Why I'm gender critical (a thread).

When considering a child's 'gender identity', the problem is not the child - the problem is assigning inherent gender-specificity to certain activities . This is made contiguous with the child's sex through statements such as "boys don't play with dolls".

However, gender nonconformity is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for assigning 'gender dysphoria'. As a corollary, gender dysphoria is more likely due to an excessive internalisation of gender roles than to any inherent characteristic.

The root of 'gender dysphoria' lies in the subject recognising a mismatch between their evident biological sex, their preferences, and the gender roles normatively associated with their sex.

Here, the problem lies in an excessive normalisation of gender roles through which gender conformity becomes seen as socially nomological - necessarily, if x is a boy then x likes certain activities. From this, it is not possible that x be a boy if x doesn't like those activities

Evidently, if it is not possible that x is a boy, then the only alternative is that x is a girl (form the binary character of sex), even though the *biological* characteristics of x are male. This leads to x being simultaneously a boy and not a boy (a logical contradiction).

'Gender dysphoria' is just the reaction to this (socially constructed) contradiction. Evidently, we can see that the conflict lies in considering x under distinct descriptions (as a biological and a social entity).

The solution is not to question x's biological status (which is innate), but to question the criteria determining their social status. In short, rather than promoting transitioning, we should be promoting a deconstruction of gender roles.