University Looking For Gender Diverse Kids to Play with Transgender Dolls for Researc

[FlyersFan]

I think this is not only stupid, but it's also gender bending children who wouldn't have a mind to think that way if left alone.

The University of Minnesota wants parents of 'gender diverse' children aged 5-10 to play with transgender dolls for research.  The dolls come with genitalia and sex organs.   

Five year olds don't know anything about being 'trans' unless some adult with an agenda put it in their head.

And little kids, aged 5-10,  don't need dolls with sex organs to play with.

University Looking For Gender Diverse Kids to Play with Transgender Dolls for Research

The University of Minnesota (UMN) is offering to pay parents of transgender and "gender diverse" children to have their kids play with unconventional dolls, complete with genitals and sex organs.  
 
"We are looking to hear from transgender and gender diverse children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old and their parents about a new hands-on activity to help talk about gender and bodies," the National Center for Gender Spectrum Health (NCGSH) at UMN wrote on Instagram earlier this year.

[sahgwa]

I am 'sorry' UMN, but unless they were born hermaphroditic, there is no such thing as 'gender diverse' or 'transgender' children, as these are mental constructs that are sexual in nature and occur at puberty.
Fukin' nonsense.

[Maxmars]

This desperate fixation on enforcing situational gender awareness in prepubescence is absolute the single most unnatural "consensus" science product to ever cry out to be heard... it will be remembered in history alongside the likes of eugenics as 'contrived bias rationale.'

This report is a demonstration of the lingering effect of the academic trend of "embracing" DEI. 
Endlessly trying to "forge" the elevation of gender development into a "crisis" that 'scientists' are virtuously attending to. 
The millions of dollars in funneled money to promote this as 'desperately needed' is telling of intent... not to 'serve mankind' but to serve it's activism...
the pinnacle 'virtuous' activity of modern academia.

How can we presuppose a crisis of gender identity before the child is finished being a child, when gender ideation is not yet developed?
Why don't we just wait until the child spontaneously and independently asks about it?
And why can't we have their family answer according to their knowledge, culture, faith, and wisdom?

Oh, I know... someone else "knows" more, is more "righteous," is closer to "God", and speaks the wisdom of the "master" class... 



I don't blame all scientists for the research effort, but some of them in media are to blame for this attempt to wield flaccid "consensus science" like a 'social' bludgeon...
I do blame those who editorialize the attempt as if it related to 'virtue.'

Science is neither 'by consensus' nor 'virtuous.'  It can't be those things and be "science."

Science requires argument of fact... who 'thinks or believes' whatever is an irrelevancy.

Virtue requires ego... in true science (despite the media,) there is no accommodation for egos.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I am 'sorry' UMN, but unless they were born hermaphroditic, there is no such thing as 'gender diverse' or 'transgender' children, as these are mental constructs that are sexual in nature and occur at puberty.
Fukin' nonsense.

I'm just picturing barbie tits on a Ken doll with a tiny doll penis. It's kinda sad funny.

But you don't need dolls with genitals to identify gender association in children, that's just creepy and perverted.

"Let's ask and then watch children play with sex dolls. What could go wrong?"

I get that they're trying to identify the sex map young, but there are much easier ways, or there was when gender stereotypes were still allowed.

Girls constructively and empathetically play.
Boys destructively and mercilessly play.

The boy tears the head off the barbie doll and taunts his sister with it. The sister gets upset and screams and tells mom her brothers being mean, maybe gets him back clandestinely.

This study is going to go observer effect on them and they won't get a natural reading because the kids play won't be natural. It's way too specific and they'll feel watched and judged, and could be already predisposed to gender issues.

They need normal toys under the premise of just playing. They need to trick them.

Observe even their interaction and defer to male and female child social tendencies. Boys are easier as children. Girls can be tomboys all day and be straight or the term for normal. With girls you have to wait for the impulse to tape down the tits, when they're 13, and even that's not across the board. It's like a spectrum of normal straight to transgender whatever with a lot of degrees of gay, and not any set identity.

So let's do boys for being simpler.

Boy A wants to role play as a teacher, and Boy B and C get mad because they want to play Navy Seals. So then Boy B and C do it anyway and Boy A gets upset because they don't want to play school with him and reacts emotionally towards them, or makes it dramatic. You are now identifying "feminine" tendencies in Boy A. At least in my now outdated opinion.

[Raptured]

University of Grooming

[Byrd]

I think this is not only stupid, but it's also gender bending children who wouldn't have a mind to think that way if left alone.

The University of Minnesota wants parents of 'gender diverse' children aged 5-10 to play with transgender dolls for research.  The dolls come with genitalia and sex organs.   

Five year olds don't know anything about being 'trans' unless some adult with an agenda put it in their head.

And little kids, aged 5-10,  don't need dolls with sex organs to play with.

University Looking For Gender Diverse Kids to Play with Transgender Dolls for Research

Look at it from the OTHER way -- investigating in a very subtle way HOW kids who say they are transgender think about social roles (without asking directly, because some kids will lie and some won't be able to say what they think because it's too complex.}  And kids with brothers and sisters have already seen genitalia; I think what they'll be given reflects that kind of build -- a really generic shape that you can make male or female (or not bother with)

It also reflects what they think about their own roles in society.

For example, some girls of my generation didn't like the usual girls dolls and took apart their Barbies (while treating the Breyer model horses well, I should add) and modified them.  Barbies just didn't represent what these girls were or what they wanted (I took to paper dolls, myself, because I could create a female figure that was different than what society wanted for girls.)  If they'd given me a range of dolls to play with, I'd have dressed the girls in boys' clothes (I hated skirts) and put them in Range Rovers (to go adventuring) and so forth.  My paper dolls always had paper horses (with tack) and hand-drawn adventuring things.  Forget babies and tea parties -- I wanted dragon and dinosaur hunting and venturing out on safari!

So if a child creates a genderless doll and interacts with it, what they do and present may give a better idea of what is happening (such as...they know a trans person and wanted to play with the idea.)  Or if they create a doll of the gender to which they want to transition, you can see how they think about that gender.  Do the M-to-F group think that they will be more nurtured if they transition... do the F-to-M group think that they will be better accepted for some of their interests... etc.

Games would reveal a lot more than sitting down and asking questions that the child might not be willing to answer (or be unable to answer) --and could lead to information that would tell psychologists IF a child is doing this to escape some sort of home trauma.

[Maxmars]

Look at it from the OTHER way -- investigating in a very subtle way HOW kids who say they are transgender think about social roles (without asking directly, because some kids will lie and some won't be able to say what they think because it's too complex.}  And kids with brothers and sisters have already seen genitalia; I think what they'll be given reflects that kind of build -- a really generic shape that you can make male or female (or not bother with)

It also reflects what they think about their own roles in society.

For example, some girls of my generation didn't like the usual girls dolls and took apart their Barbies (while treating the Breyer model horses well, I should add) and modified them.  Barbies just didn't represent what these girls were or what they wanted (I took to paper dolls, myself, because I could create a female figure that was different than what society wanted for girls.)  If they'd given me a range of dolls to play with, I'd have dressed the girls in boys' clothes (I hated skirts) and put them in Range Rovers (to go adventuring) and so forth.  My paper dolls always had paper horses (with tack) and hand-drawn adventuring things.  Forget babies and tea parties -- I wanted dragon and dinosaur hunting and venturing out on safari!

So if a child creates a genderless doll and interacts with it, what they do and present may give a better idea of what is happening (such as...they know a trans person and wanted to play with the idea.)  Or if they create a doll of the gender to which they want to transition, you can see how they think about that gender.  Do the M-to-F group think that they will be more nurtured if they transition... do the F-to-M group think that they will be better accepted for some of their interests... etc.

Games would reveal a lot more than sitting down and asking questions that the child might not be willing to answer (or be unable to answer) --and could lead to information that would tell psychologists IF a child is doing this to escape some sort of home trauma.

I feel like I'm not in harmony with some of what you offer, I mean that respectfully. 
It could be my own errant considerations but I'm not inclined to see the useful correlation between what can be observed in children's organic play with application to "society."

Children (presumably)) have some very distinct constraints in mimicry, which is part of the trinity of 'play' to my mind... mimicry, modeling, and synthesis.  Kids operate from a truncated vantage point... their "society" can be fairly summed up with one word... "family."  As a child's activities extend beyond family... to include friends and "adults,"  they haven't really experienced enough time to internalize "social order."  This is natural, they are children.  (Innocence is bliss... which children truly require to thrive.)

Perhaps I'm too simplistic, but I contend that "identity" is not a part of growing up; identity is the result of growing up.

Subjecting children to bizarre externalities and observing what happens seems to say more about the researchers than the research, to my uneducated mind.  

But I admit, the results might prove useful to any willing to infer the narrative that in every child their is a crisis of gender brewing... (and there always has been.)

[FlyersFan]

Look at it from the OTHER way -- investigating in a very subtle way HOW kids who say they are transgender think about social roles ....

Respectfully ... 

Kids who are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... they don't know anything about being 'trans'.   If they have a penis they are a boy and if they have a vagina they are a girl.  And they don't fully understand what being a boy or a girl mean.   Any kid that age who says they are 'trans' only says so because some adult has stuffed that into their brain.  

These toys are grooming and are tools for adults with a political-trans agenda to further their lunacy.

[midicon]

I have a niece who as a child was a real tomboy. She also was very opinionated. She is older now, is a single parent and has two kids. The youngest is a girl of eleven and very much like she was back then I see how very alike they are but the times have changed.
Her daughter now demands that she is a real boy and has changed her name to a boy's name. She also says she is not 'Trans' or 'LGB' etc. There is no compromise with her, she say she has a boy's brain or some such.

I am fortunate in that she hasn't crossed my path much. I see my niece occasionally when she is visiting my daughter and her daughter is usually occupied with my grandchildren. I say fortunately because I don't know how I will react lol.

I don't like this 'dead' name crap and truly think if my niece had been living in this current time she'd be saying the exact same thing as her daughter.

I am not unkind and I love children but I feel it is harmful to encourage this delusion.

[Byrd]

Respectfully ... 

Kids who are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... they don't know anything about being 'trans'.   If they have a penis they are a boy and if they have a vagina they are a girl.  And they don't fully understand what being a boy or a girl mean.   Any kid that age who says they are 'trans' only says so because some adult has stuffed that into their brain.  

These toys are grooming and are tools for adults with a political-trans agenda to further their lunacy.

I beg to differ.  They know what being a boy is and what being a girl is and they know what behaviors are "boy" and "girl".  If you've read up on gender issues, you know that a very small minority of kids do not conform to their gender.