Untitled

Abstract

Gender constancy judgments in children referred for problems in their gender identity development (N = 206) and controls (N = 95) were compared. On Slaby and Frey's (1975) gender constancy interview, the gender-referred children performed more poorly than the controls at three stage levels: gender identity, gender stability, and gender consistency. On the Boy-Girl Identity Task, a second measure of gender constancy (Emmerich et al., 1977), the gender-referred children also performed more poorly. Gender-referred children who had not attained gender consistency engaged in significantly less same-sex-typed play on a free-play task than the gender-referred children who had, but there were no gender consistency effects for the controls. Two other measures of sex-typed behavior were unrelated to gender consistency. In the gender-referred group alone, children who "failed" the gender identity or gender stability stages were more likely to draw an opposite-sex person first on the Draw-a-Person test and to evince more affective gender confusion on the Gender Identity Interview (Zucker et al., 1993) than children who had "passed." It is concluded that children referred for problems in their gender identity development have a developmental lag in gender constancy acquisition. Possible reasons for the lag are discussed.

Early Findings From the TransYouth Project: Gender Development in Transgender Children

“…For example, the clinic-referred children preferred playmates, toys, and play styles associated stereotypically with the opposite sex more often than their same-sex peers (31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36), like the socially transitioned transgender children in the TYP (in fact, the TYP children showed effects that were equal in magnitude to opposite-sex gender-typical peers; 6, 7). The children in the older studies also endorsed beliefs about gender stability at lower levels than gender-typical children in the control group, consistent with findings related to transgender children who have transitioned socially (37). While many of the findings from these past and current studies are similar, one striking dissimilarity involves a measure of gender identity.…”

“…While many of the findings from these past and current studies are similar, one striking dissimilarity involves a measure of gender identity. Fewer than 10% of children in the older studies identified as the gender opposite their sex at birth when asked if they were boys or girls (37,38). This contrasts with most children in the TYP, who report being a member of the gender group opposite their sex at birth.…”

Beyond Discrete Categories: Studying Multiracial, Intersex, and Transgender Children Will Strengthen Basic Developmental Science

“…Children are not said to understand gender until they understand these "facts" (e.g., Kohlberg, 1966)-yet the scientific and political understanding of the truth of these claims is changing. We now know that there are people whose gender is in fact different than their sex, we now know that there are some people whose gender changes during the course of their development, and we know that there are people who are neither male nor female by standard criteria, yet our studies require that children endorse these empirically false claims about gender and sex to be granted the "correct" understanding of gender (e.g., Zucker et al, 1999). Imagine, for example, a child who personally knows a transgender childwould he or she be wrong to state that a child's sex and gender can diverge?…”

“…and assuming that understanding gender is synonymous with an answer that aligns with one's sex at birth (Zucker & VanderLaan, 2016). Further, those who deviate from normative views on these items (e.g., transgender children) are thought to show a cognitive deficiency or delay (e.g., Zucker et al, 1999). Thus, by focusing on the most prototypical members of groups, the field may be overstating or oversimplifying our theories about social categorization in early childhood.…”

“…Not surprisingly, therefore, much of the work with these children as participants has focused on clinically relevant questions (e.g., rates of psychopathology among these groups), rather than questions about basic developmental science (though see Zucker et al, 1999). Even when the existence of these children is mentioned in reviews of gender development (e.g., Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002;Ruble, Martin, & BEYOND DISCRETE CATEGORIES Berenbaum, 2006), their experiences rarely make it into broader discussions of gender development (Liben, 2016).…”