Thread by @PYeerk

You did not 'know' that you were 'cis' at age 11 lol- you learned the term 'cis' as an adult and then retroactively applied it to yourself- it's not the same thing

https://twitter.com/DrJoGrady/status/1544602015359287296

This 'knowledge' (which is akin to the knowledge that your arm possesses 'armness') was *socially produced* through your introduction to the discourse of 'gender identity', through your introduction to a conceptual distinction founded upon 'identifying with one's assigned sex'

Ironically, the fact that you've never felt a dissonance between yourself and your 'assigned sex' becomes evidence for the legitimacy of the distinction in the first place i.e. you assume that because *you* experience a unity of 'gender' and 'sex', this implies that others don't

By teaching young children that they *can* experience a dissonance between their 'inner selves' and their 'assigned sex', you actually invite them to 'consider what this would be like'- and this objectless rumination then becomes the 'evidence' for the necessity of transition

Since there are no actual tangible standards by which a person can verify that their gender 'matches' their assigned sex (literally none whatsoever), in the absence of such standards, the mind's process of enquiring into itself *becomes* the standard

A given vocabulary *extends* and *produce* new modes of self-understanding, new modes of conceptualisation- they don't 'unlock' knowledge already present

When the mind is given as a task an unsolvable enquiry (unsolvable because the resolution it seeks is a pure phantom of categorisation), it actually *creates* a feeling of disatisfaction, a sense that 'something is wrong'- because 'if there's no problem, why am I searching one?'

The assumption is then that this 'feeling of something being wrong' is a deeply felt part of the self that has been 'unearthed' by the act of enquiry- when it is actually something produced as a *positive effect* of that enquiry! (not 'positive' in the sense of 'good', obviously)