new

I have not seen convincing evidence that parenting can alter gender identity. That is, I've never seen evidence that parenting can induce big-D Dysphoria (as opposed to gender-atypical behavior) in a neurologically-typical child.
Conversely, real-world attempts to raise kids as the opposite of their natal gender have consistently failed (e.g., David Reimer, who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision but transitioned back after puberty).

I just want to pose these two against each other for a bit.

What's the probability that the recent impassioned rise in ideologically-motivated "gender neutral parenting", which as far as I can tell simply manifests as an attempt to push opposite-gender toys, behaviours and so on onto the child, produces the feeling of unease that later gets the child referred to the gender clinic by going against their actual gender identity?

Because gender neutral parenting seems like a colossal clusterfuck to me, in that:

A; I believe that many of the people who do it are doing it for woke points and not because it's in the interests of the child, and many of them have a "desired outcome" of having a gender non-conforming child.

B; In conjunction with the above, "failure" (as in not being adequately gender neutral and pushing the child into their same gender role) and "success but not getting the result you want" (being adequately gender neutral but a male child choosing to be male anyway, as they will 99%+ of the time) look exactly the same and are pretty indistinguishable, leading parents who actively desire a GNC child to assume they've failed and push opposite-gender things on the child harder and harder.

Basically if anywhere south of 99% of "gender neutral parented" children end up not being GNC it's a pretty clear indication that there's some room for pushing from parents there... and from there, given the political climate, I'm not uncomfortable saying that those signs can be (mis-)interpreted as needing to start funneling the child down the trans pipeline.

The thing around future-gay children getting shoved down that pipeline is pretty alarming too, since if I was born today I'd probably be one of them.

I absolutely used to reject any notion of being a man. I hated when anyone would call me "young man" or similar. I had long hair and painted my nails. I even literally said "I don't want to be a man" a lot.

But all this was just my faulty definition of what a "man" is. To me, back then, "man" meant unshaven, beer gut having, lager-swilling, football-watching, stained white vest-wearing, eating crisps on the sofa in your underwear and scratching your arse. Homer Simpson, Onslow, Jim Royle. To someone who idolised David Bowie and his style, this was offensively repulsive and I was determined to never be a "man".

But, of course, David Bowie was a man. So are lots of stylish and outrageously fashionable and even somewhat feminine people. The problem was with me all along, and when I learned to let go of that definition and accept that I get to define what being a man is, I felt a lot better.

And so, to circle back, when I see Extremely Online trans advocates like the egg_irl lot shouting that any stereotypically female behaviour or preferences are proof positive that you need to be shoved down the trans pipeline with nary a second thought, I get angry because that could've been me. Those types of trans crusaders reinforce every gender stereotype they claim to want to break down. They decide to transition and immediately plump for, say, the girliest clothes, names, mannerisms, and everything else. Which just leads back to more kids developing faulty definitions like I did and going through the same thing, only now with a chorus crowd of people wanting to change their gender for them.

At the same time the Absolute Gender Neutrality At Any Cost brigade also annoy me, because certain traits DO cluster in certain populations. But they're not EXCLUSIVE to them, nor are they mandatory to be part of those populations. I don't understand why it's not okay to acknowledge "a high percentage of men will X, Y, Z" while also saying "but it's fine if you don't, there's no wrong way to be a man, this is just an observed trend".

That kind of meandered a lot but there's not many spaces where I can express this kind of thing and not get shouted down to oblivion -- which is also part of the problem.

Having a penis means you are a man. There is no such thing as a female penis.

Question, how do you define those who have XX chromosomes but have a penis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome#:~:text=XX%20male%20syndrome%2C%20also%20known,that%20can%20vary%20among%20cases.
Are they a man or are they a

Per the name of the page you're linking, the answer would seem to be male.

Regardless, extreme edge cases don't and shouldn't define broad rules. Over-specificity will render otherwise useful concepts useless through inflation.

"Cats have four legs" is a true species-level statement even given the existence of mutated or amputee cats.

There's also a tendency to fall into the univariate fallacy when discussing this. That because one magic vector that neatly cleaves the groups cannot be found, the groups themselves are invalid. This is patently false, traits can be clustered.

If an object matches 5/6 characteristics of Item A and 1/6 of Item B, which is it more likely to be? Which of the two boxes do you put it in when sorting?

Ok what about a woman who through surgery to attach a penis. Is this person a man or a woman?

More difficult. It depends on the rest of the cluster of traits, doesn't it? While that's a strong indicator in one direction, whether it's enough to balance out the rest has to be taken as an individual case.

I agree, there should be some flex in what determines who is a man and who is a woman, you seem to be against this.

Some flex maybe, not 100% flex. But my point was more that categories are rarely ever neat but they must be coherent, at the very least. Simply identifying as X is not enough to become X. And defining X as "ABC", without regard to exceptions, is more broadly useful to people everyday than strictly defining X as "ABC, except when D, but also ACE, unless F, or ABD in which case look at GH in conjuction with AB to determine if C."

I agree yet you seem so focussed on saying that this rule doesn't apply to trans people.

I suppose the corollary is that, as I said above, I don't consider all traits to have equal "weight" when determining what category to put someone in.

So having a penis might be 100 "weight" towards considering someone a man. Having XY chromosomes might be 50 "weight". Having a beard might be 5 or 10.

Identifying as a male registers as a 1, if anything.

This is all just numbers pulled from my arse, I've never sat down and quantified how much I consider each trait to be indicative. It's just my attempt to illustrate why someone who spends a lot of time money and effort on passing is an easier "sell" for me than someone like Yaniv, who does not, and why I do not consider the two equivalent.

But even then, anyone who manages to "cross categories" will still have an asterisk next to their designation, as you used as an example above, an "XX male" or "trans male" and I don't think that's inherently unfair. You can be male, subcategory trans, and that can be relevant information sometimes. Especially in medicine, or dating, or, as in the original example, other "intimate" or delicate/vulnerable situations.

I think it's important that trans people just make their peace with that, because a little compromise will go a long way to reconciliation, as opposed to attempting to "inflict" themselves on the unwilling put of a sense of moral indignation.

You personally think that the presence of a penis is more of an indicator than the xx or xy chromosome, I could find other people that disagree and say it is the other way around.

But again... "XX male". it's not Female Penis Syndrome.

Rather than imposing views why not let said people decide for themselves?

Because we don't let people self-identify as doctors, or as engineers. We take umbrage when someone who is noticeably not decides to call themselves clever or beautiful or talented. People's self identification means very little to us in quite a lot of ways.

So what someone identifies themselves as normally has little bearing on how others identify them, and this is right and proper. We are allowed to disagree.

I don't think this is an excuse to deny said person which sex/gender they are.

The argument they make is that if I don't want to date/sleep with them because they have a vagina, and that viscerally repulses me, that I don't "really" see them as a man.

Which, I mean, is right, but how do you reconcile that?

I mean I think both sides could be polite, no-one has to date or sleep with anyone they don't like.

I'm pretty sure that would get you excoriated by most trans activists. (Maybe not trans people, but activists.)