TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Luminesa]

That’s not a decision she should be making lightly for her four year old. Take the child to a doctor, a gender therapist, assess the child medically first.

According to her blogspot, her son was brought to a "Doctor", though nothing about this "Doctor" was specified.

The mother (and for that matter, the father, who's also in on this) is an unreliable narrator, which should be noted.

Maybe you should try to make it less obvious next time that you didn't read the whole article. Having read the entire thing, it's transparently obvious that that's not what's happening, and at the end it also says the field in which she has credentials (counseling). Come on, man.

What I said is what is happening. As for her credentials, I didn't really bother to read the very very last end part, so fucking sue me.

So what part of your child telling you “Mama, I always a girl, you just didn’t know.” is just the kid not conforming to stereotypes?

Color me a deep shade of skeptical that such a young child would say that organically.
Reminds me very much of the "woke toddler" Tweets.

I'd spoiler that massive image.

[Cekoviu]

Wow, good thing that's exactly what she did, as was stated VERY clearly in the article.

What she should have done first is take the child to a speech therapist, he's 4 years old and can't tell her what he wants and that's a problem. And yes, I say "he" because I'm not convinced this child is actually trans.

Yet you're perfectly fine with implying that the child is cis. Real funny how that works.

The way she defines being "trans" is tenuous, and then there's the fact that she completely overlooked her child's possible long-term health problems to say, "Oh he's trans!" I work a lot with children who have speech delays like she does. Speech delays, behavioral problems (this child apparently can't even stand to put shoes on, which...well, most little boys hate shoes, but they'll still try to wear them), hearing problems...and from my observations, speech delays and hearing problems are pretty closely related for children his age. Lots of small children have tubes in their ears to help them talk better. Not to mention the mother seems to think that little boys playing with baby dolls and wanting to play dress-up means they are clearly trans.

Speech problems certainly play a role in the complexity of this issue, but that is not what Proctopeo is saying is the problem. He's peddling garbage information as a reason to be outraged over this. The mere nonconformity to gender roles is not the basis for the writer's perception of the child being trans; I suggest reading the article more closely.

Having 'Ph.D' behind your name doesn't always mean you have more sense than the common folk.

Nor did I imply it does.

[Luminesa]

What she should have done first is take the child to a speech therapist, he's 4 years old and can't tell her what he wants and that's a problem. And yes, I say "he" because I'm not convinced this child is actually trans.

Yet you're perfectly fine with implying that the child is cis. Real funny how that works.

The way she defines being "trans" is tenuous, and then there's the fact that she completely overlooked her child's possible long-term health problems to say, "Oh he's trans!" I work a lot with children who have speech delays like she does. Speech delays, behavioral problems (this child apparently can't even stand to put shoes on, which...well, most little boys hate shoes, but they'll still try to wear them), hearing problems...and from my observations, speech delays and hearing problems are pretty closely related for children his age. Lots of small children have tubes in their ears to help them talk better. Not to mention the mother seems to think that little boys playing with baby dolls and wanting to play dress-up means they are clearly trans.

Speech problems certainly play a role in the complexity of this issue, but that is not what Proctopeo is saying is the problem. He's peddling garbage information as a reason to be outraged over this. The mere nonconformity to gender roles is not the basis for the writer's perception of the child being trans; I suggest reading the article more closely.

Having 'Ph.D' behind your name doesn't always mean you have more sense than the common folk.

Nor did I imply it does.

Well I'm not convinced the problem is the child's gender at all. What the child is doing is...really nothing of any major concern at his age. Little boys play with "girl" toys all the time. Little girls play with "boy" toys all the time. If the child is supposedly dysphoric, then the mother does a terrible job defining that dysphoria. What if Wilson is trans even as he plays with "boy" toys? I did read the article carefully, btw. That's how I found all these small details which I found fishy.

[Rostavykhan]

What she should have done first is take the child to a speech therapist, he's 4 years old and can't tell her what he wants and that's a problem. And yes, I say "he" because I'm not convinced this child is actually trans.

Yet you're perfectly fine with implying that the child is cis. Real funny how that works.

Probably because kids being CIS is normal.

[Vassenor]

Yet you're perfectly fine with implying that the child is cis. Real funny how that works.

Probably because kids being CIS is normal.

And what makes it normal?

[Rostavykhan]

Probably because kids being CIS is normal.

And what makes it normal?

Being 99.4% of the population certainly helps.

[Necroghastia]

And what makes it normal?

Being 99.4% of the population certainly helps.

So a majority, then... I always had a hunch that white people weren't normal!

[Cekoviu]

Yet you're perfectly fine with implying that the child is cis. Real funny how that works.

Probably because kids being CIS is normal.

This kid has broken what's normal a bunch of times. There is some evidence that the child isn't cis, which can't be disregarded because it's outside the norm.

[Thermodolia]

Probably because kids being CIS is normal.

This kid has broken what's normal a bunch of times. There is some evidence that the child isn't cis, which can't be disregarded because it's outside the norm.

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

[Luminesa]

This kid has broken what's normal a bunch of times. There is some evidence that the child isn't cis, which can't be disregarded because it's outside the norm.

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

From what I've noticed too, little boys love babies. When I taught a class and we had a baby in the classroom, all the little boys gave the baby attention. They loved running over and saying hello to the baby. It was adorable! And these were children all just a little younger than this child.

[Vassenor]

Being 99.4% of the population certainly helps.

So a majority, then... I always had a hunch that white people weren't normal!

Men aren't normal either by this logic.

[Cekoviu]

This kid has broken what's normal a bunch of times. There is some evidence that the child isn't cis, which can't be disregarded because it's outside the norm.

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

The kid specifically said they're a girl, according to the only account of the situation available. Why the fuck can't people read??

[Vassenor]

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

The kid specifically said they're a girl, according to the only account of the situation available. Why the fuck can't people read??

Because it's inconvenient for the narrative that the mother is forcing them to be trans.

[Luminesa]

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

The kid specifically said they're a girl, according to the only account of the situation available. Why the fuck can't people read??

There's other accounts on other mediums, though Procto hasn't posted them.

And furthermore, she starts the article like this:
"I did not know I had a daughter — you see, when I had my second child, I named her Waylon Joseph Ginicola and we thought she was a boy. In order to tell my story, I am going to speak from my perspective then (in both name and pronouns)— something that has been approved of by my daughter — even though as she tells me, “Mama, I always a girl, you just didn’t know.”

How does a 4-year-old with a serious speech delay communicate that they're a girl, when they can't even communicate how much they don't like wearing certain kinds of shoes? How is this child suddenly speaking full sentences about what they want to buy? You don't go from a speech delay to suddenly saying, "Momma I wanna buy dresses!" overnight. And then the child said they were both a boy and a girl? Little kids play games like that all the time. That doesn't make them a "two-spirit". This woman is collecting labels and projecting them on her kid. And from what I can tell she's neglecting his medical needs as well. Utterly shameful.

[Linux and the X]

How does a 4-year-old with a serious speech delay communicate that they're a girl, when they can't even communicate how much they don't like wearing certain kinds of shoes?

It's pretty standard when reporting speech, even as a quote, to clean it up a bit.

[Auzkhia]

On an unrelated note, there's whatever the hell this is.
It's a mother (who apparently has a doctorate in... something) deciding that her four-year-old son is a girl because he's not conforming to stereotypes.

Why do you buy into this "woke af parent transing their kid" narrative?

Many others have pointed out quotes that show the child is a girl and her mother is being supportive. Transitioning at 4 years old is very low stakes, all is happening is getting different clothes, new name and pronouns. Trans awareness is becoming more of a thing, so parents of young children now can see the Signs™ or even not squash them like they did back in my generation.

[Hediacrana]

On an unrelated note, there's whatever the hell this is.
It's a mother (who apparently has a doctorate in... something) deciding that her four-year-old son is a girl because he's not conforming to stereotypes.

Why do you buy into this "woke af parent transing their kid" narrative?

Many others have pointed out quotes that show the child is a girl and her mother is being supportive. Transitioning at 4 years old is very low stakes, all is happening is getting different clothes, new name and pronouns. Trans awareness is becoming more of a thing, so parents of young children now can see the Signs™ or even not squash them like they did back in my generation.

As I said in a post right before Procto brought this story up, that narrative really is the flavor of the month for the anti-SJW crowd these days:

A lot happening around preventing youth accessing trans healthcare these days.

Georgia and Kentucky lawmakers are targeting trans youth, in part as response to the controversy around the trans girl in Texas.

This article, a few days older, wonders whether trans children are the new 'bathroom bill' issue for Texas Republicans to rally around. I fear it's shaping up to be much larger than Texas alone.

Of course, the fact that for kids and early teenagers, usually we're just talking social transitioning and at most puberty blockers a little later is conveniently left out of these conversations.

'Think of the children,' the GOP's favorite rhetorical trick since Reagan. Nothing better to get a mob riled up than a nicely manufactured moral panic.

[Grenartia]

I find it ironic that there's LGBT+ monarchists.

Like, they *do* realize that 95% of monarchies (except the Vatican, though I'd honestly hardly define that as a monarchy, more like a religious oligarchy) rely on biological children of royal (or at least noble) blood in order to continue, right? That reliance doesn't exactly promote acceptance of LGBT+ people.

Theres not an necessarily a contradiction present here as it may appear on first sight, unless we go from the - in my post above - mentioned merger of spheres and purposes. But more on that later.

And I can only assume that people promote anti-egalitarian ideologies (which monarchism by definition is) because they imagine themselves being the bootwearers instead of the bootlickers (though I'll admit those types exist, too, and I have a more colorful idea why they do what they do), so it boggles the mind why a lesbian or gay person would want to be coerced into a sexual relationship with someone completely against their orientation (short of some sort of forced breeding fetish), why a bi/pan person would want the scope of their relationship options basically cut in half, or why a trans person would want to be barred from transitioning (at least until they produce at least one child, but likely more).

That is assuming that a dynastic relationship is necessarily excluding the possibility of a pansexual or homosexual relationship, or that the later would require taking place of the former or vice versa. A reproductive (or maybe sometimes dynastic) relationship or marriage has the purpose to produce offspring by combining the genetic traits of it's biological parents. Reproductive and romantic relationship are not necessarily the same. The presumption of the necessarility of having both to be combined is a product of victorian 19th century romanticism ideals and lifestyle and relatively new. Its somewhat ironic to adopt that throughly "buergliche" ideal from an LGBT viewpoint.

Honestly, this post, the one you made before it, and the one you made after it all seem like some well-tossed word salad. Can you rephrase them?

[Uiiop]

Theres not an necessarily a contradiction present here as it may appear on first sight, unless we go from the - in my post above - mentioned merger of spheres and purposes. But more on that later.



That is assuming that a dynastic relationship is necessarily excluding the possibility of a pansexual or homosexual relationship, or that the later would require taking place of the former or vice versa. A reproductive (or maybe sometimes dynastic) relationship or marriage has the purpose to produce offspring by combining the genetic traits of it's biological parents. Reproductive and romantic relationship are not necessarily the same. The presumption of the necessarility of having both to be combined is a product of victorian 19th century romanticism ideals and lifestyle and relatively new. Its somewhat ironic to adopt that throughly "buergliche" ideal from an LGBT viewpoint.

Honestly, this post, the one you made before it, and the one you made after it all seem like some well-tossed word salad. Can you rephrase them?

It sounds like:
"Why can't just LGBT and conservatives just get along and let each other be?
We can have the monarchy disallow gay marriages within but let the people they rule do whatever we want."

In other words "Utopian enlightened centrism" that has the same energy of that one editorial saying "In my ideal world White nationalist and Jewish people get along."

[Proctopeo]

'Think of the children,' the GOP's favorite rhetorical trick since Reagan. Nothing better to get a mob riled up than a nicely manufactured moral panic.

It's important to note here that "think of the children" is a rhetorical trick employed by anyone with a chip on their shoulder, on topics where children can be seen as (or made to be) relevant; the Democrats, for instance, employ it frequently to oppose gun rights.

Additionally, it's not always a bad thing to think of the children. While it's generally used for stupid shit (like claiming any random-ass thing is corrupting and/or endangering our youth), being mindful of how policies and cultural trends may affect the youth is a good way to prevent the slope from becoming slippery.
Worse things than young children being declared trans by their parents have happened and have been blindly defended, even when these things stray beyond the realm of "Autism mom" Munchhausen by proxy and into actual child sexual exploitation.

[Grenartia]

Following spencer words allowing others to spread their hate is justifying it. So if i am not with their trans support views and i do not attack hateful people i am hateful. Guys i just have seen you are the same fanatics you fight, if someone is not with you it is againist you i am not surprised moreover i was expecting your gender ideology to end up like this. You are trying to smash the neutral people to force on them your morals i only say be careful cause people can turn you down any moment and mass support the other side.

Is today some sort of international "make word jumble posts on internet fora" day?

The "lol @ poor deluded LGBT right-wingers" strawmeme works fine so long as the model assumes that LGBT people are only LGBT and nothing else, accepts the premise that their "natural" politics and principles should align with those of LGBT activists - with any reservations or concerns about excess by definition reflecting "self-hatred" - and ignores the possibility that they oppose significant elements of the phobic attitudes in the political circles in which they mix and are actually making efforts to try to diminish these.

It's lazy self-aggrandizing smugposting, which assumes without question that anyone who doesn't think exactly like you is an ethical and intellectual big dumbdumb. That may be titillating within a crowd of people already on side, but it should be a guilty pleasure rather than something unapologetically and repeatedly done by those who market themselves as "good people". It's not good faith behaviour that seeks to build bridges or understand those members of the community who disagree.

I think it stems from left-wing activist types tending to have very little respect for right-wingers in general.

I mean, when you get systematically beaten down by policies right-wingers championed, you tend not to have very much fucking respect for them. Speaking as a former right-winger.

In a recent interview between a very conservative, somewhat "Uncle Tom-ish" black man, and a medium sized left-wing Youtuber, the conservative asked "Do you hate black conservatives?" And the Youtuber quickly replies "I hate conservatives." I think that sums it up.

I mean, I wouldn't say I hate conservatives, but I do hate the ideology, because it has very little respect for me and people like me. And I have very little respect for people who sincerely believe in ideologies that seek to oppress and marginalize me. And I see no reason why I should think otherwise.

Conservatism is seen by those types as a fundamentally evil ideology which invariably results in women and minorities being crushed,

Because it is, and it does. Again, I'm a former conservative. I should know.

so all conservatives are either people belonging to priveliged groups who want to oppress minorities with impunity, or people from marginalised groups who must either be deluded or grifters who want to raise themselves up at the expense of everyone else in their group.

I can't say I've seen anything that adequately refutes that assessment.

It's almost as if... Pardon if my impression is incorrect... Conservatives have been the ones suppressing LGBT rights in this country for the last 60 or 70 years.

Just a theory.

Does that excuse assuming every conservative wants to suppress LGBT rights?

In my experience, if they're 'cool with LGBT+', then they're decidedly not cool with some other group of people. I, for one, refuse to give them a pass on suppressing ethnic and religious minorities, for instance, simply because they happen to be 'cool' with people like me. And that's assuming they don't support politicians and policymakers who aren't cool with people like me.

Which they almost invariably do, because when push comes to shove, people like the Log Cabin Republicans will support assholes like Donald Trump and Mike Pence if it means a fucking pointless border wall and brown kids in cages.

If the child is supposedly dysphoric, then the mother does a terrible job defining that dysphoria.

That doesn't indicate to me (and probably many of the rest of the trans people here) what you think it does.

Dysphoria is not a thing that is easy to define or explain. To get an idea of how hard it is, imagine you have a pocketwatch that's a priceless family heirloom, and you accidentally drop it into a murky stream. Now, imagine trying to reach around in there to find it. You think you find it, but it turns out to be a rock that feels remarkably similar to it. Next you find something that feels like it might be the chain, but instead, its some roots from some plants growing in the water.

Now a total stranger comes up to you and asks you what you're looking for and offers to help. You know exactly what it looks and feels like, but how do you explain the intricate patterns (which for all either of you know, could be so caked in mud as to be indistinguishable from the rest of it) engraved into it, so that the stranger could recognize it instantly by touch?

Quite simply, you can't.

And what makes it normal?

Being 99.4% of the population certainly helps.

Normal =/= average.

This kid has broken what's normal a bunch of times. There is some evidence that the child isn't cis, which can't be disregarded because it's outside the norm.

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

Nobody said otherwise.

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

The kid specifically said they're a girl, according to the only account of the situation available. Why the fuck can't people read??

More importantly, why is it only the cis people who are assuming the only reason anyone thinks the kid is trans is some strawman bullshit about "playing with dolls"?

Honestly, this post, the one you made before it, and the one you made after it all seem like some well-tossed word salad. Can you rephrase them?

It sounds like:
"Why can't just LGBT and conservatives just get along and let each other be?
We can have the monarchy disallow gay marriages within but let the people they rule do whatever we want."

In other words "Utopian enlightened centrism" that has the same energy of that one editorial saying "In my ideal world White nationalist and Jewish people get along."

God, just the thought of that being a thing makes me cringe.

[Auzkhia]

Why do you buy into this "woke af parent transing their kid" narrative?

Many others have pointed out quotes that show the child is a girl and her mother is being supportive. Transitioning at 4 years old is very low stakes, all is happening is getting different clothes, new name and pronouns. Trans awareness is becoming more of a thing, so parents of young children now can see the Signs™ or even not squash them like they did back in my generation.

As I said in a post right before Procto brought this story up, that narrative really is the flavor of the month for the anti-SJW crowd these days:

A lot happening around preventing youth accessing trans healthcare these days.

Georgia and Kentucky lawmakers are targeting trans youth, in part as response to the controversy around the trans girl in Texas.

This article, a few days older, wonders whether trans children are the new 'bathroom bill' issue for Texas Republicans to rally around. I fear it's shaping up to be much larger than Texas alone.

Of course, the fact that for kids and early teenagers, usually we're just talking social transitioning and at most puberty blockers a little later is conveniently left out of these conversations.

'Think of the children,' the GOP's favorite rhetorical trick since Reagan. Nothing better to get a mob riled up than a nicely manufactured moral panic.

Yeah it's this whole "HOW DO I EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHILD" argument, which is so tried. They were literally saying this about gay people 15 years ago when same-gender marriage was the new hot button issue.

However concern for the youth can be valid sometimes; Trans activists are thinking of the children. They're thinking of transgender children and advocating for their right to transition, to not go through a puberty that would make dysphoria much worse, and to allow them to have a chance at being themselves. However that gets likened to coercion, however, you know who are getting mutilation and coerced? Intersex children, while intersex and being trans are not the same thing. "Concerned" cis people rail against what they do intersex youth.

[Luminesa]

How does a 4-year-old with a serious speech delay communicate that they're a girl, when they can't even communicate how much they don't like wearing certain kinds of shoes?

It's pretty standard when reporting speech, even as a quote, to clean it up a bit.

Okay, but if you can't use basic speech, then how do you even translate it into a quote? I understand she's the mom and probably knows her kid well enough, obviously. But I live with someone who is nonverbal, and have for my entire life, and even after all this time communication can be frustrating at times. You can probably tell what the person likes to some extent, but never...objectively. It's a matter of trial-and-error communicating without verbal language. At the same time, however, medicine is not a game of Dr. House. How does she get that this child that can't communicate properly is 'two-spirited'? How does a 4-year-old even know what 'two-spirited' is? That's a very specific (and uncommon) cultural phenomenon in the Western World, unless you happen to be Native American or a member of a South American tribe that believes in that concept.

[Luminesa]

As I said in a post right before Procto brought this story up, that narrative really is the flavor of the month for the anti-SJW crowd these days:



'Think of the children,' the GOP's favorite rhetorical trick since Reagan. Nothing better to get a mob riled up than a nicely manufactured moral panic.

Yeah it's this whole "HOW DO I EXPLAIN THIS TO MY CHILD" argument, which is so tried. They were literally saying this about gay people 15 years ago when same-gender marriage was the new hot button issue.

However concern for the youth can be valid sometimes; Trans activists are thinking of the children. They're thinking of transgender children and advocating for their right to transition, to not go through a puberty that would make dysphoria much worse, and to allow them to have a chance at being themselves. However that gets likened to coercion, however, you know who are getting mutilation and coerced? Intersex children, while intersex and being trans are not the same thing. "Concerned" cis people rail against what they do intersex youth.

Well "How do I explain this to my child?" is not an argument that is going away. Teachers HAVE to think about this question with kids. People will ALWAYS think about this question, because surprise, kids are not always emotionally mature or ready enough for some topics. Some kids are too little and some kids are sensitive to certain topics. It's why people were told to turn-off footage of 9/11, because psychologists said it was affecting kids.

Besides, kids who are very young shouldn't be able to transition, not when their bodies are still forming and growing and they're nowhere close to puberty. They need to be allowed to grow, and to develop. Messing with the hormones of a 4-year-old, 5-year-old is a horrible idea because their bodies are still in the very foundations of their development. I dunno what the solution should be for little bitty children with this sort of dysphoria. I'm not a scientist. But I do know enough about biology that little boys need testosterone and little girls need estrogen (technically both genders have both, just in varying qualities) in order for them to grow, not just to develop sexual organs or sexual functions.

[Luminesa]

Following spencer words allowing others to spread their hate is justifying it. So if i am not with their trans support views and i do not attack hateful people i am hateful. Guys i just have seen you are the same fanatics you fight, if someone is not with you it is againist you i am not surprised moreover i was expecting your gender ideology to end up like this. You are trying to smash the neutral people to force on them your morals i only say be careful cause people can turn you down any moment and mass support the other side.

Is today some sort of international "make word jumble posts on internet fora" day?

I think it stems from left-wing activist types tending to have very little respect for right-wingers in general.

I mean, when you get systematically beaten down by policies right-wingers championed, you tend not to have very much fucking respect for them. Speaking as a former right-winger.

In a recent interview between a very conservative, somewhat "Uncle Tom-ish" black man, and a medium sized left-wing Youtuber, the conservative asked "Do you hate black conservatives?" And the Youtuber quickly replies "I hate conservatives." I think that sums it up.

I mean, I wouldn't say I hate conservatives, but I do hate the ideology, because it has very little respect for me and people like me. And I have very little respect for people who sincerely believe in ideologies that seek to oppress and marginalize me. And I see no reason why I should think otherwise.

Conservatism is seen by those types as a fundamentally evil ideology which invariably results in women and minorities being crushed,

Because it is, and it does. Again, I'm a former conservative. I should know.

so all conservatives are either people belonging to priveliged groups who want to oppress minorities with impunity, or people from marginalised groups who must either be deluded or grifters who want to raise themselves up at the expense of everyone else in their group.

I can't say I've seen anything that adequately refutes that assessment.

Does that excuse assuming every conservative wants to suppress LGBT rights?

In my experience, if they're 'cool with LGBT+', then they're decidedly not cool with some other group of people. I, for one, refuse to give them a pass on suppressing ethnic and religious minorities, for instance, simply because they happen to be 'cool' with people like me. And that's assuming they don't support politicians and policymakers who aren't cool with people like me.

Which they almost invariably do, because when push comes to shove, people like the Log Cabin Republicans will support assholes like Donald Trump and Mike Pence if it means a fucking pointless border wall and brown kids in cages.

If the child is supposedly dysphoric, then the mother does a terrible job defining that dysphoria.

That doesn't indicate to me (and probably many of the rest of the trans people here) what you think it does.

Dysphoria is not a thing that is easy to define or explain. To get an idea of how hard it is, imagine you have a pocketwatch that's a priceless family heirloom, and you accidentally drop it into a murky stream. Now, imagine trying to reach around in there to find it. You think you find it, but it turns out to be a rock that feels remarkably similar to it. Next you find something that feels like it might be the chain, but instead, its some roots from some plants growing in the water.

Now a total stranger comes up to you and asks you what you're looking for and offers to help. You know exactly what it looks and feels like, but how do you explain the intricate patterns (which for all either of you know, could be so caked in mud as to be indistinguishable from the rest of it) engraved into it, so that the stranger could recognize it instantly by touch?

Quite simply, you can't.

Being 99.4% of the population certainly helps.

Normal =/= average.

Playing with girl toys and wearing girl clothes doesn’t make one automatically not Cis anymore than a girl liking to wear flannel is automatically gay

Nobody said otherwise.

The kid specifically said they're a girl, according to the only account of the situation available. Why the fuck can't people read??

More importantly, why is it only the cis people who are assuming the only reason anyone thinks the kid is trans is some strawman bullshit about "playing with dolls"?

It sounds like:
"Why can't just LGBT and conservatives just get along and let each other be?
We can have the monarchy disallow gay marriages within but let the people they rule do whatever we want."

In other words "Utopian enlightened centrism" that has the same energy of that one editorial saying "In my ideal world White nationalist and Jewish people get along."

God, just the thought of that being a thing makes me cringe.

Well the problem with such murky waters is that it then makes treatment of this issue murkier. This kid has probably multiple issues, but I'm of the mind that if you are going to treat something, you do need to look for specific symptoms. If you don't have those symptoms written in stone, then you have problems diagnosing. This is probably part of the reason why kids get over-diagnosed with ADHD, and part of the reason why treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder is so difficult and case-by-case. What I don't like about this article is it seems to make flowery prose out of a child's medical issues while ignoring them. I hate to sound like I'm repeating myself, but I don't know what else to say.