ‘being trans’ in with the other in-born advantages an athlete has, like strength, perseverance, resilience (my kid takes an amount of feedback during a lesson that would have reduced me to tears as even a much older child), and so on.”
Which makes me see things in a new light: even when it’s a biologically female person training in boys’ competitive gymnastics, where there is great emphasis on upper body strength, people jump to the conclusion that he may have an unfair advantage. That looks more like prejudice than reason.
Later there was a further comment that at eight the ‘Tiny Tornado’ was markedly more muscular than other boys his age. Some kids, cis or trans, just have that physical advantage. Most likely, this kid is going to go on blockers to halt female puberty and then take testosterone so as to go through male puberty, and that being the case, I don’t see why he shouldn’t sail through along with the other boy gymnasts, building upper body strength at the same time. You’ve got to worry about the potential effects on his bone density of the puberty blockers, but at least if he’s on them and then goes on testosterone he won’t have to have a mastectomy, which is good, because you always want to avoid surgery if you reasonably can…it’s a minefield, really, with many of the physical effects of this stuff still unknown because we just don’t have the long-term follow-up data yet.
And meanwhile, Trump has announced that he plans to reinstate the ban on trans people serving in the US military…

Mike responding to A.
I would like gently to suggest that we are expecting too much of the Neanderthals who commit these ‘exclusion’ blunders in sports-functions and schools. How often have we heard of kids sent home because their hair is too long, or not long enough? The ‘taint’ of one Sexual identity seeming to ‘stain’ the other?
The organiser of this soccer event might not be fully to blame, but I suggest that there is a real, deep-seated anxiety in some of the simpler minds in our society about boyish girls or girlish boys.
As there is about the mixing of sexes in teams, or changing-rooms… Even though children, for THEM, are meant to be innocent and completely sexless, they are ‘normally’ rigorously segregated!
For them, children must cleave to what they are, for doesn’t Deuteronomy 22:5 state: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God”?
So, we have to ask: does anyone now read the Old Testament and take it seriously? Yes, I say! Lots of people do and some people, it appears likely to me, do so without realising it.
I have been accused of being extreme when I characterise the polemic of paedophobia as “hatred, rage and fear”. But I sincerely believe that nothing has really changed since the radical Puritans strove to close the theatres in Shakespeare’s time — mainly because boys took the women’s parts in all of the plays, back then. This, to the Puritans, was courting hell-fire. I suggest that there are many modern people who feel desperately uncomfortable when lines of ‘assigned gender’ are crossed.
You and I might enjoy seeing a mixed team of boys and girls have fun on a football field; or praise a long-leggedy tomboy for being what she is, but there are many who will grind their teeth and see both as ‘perversion of the natural order’
Mike.

Many people in the United States, in particular, still take the Old Testament as the literal Word of God. Also, evangelical Protestantism has been gaining influence in Latin America for a long time now, and Mili is Latina in origin and probably bilingual in Spanish (“When my hair starts to grow I put it short” she says: that use of ‘put’ is an influence from Spanish) and her team looks largely Latina, which probably means she lives in a heavily Latinx area.

Meanwhile, a trans teenager is suing his £13,000 a year private school for ‘injury to feelings’ after he says teachers described his transition as a ‘phase’ and insisted that he continue to wear the girls’ uniform.
Hereford Cathedral School is alleged to have treated the pupils less favourably than others because of the girl’s gender reassignment. Judge Ian Avent at the Royal Courts of Justice was told that the 16 year old boy, who was born a girl and has had no reassignment surgery, had suffered many ‘psychological and emotional problems over the past two years’, and heard allegations that the school had failed to support him in his request to be allowed to dress as a boy: rightsinfo.org/teenager-takes-school-court-teachers-say-trans-phase

Meanwhile, overheated schoolboys find strength in numbers as the gender revolution intersects with climate change: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/22/teenage-boys-wear-skirts-to-school-protest-no-shorts-uniform-policy

You read the letter in which Dylan Farrow reveals sexual abuse from her father, Woody Allen?
The adopted daughter of the filmmaker says that the harassment began when he was seven years old
Even says that society is not well behaved with ‘victims of sexual abuse’

Because it’s a FREE cuntry.
Off topic, out of ‘Order’, states HE Dylan/she was seven years old?
Meanwhile the maid said she saw thru a part-open bedroom door, Dylan lay back on the bed with Woody’s head between her legs.
And, TV ‘Spitting Image’ had puppet papperazi Nazis VICTIMIZING puppet Woody pleading, “If U would just leave me alone I’d go down on my knees!” Papps’, retort, “Dy’a hear that? He said he would go down on his Neice!!”
Plus, Woody as an ancient beardy priest in his classic ‘War & Peace’ parody, ‘Love & Death’, 1975, “After many trials and tribulations I have CUM to the conclusion that the best thing is – blonde twelve year old girls. TWO of them whenever possible!!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNWGVpwgzz4
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/dylan-farrow-details-woody-allen-sexual-abuse-letter-article-1.1599132

It’s not clear, and likely never will be, whether Allen actually did do it or whether Mia Farrow was making up the allegations and manipulating Dylan to go along with them due to her acrimonious split with Allen.

It was easier back in the 50s. You had regular kids, and any deviators were labelled “tomboys” (and expected to grow out of it) or “fairies” (and expected to squelch it and grow a pair). My interest in younger boys (I, ten, they 6 or 8) alarmed my parents (but not the boys) as it meant I might end up a fairy. There was no option of choosing a gender identity or transitioning, so I ended up a modified fairy, mostly without trauma. I dread to think what would have happened had I been presented with “options” and told that I might be a girl in a boy’s body…or some both-o-sexual confusion…I would have, I think, made the same protest I do today: I am committed to, and enjoy, being a male human. I knew that when I was eight years old. I didn’t have a separate gender identity and an unformed or separate sexual identity. I was male, and I liked having sex with boys. I had no interest in displaying myself as any other gender, wearing dresses, playing exclusively with girls. I was on the baseball team of my own volition and looked forward to the emergence of secondary sexual characteristics (mine, not my boyfriends’ :-). I did, however, have a problem in the locker rooms until I found others with the same “problem.”
I wonder about projecting complicated gender options on to those under 10 or so, especially if “gay” boys are encouraged to become physical girls, and especially if no credence is given to their homosexual instincts in the bodies they have been born with.

It truly is a strange, even drastic phenomenon today i.e. that one can change one’s gender through surgery.
Although I know that there exist people who might want to undergo that process, claiming that their extant genitalia are,essentially “useless”.
With this exception, I would classify surgical gender augmentation as really going too far in a direction that aligns itself more with genital mutilation, than anything else.
In other words, what I am trying to say is, such drastic measures seem to take us out of the sphere of what is natural, and why not accept your own body for what it is, as such, and deal with everything else in a way that paints you as a unique and non-clonable individual?

To claim that “being natural” is the be-all and end-all to what makes something morally correct or acceptable is, I feel, not helpful. Rape and sickness are both “natural,” but we go through steps to prevent such things because they are harmful. If a person’s genitals or secondary-sex characteristics are harmful to them, then why not offer an answer to their problem? You may see their original body as natural, but for transpeople, their body often feels like one of the most unnatural things in the world.
I also feel it’s unhelpful and alarmist to compare these surgeries – chosen, uncoereced, by an adult who must go through a lot of pain and expenses – to surgeries forced onto children who have no choice in the matter and are often done for the benefit of another person.

But essentially, going through sex-change surgery is something drastic.
We are not machines with modular parts than can be interchanged at will, and then the machine goes on functioning at 100% efficiency.
Life is an extremely complex phenomenon, and I am not sure that changing an outie for an innie (or the other way ’round) if you will, does nature justice at all.
I am not trying to make any moral judgement here, it’s your own body with which you can do what you please.
I am only urging you to accept the body you were born with as a unique thing, even if you feel the you are the other (or in-between) gender.
And I don’t know if this is fair for me to say, but this way you avoid even the notion that there may be some socially coercive factors at work that lead you to want to augment your physicality.
And how did individuals such as you, Peace, cope with this before there was even the inkling of sex-change surgery? Over the past centuries, millennia?
I would also like to note that just like MGM, it is probably a very lucrative phenomenon to the medical professions.
Otherwise, yes, it’s a free country, Peace, and I wish you the best!

I do see your point here, Jonathan, and you may be right in some cases. However, I do more side with Peace on this one. Accepting a biological aspect of yourself that is harmful to you as an individual (either physically or emotionally, or both) may be emotionally desirable if we live in an era where science is unable to offer the alternative. This correlates with accepting an unpleasantly life-altering disease or other medical condition such as cerebral palsy (which is not a disease, but an ‘injury’ at birth due to extended oxygen deprivation) if you happen to live in an era where such conditions are incurable or not reversible. But if we advance to the point where we can, however, then it may make perfect sense to have yourself “improved” medically to what you want to be, rather than choosing to remain in a difficult position simply due to what amounts to an ideological fealty to whatever is “natural.”
I do get what you say that sexual change surgery is rather drastic, and can be seen as “mutilation” by some. Nevertheless, as medical science improves, the transformative procedures are becoming exponentially less drastic and more seamless, and eventually a new process — perhaps a form of cloning — will completely replace genital-altering surgery coupled with hormone treatments as a way to reverse one’s gender. It may also be considerably more reversible too. In such a case, then it will make less sense to try and “accept” a difficult biological status quo imposed upon one by nature’s capricious whims.
Let’s face it, Mother Nature can be a cruel mom, so I think we shouldn’t always consider what is “natural” to have inherent beauty or appeal if it can be reversed due to imposing physical and/or emotional hardship on those who receive the trait in question by the natural world of genetics, microbial parasitism, accidental injury, etc. A good example of this relevant to someone who is chrono-dysphoric like me is the aging process. Since this is a non-reversible biological phenomenon in the current era, for the most part I have little choice but to accept it and make peace (pun not intended) with it. That may indeed be the most emotionally beneficial thing for me to do because of science’s current inability to alter it. But accepting it is not the same thing as adopting a philosophical view that aging is somehow inherently “beautiful” and wonderful simply because it’s natural.
If the means to reverse and permanently prevent the aging process, and thus having my outer form changed to match my inner self for the rest of my natural life, was now available I would take it in a proverbial heartbeat, and would not opt to “accept” the physical aging process. As Peace noted, many unpleasant things in the world are perfectly natural, but their naturalness doesn’t make them any less unpleasant to experience. We should accept them and work to do our best within the context of those limitations if we have no other choice during the time period in which we live; but if we live in an era where science and human ingenuity can overcome and reverse the offending natural condition, then accepting the condition makes far less sense.

The WHO claim that MGM in places like Africa help keep STD’S lower than those uncircumcised. Don’t get me wrong, its still rather barbaric act that , if banned for girls, should also be banned for boys. Females – mutilation. Boys – circumcision and hygiene.

How far are we willing to go in the interests of health? We don’t routinely perform hysterectomies to prevent uterine cancer. Like you, I can’t think that cutting off a healthy and very sensitive part of an infant’s genitals can ever be OK. However, most men in the US are circumcised (though rates of infant circumcision in the US have been going down lately), which may lead to their thinking it isn’t a big deal.
There’s a 2015 German film called Simon Says Goodbye to His Foreskin that I really recommend. In Hamburg, Simon, nearly thirteen, is hanging out with his best friends and falling in love for the first time…with his new rabbi, a beautiful woman in her early thirties. He’s also preparing for his Bar Mitzvah and deciding to undergo circumcision in accordance with Jewish law. His separated parents take different views: his newly-observant father is for, his mother, who writes erotic literature, is against. Simon says, “I can decide for myself. It’s my penis.”

I would guess that at least some eunuchs, in cultures that made them, were people we’d now call trans. Breast binding and use of prosthetic penises must have been going on for as long as we’ve had materials to bind them and build them with, and even now, it’s very difficult to construct a satisfactory penis, so no difference there. I think the biggest difference for modern-day trans people may be the hormones rather than the surgery. (Peace, am I off base here?)

Also, it appears that surgical transition is older than we might think: when I was researching this piece I discovered that the first documented case in the US was that of Alan L. Hart, who had a hysterectomy and gonadectomy in 1917-18. He was, his doctor wrote, “extremely intelligent and not mentally ill, but afflicted with a mysterious disorder for which I have no explanation”. Hart was himself a doctor and a pioneer of x-ray screening for tuberculosis. One of the very first documented surgical and legal (new birth certificate and everything) transitions anywhere was that of Karl M. Baer, in Germany in 1906-1907. A hundred years is only the blink of an eye really, of course, but it’s not like surgical and legal transition is a turn-of-the-millennium idea.

My impression is that budding BL boys are much less likely to be markedly feminine in childhood than budding gay boys. I would definitely guess that tomboy childhoods are more frequent among girls who’ll be CLs as adults than among other girls, just as tomboy childhoods are more frequent among lesbians and for broadly the same reason, but good luck getting a big enough sample size for any statistical power on that one.

RepeTITive, ‘Fascist phoney Anglophone ASSHOLES’ ?
Non-PC/Pure Cowards’ ASSHOLES’ unpopular TRUTHS must be told “LOUD & OFTEN”, q.v. Der BIG ASSHOLE FASCIST Fuhrer’s masterly media monsta BIG ASSHOLE Geobbells!
Meanwhile FAILING in ye olde phoney fascist Anglophone mafia market, free CUNTries fer BIG ASSHOLES, lil skoolyard/prison yard.
v
v
Friday 30 June 2017: ” SEX OFFENDERS who completed a group treatment programme in prison were more likely to commit further similar offences, a Ministry of Justice review has found. The analysis warned that group therapy could allow offenders to share “contacts and sources” or NORMALISE criminal behaviour.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/sex-offenders-on-group-treatment-programme-more-likely-to-reoffend
https://www.google.be/search?q=sex+offender+treatments+not+working&rlz=1C1SKPL_enBE421&oq=sex+offender+treatments+not+working&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.10563j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

To go off on a tangent here, I was recently kicking around the idea that we don’t know what actually works in treatment of genuinely sexually abused kids. It might help for some kids, in some cases, to re-enact the sex acts in question in a safe, consensual environment that this time they’re in control of, or to watch porn showing such acts. Or then again, it might not. We just don’t know. I’m not of course suggesting that sexually abused children should be required to reenact the abuse, that reenactment should become a standard therapeutic tool — I think that most likely *would* be a bad idea — just that maybe preventing all ‘sexualised behaviour’ displayed by sexually abused children isn’t so great, because for some of them it could be a healthy coping and healing mechanism. But if it is, well, then in the current climate they’re missing out, and going on hurting worse and for longer than necessary.

Anti-Assholes: If you are actually interested in discussion, you have to submit an intelligible comment. If you are not interested in discussion, why are you posting here?

Nice informative article. I’ll check out some of the references when I get a chance.
I wonder whether nailing things down too rigidly and pushing people into air tight categories (you are this or that) is something that should, in general, be avoided. Certainly I think this is true when a person is a child, but also when we are older. When I was 11 I babysat, baked cookies and liked on occasion to wear dresses. I also played football, climbed trees, owned a Whamo sling shot and was very good at wrestling. All of this not to act out this or that gender, but just because those were my interests.
The hero in “Marcus and Me” (relevant except here: http://tinyurl.com/y7ddzvcy ) came to see his identity as both/and. Another example. One of the characters (a minor one) in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children changed back and forth between being a boy and a girl.

There’s a fantastic Swedish TV series from 1988, called Dårfinkar & dönickar, about a twelve-year-old girl who passes as a boy at her new school and spends some thrilling days getting to do all the boy stuff before she falls for her new male best buddy and things get complicated. And I’ve recently discovered a short documentary from 2013 called Niet op meisjes, about a somewhat feminine eleven-year-old Dutch boy who definitely identifies as both male and gay. Both are on YouTube but only the latter with subtitles, unfortunately.

There is also a Polish film about a boy wearing a dress, 70s or 80s I’d guess.
There is one scene where he’s out walking and a group of boys try to put their hands up his skirt thinking he’s a girl. You just don’t get that in newer films…shame.

Do you remember what it was called?

Sorry I can’t remember the name of that particular Polish film…Its a long time since I had the Polish satellite — It left along with my Polish ex-girlfriend!
Then would often show old films with beautiful kids, girls & boys…Then Youtube came along and, what can I say…Its probably on there somewhere, But never really got to grips with Polish language.
Here is a Korean film you may enjoy — A Policewoman (lesbian) comes to the aid of an abused teenage girl:http://variety.com/2014/film/asia/cannes-film-review-a-girl-at-my-door-1201186678/

The TV series is based on as book, translated into English as Fruitloops and Dipsticks.
A quick search reveals the subtitled series is mentioned in a forum post, however the links require registration to view and may be outdated.

Thanks!
I remember there being a scene in the book in which the young couple kiss and she pokes his erection. Not in the series for obvious reasons…

We are poisoned by identity politics. Gender identity is stressed as soon as birth in clothing and toys. Gay kids are now an identity, not a sexuality, since sex is forbidden for kids. One never stops adding letters to the LGBTQIA… acronym, because any difference must be labelled as an identity.
In Victorian times, babies and toddlers were dressed in a gender-neutral way. And the early 19th century socialist Charles Fourier proposed that around age 8, children would be divided into two groups: “petites hordes” made of 2/3 boys and 1/3 girls, who would play rough and take care of dirty work, then “petites bandes” made of 1/3 boys and 2/3 girls, who would take care of beautiful things, like flowers. Each child would be free to choose which group to join.

Mike responding to Christian, 9th July: ‘Gay kids are now an identity, not a sexuality, since sex is forbidden for kids.’
You are spot on, there! The block-heads never will admit that kids feel anything, know anything, have any capacity for love or brains to use?
They patronise, denigrate, insult young people because those same youngsters have no voice. More importantly, they have no VOTE. Had they a vote, we might see some changes!
Mike.

I didn’t know that about Fourier. Thanks!

If you understand French, then I advise you to read Charles Fourier. His works are being republished by les presses du réel. At the beginning of the 19th century, he advocated gender equality, the socialisation of child care, education and domestic labour, the integration of women in productive labour, and sexual freedom, in particular acceptance of homosexuality and polyamory.

I do understand French! I will get right on that :).

Feminine transboys exist and they’re out there – hello, might as well out myself as one of them. There are definitely a number of masculine transwomen and feminine transmen out there, as well as genderqueer people, but I suppose maybe that’s not as interesting to the news or society.
There might be a reason why you may tend to see more feminine transwomen and masculine transmen, and that’s because of one word that most trans people have to think about a lot: passing, AKA getting people to read you as your preferred gender. This is especially true of new or younger transpeople who are in a hurry to finally be seen as and treated as the correct gender. Add in the fact that many procedures and medical treatments for transpeople (hormone replacement therapy, SRS, etc.) are kept from them unless they can prove they’re “male” or “female” enough, and it might be easier to see why transpeople sometimes drift more towards “stereotypical” forms of masculinity and feminity (plus, well, some transpeople just like looking and acting like that, no shame in their game). So many people get mad at transwomen for being hyper-feminine or super-girly and then turn around and ask masculine transwomen why they aren’t trying to be more girly and asking if they really want to be women if they look like they do. I remember there was a case where some transwomen pageant winner got her title revoked because photos surfaced of her hanging out at home in boxers – as if she suddenly wasn’t a woman because she wore boxers despite the fact that thousands of ciswomen wear boxers at home because they’re comfy.
I also figure a reason why many cisgirls yearn to be boys is due to the fact that society and their peers still push highly-gendered messages on them that they dislike, and so wish to escape from those labels – “tomboy” isn’t good enough because it doesn’t help them to stave off female-coded labels. Boys who dislike the also highly-gendered messages pushed on them have difficulty due to the fact that a boy who rejects masculinity has equally cruel and stigmatizing labels pushed onto him – boys don’t have “safe” labels like tomboy when it comes to gender exploration, as they’re then often pushed into a a label of “transgirl” or “gay boy,” neither of which may fit them.

Hey Peace,
I think you make very good points — not surprising, as you have the firsthand experience I don’t! I have heard that ‘gatekeeping’ of access to hormones and surgery can be ridiculously strict, along the lines of ‘you can’t be a trans woman, you’re not wearing a skirt’, and I can hardly blame people for doing what they have to do to get treatment.
I think a degree of actual physical dysphoria around puberty is very common in cis girls. Puberty arrives about a year earlier, on average, for girls than for boys, and whereas for boys the first signs (enlargement of the testicles) are invisible to the general public, in girls the first signs (breast budding) are visible to all and sundry through thin, light clothing. It can be a lot to cope with at an early age. Some girls are as pleased as punch to show off their growing breasts and some just take it all in their stride, but some find things pretty uncomfortable for a while. Growing large breasts on the early side, in particular, can be very difficult, not just because of teasing at school, but also because of harassment from older boys and grown men whose ideas about female puberty and what it means can most restrainedly be termed misguided — everyone’s heard “If there’s grass on the field, it’s time to play ball” and “If it’s old enough to breed, it’s old enough to bleed”, right? Some girls spend a while covering up their breasts with baggy clothes, or even binding them, and that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re trans. Sometimes it just means they need a breathing space to develop the maturity and toughness to be able to deal with all that. But these days, Googling breast binding will take you to the substantial YouTube presence of trans guys, which could lead an adolescent doing the identity-search thing to rush to identify as trans when maybe they aren’t. On the other hand, if you want to get a facial tattoo at eighteen, well, that’s perfectly legal, so why should a double mastectomy be so different?
As you probably know, there’s an effort underway at the moment to carve out the category ‘pink boy’ for feminine male-bodied children and make it as acceptable as ‘tomboy’. I really like the writing of Sarah Hoffman, mother of one such pink boy. Here she talks to Alice Dreger: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201012/pink-boys-puppy-dog-tails
It’s been suggested out to me at various points (not least by a friend of mine who identifies as transfeminine) that trans men/trans boys/transmasculine people more generally are often less visible than their opposite numbers, which is put down to two things mainly: 1.) testosterone as the ‘wonder drug’ for trans males of various types, allowing, for many, easy ‘passing’, which can be much more difficult for trans females, who once they have gone through male puberty will often find it harder to pass even when on oestrogen; 2.) the extra-heavy stigma on males who behave like females, or people who are perceived to be males behaving like females. I would also suggest 3.) we just know less about the sexuality and gender stuff of XX as opposed to XY people; it’s an under-researched area. What do you think about that?

I definitely agree on the fact that there’s a degree of dysphoria, or at the very least discomfort, associated with female puberty due to the more obvious signs. A girl who is self-conscious about her development is likely to wish to hide away and to be someone who does not have to deal with it – such as a boy. I wasn’t too worried about my gender until puberty, because suddenly your body decides it’s time to change and to showcase all of these changes to the world, so it’s difficult to not have to face your sex head-on. I’m really glad to see more efforts to normalize boys and men who may not fit the archetypal “masculine” stereotype, something I’m always pushing for.
I have mixed feelings on the fact that trans men are basically invisible; on one hand, this means less chance of harassment but on the other hand it means a lack of knowledge on us. Anyway, I fully agree with the points you brought up. The first point rings true, as testosterone takes care of many problems such as vocals, body hair, muscle gain, etc. that trans woman don’t have the luxury of (leading to voice training, electrolysis, facial feminization surgery, etc.). That’s not to say that trans men have it super easy, more that trans men and women have different things to feel lucky about. The second one especially runs true. Something I’ve heard a few times is that trans woman are especially looked down on by people because they are going from what is perceived as “the best” – men – to what is perceived as “lesser” – woman. Trans men are then just women “looking to elevate their status, to escape to male privilege.” There’s also the fact that there’s a certain acceptability of tomboys as well as butch lesbians, which outnumber trans men. People who pass by a person who looks like a feminine man or masculine woman wearing guy’s clothes are then likely to register this person as just being a tomboy or butch and so might not set off any alarm bells in the person’s mind.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Peace.

Oh, and here is James, who loves dolls and Taylor Swift and whose friends are all girls, flying the flag for feminine trans boys: http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2017/transgender-child/ There have been some truly horrible comments on this article elsewhere on the internet, actually recommending killing a nine-year-old. Everything about this story, not just the transness but the Jewishness, the overweight, the fact that James’s father is by most standards better-looking than his wife, James’s mother, could not, if it had been planned, be more likely to make froth at the mouth that segment of the population that is fond of using terms like ‘cuck’ and ‘beta male’. But I think many well-meaning people would be a little taken aback to read that James’s younger sibling is, at half his age, now also transitioning, but in the other direction. Is she really a she inside, or has she maybe just figured out that declaring gender dysphoria is a way to get lots of special attention? The recommendation of the Dutch researchers whose article I linked to above would probably be to let James have his ‘boy clothes’ and ‘boy haircut’ and let Olivia dress, play and wear her hair as she likes as well, but not to go full steam ahead with social transition for children ages eight and four. Just now, however, with a bully, as James rightly calls him, in the White House, counsels of moderation are going to fall on deaf ears. Those in blue states are doubling down on their convictions and California in particular is falling back on federalism to protect its more vulnerable residents, who of course include trans people. A lot of people will be thinking, quite rightly, that the focus has to be on standing firm in the face of the immediate threat and that everything else can be hashed out later.

Let me start by saying that I love Judith Levine, and consider her a courageous pioneer in opposing all aspects of the current hysteria revolving around youth sexuality, and in encouraging her fellows on the Left to do the same today as they once did (or began to) during the 1970s. However, I must say that I’m skeptical about any scholar who is connected to a Women’s Studies department at a university. These departments are notorious for being hotbeds of misandry and enablers of female “victimhood,” and have gone a long way towards fomenting the current identity politics nonsense that has infected the Left and caused a plethora of hostile and counterproductive in-fighting among the working class, and also to giving the term “feminism” a bad name by drawing it away from female empowerment & equality into the realm of demands for female entitlement & comeuppance.
This is not to say that Young is among those, as I admittedly haven’t read her books, but seeing her connected to a Women’s Studies department in some university isn’t a good sign.
I also want to say that I think A’s stated goal of reconciling MAP rights with feminism is a laudable one. I’m thinking, though, that a future guest blog may be in order that provides perspectives on how best to accomplish that from the standpoint of an egalitarian, and what missteps to avoid culled from that same perspective. I also think such a guest blog should clearly differentiate between empowerment feminism and “radical feminism,” the latter of which is just a euphemism for politically and academically organized misandry embroiled with the dark side of identity politics.
Finally, I also find myself wondering why Dr. Bailey has said he will not be reading either book.

Thank you for the encouragement, as such a guest blog is now in the planning stages!

I look forward to it :).

Thank you, A!

I share some of your reservations about women’s studies departments, but I respect and recommend Brain Storm because it is thoroughly, indeed exhaustively, researched and referenced. One book I’ve myself been reluctant to read, though I will eventually, is Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender. I get the feeling it may be a bit too polemic for my liking. Here https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html Fine and Stephen Pinker debate sex differences. I think Pinker definitely won that one. [TOC adds: “A” has corrected this in another post. She meant to write Elizabeth Spelke debated with Pinker, not Fine]. However, trans neurobiologist Ben Barres has made some criticisms of Pinker’s comments on sex differences which, though I haven’t looked into them very thoroughly yet, I think we should probably listen to.
A book in the same line as Pink Brain, Blue Brain is Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. It’s a bit old now, but still well worth a look. In a more recent book, Sexing the Body, Fausto-Sterling mentions a web board pseudonymously called ‘Loveweb’: surely Sexnet? In the same book she also mentions that at age eleven she developed a “painful crush” on one of her young male summer camp counselors. As a young woman, she married a man “for love and lust”; now she’s in a long-term relationship with another woman. There’s also some good stuff on sex differences and sex overlap (which is massive) in Virginia Valian’s Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women and, funnily enough, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s A Sword Between the Sexes? C. S. Lewis and the Gender Debates (seriously, it’s a good read!).

Not Fine, dammit: Elizabeth Spelke debates Pinker, I meant to say! I haven’t read any of her publications, but I should.
I also meant to mention that I haven’t read any of Jordan-Young’s other work, but I now see that around the time of the Caster Semenya controversy she wrote this article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/sports/olympics/olympic-sex-verification-you-say-youre-a-woman-that-should-be-enough.html?_r=1 together with Katrina Karkazis, whose Fixing the Body: Intersex, Medical Authority and Lived Experience is high on my to-read list.

Aww, thanks! 🙂

Thanks Tom, v. interesting. I think what Bailey says is why Pink Brain, Blue Brain makes a good complement to Brain Storm: in my non-expert opinion, Lise Eliot gives us a good overview of the sex differences that are well-substantiated, while pointing out that they are fewer and smaller than commonly supposed and only hold true on average.

Judith Levine and her “Harmful to Minors” book was the first positive writing on intergenerational sex I encountered, a few years ago. I became intersted in child liberationism, found the website of the radical youth rights organisation Americans for Society Free from Age Restrictions (ASFAR), read their Youth Truth zine and learned about Judith, her book and the hysterical condemnation which she endured because of her courage to speak her mind. In further search, I learned about Rind et al. controversy, as well as about one Tom O’Carroll who was mentioned in connection with this topic. I found IPCE materials on Rind et al. work and was surprised to found on IPCE a lot of scientific and scholarly works that supported the existence of harmless and consensual child-adult sex. Later, with the help of Google Scholar, I found even more pro-paedosexuality research – as well as many legal, open Paed-Lib websites. So, my involvement with the Paedosphere began.
I’m very sympathetic to sex-positive feminism and hopeful about the constructive role that free-thinking women may play in the Paed-Lib and Child-Lib movements. So I’m looking forward to the Dissident’s guest blog as much as A. does!

131
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top