Tropes referring to "children" and teenages inclusion.

In this post I would like to discuss the meaning of posts referring to children regarding the inclusion of teenagers or people over 13 years old. There are two basic definitions of the term "child" or "kid": one that the terms refer strictly to individuals who are still in childhood, that is, they have not yet entered adolescence (13 years), which delimits the term a no maximum age of 12 (pre-adolescent); and the other referring to those who have not yet reached the legal age of majority. The second definition is complicated, because although most Western societies define legal age at 18, this definition does not only vary in other cultures (reaching 15 in Arab cultures or even 13/12 in Jewish culture depending on sex), as well as in the west. In Mississippi, for example, legal adulthood is only reached at age 21. Not to mention that biologically, the individual aged 18 or 19 is still considered a teenager. But even if it didn't matter, it would still be strange to include all teenagers under 18 as "child / kid", because even using the logic that these terms refer to minors, it would be more logical to use the term "minor" instead of "child" or "kid". What is the problem with the first definition, in my opinion? The problem of using the term to refer strictly to those who are under 13 is somewhat the same as we have with the second. The problem is that people do not understand how to deal with transition phases between two completely different things, in this case, two totally different ages, which is childhood and adulthood. Because it is a transition phase, younger teenagers will be closer to childhood than older teenagers, who in turn will be even closer to what can be called an adult. It is not possible to place all teenagers aged 13 to 17 on the same level as children and not on the same level as adults. If we use the logic that to count on the trope "Would Hurt a Child", for example, teenagers are physically stronger, from what age can this be taken into account, because I really do not believe that there is a significant difference between the physical strength of a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year-old boy considering only age and not biotype, among other things. In summary, I do not agree that older teenagers, who are increasingly closer to what can be considered an adult, 17 years old, for example, are placed on the same level as children, just as I do not agree that they are placed on the same level as Younger teenagers, who have just entered adolescence and most of the time are underdeveloped physically, in view of the significant difference that exists between the majority of teenagers aged between 13 and 16 years, for example. I know that there are 13-year-olds who may look more mature, but it is always a case that characterizes someone who is Younger Then They Look, I have also seen 12-year-old preteens who appeared to be 14 or 15 years old. I believe that even so, they would not count as "child / kid", since the inclusion in these tropes generally takes into account chronological age and not biological age or being Younger Than They Look. People find it difficult to understand issues involving transition phases, making it much simpler to include the transition strip in one of the two extremes. I do not agree that the tropes refer strictly to those under the age of 13, but I also do not agree with the addition of all those under the age of 18, specifically those who are physically closest to adults. So, I believe that the maximum age for counting in tropes for children should be 14 years old.

Holy shit man, can you paragraph that please? Im on mobile and the wall of text is so insurmountable I had to stop reading less than half way in.

^ Eh, you're not really missing anything.

The gist of the post is that this person thinks that tropes involving "children" should be limited to those under 14, because a 17-year-old is very different (physically and mentally) from a 13-year-old, who in turn is very different from a 5-year-old.

It's mostly quibbling over semantics.

It's hard to argue with the sentiment of the OP's argument, but in the real world, the definitions of "child" and "adult" are heavily dependent on context. A teenager may be physically and mentally different from a young child, but legally and medically speaking, they're still considered a child. So it's not as easy and clear-cut as the OP is trying to make it seem.

I remember a similar thread about the distinction between child tropes and teenager tropes (Would a 13-year-old clarify for Kids Are Cruel vs. Teens Are Monsters, for example) and my answer was and still is...there's no blanket answer. It depends on the specific setting/work. Real life specifics don't factor in it as much.

Also, there are discussions elsewhere to make Younger Than They Look NRLEP, because real life people seriously age differently and perceptions of age vary across cultures.

Edited by Synchronicity on Aug 16th 2020 at 11:03:47 AM

I remembered that thread too. I would've brought it up if I wasn't at work.

To give an answer: It depends on the trope and context. I'd consider a roughly present-day 14-year-old fine for A Child Shall Lead Them or Grade-School C.E.O., but not Adorably Precocious Child or Troubling Unchildlike Behavior.

Ditto

Locking down numbers has rarely been a beneficial thing to better define tropes. Some people still think a 45 year old playing a 35 year old is Dawson Casting. I'm this case it's a broad approximation of how the character is portrayed, teenagers run from not able to stay home without a babysitter to already living on their own. Ultimately even if they exist in that grey area there is nothing wrong with listing both tropes.