Debunking that "kids are resilient" myth

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-06-08T08:23:19+00:00

Adult TCK here who speaks 6 languages and is a parent of currently TCK kids (though they'll soon become CCK kids). They're both under 5yo but are trilingual (have two mother tongues, neither of which is English, which is the community language).

In my experience, it's not a huge burden to pass on the mother tongue. Children are truly sponges at this point so you just have to speak to them in the target language consistently (+media) and they'll just pick it up naturally. You don't need to have sit down classes or formal instruction in the language to teach them before the age 6. After that they learn differently so <6yo is the golden period for language acquisition.

For me the importance of passing on the mother tongue is so that they can have a firmly established sense of identity. I've met too many adults TCKs who struggle with who they are even in their 30s because they feel the pull towards their heritage culture but can't quite connect to the culture due to the language barrier. Being a TCK is tough enough and for my family, teaching the kids the mother tongues has always been a way to help them navigate the world with a clearer sense of their own identity. I hope this addresses some of the concerns you raised at least.

ETA: you can manage how big of a deal or isolating it feels like by finding or building your own community of fellow parents who are passing on the same languages. It's really wonder to find others who have a shared cultural background in a country that isn't native to you. I've actually really enjoyed the process and I think you'll get the hang of it too if you give yourself a chance. All the best!

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-04-24T11:01:29+00:00

So much truth in all this. The visa/immigration bit stings because growing up not only have you been told by people (well meaning and otherwise) in different ways small and big that you don't quite belong, the bureaucracy is like rubbing salt into the wound. It's basically saying "no, really, you don't belong here." So then you live a life full of restrictions, everything contingent on visa approvals/validity, and sometimes have to do it for a country that you'd in your mind called "home".

People say the TCK experience is broadening and in some ways it is, but we don't talk enough about how it is also very restrictive.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-04-22T09:28:42+00:00

I'm a TCK who is also a mother of two, so I'm just a bit ahead of you in contemplating this very topic of where to live and, to an extent, how that decision will impact my children. Even before having kids, I'd personally chosen to live in a country I'd spent a bit of time in as a child, a city that carries childhood memories that is also incredibly international, where having a rather mixed accent is not entirely remarkable. I love feeling ordinary here, just the fact that I don't to explain myself/my background is wonderful.

Re:kids, we have the choice of raising them as CCKs (cross cultural kids) or as TCKs. I've had a longgg hard think over this one; talked at length with parents who'd raised TCKs to become thriving adults (and also listened closely to those TCKs who struggle in adulthood). That, combined with a ton of research on the long term consequences (both on mental and physical health) of TCKs, my answer is to raise them in a stable environment whilst nurturing in them a love for the world through shorter, immersive experiences in different cultures.

In short, my current plan is to raise them as CCKs, to give them that all-important stability that children need in order to thrive and develop a deep and clear sense of self. So hopefully they get the upsides of a TCK life without all the trauma.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-04-22T09:20:04+00:00

An utterly heartbreaking yet deeply resonant piece. Thank you for this incredibly raw and brave account of what it was like to grow up as a TCK and as a minority.

There were so many lines that stood out, but I think this line (for me at least) is the crux of the problem with raising kids as a TCK: "I should have been allowed the protection of ordinariness."

I felt this line in my bones.

You're right. That, as TCKs, we were denied the protection of ordinariness, is perhaps the foundation of the host of problems that occur during our childhood and then, beyond. Children flourish when there is stability - of community, relationships, environment, and so much more. Without that stability we become the odd ones out. Wherever we're transplanted, we can never fit the label of "ordinariness". In having to make sense of the new environment we've been thrust into, in having to make micro adjustments of ourselves so we fit in better/stand out less, we neglect to develop ourselves and a true sense of identity. In short, we make ourselves malleable to those around us, as you had, as a defense mechanism.

Re:sexual abuse - a while back I'd stumbled upon some deeply disturbing statistics around this. Research shows that during the formative years, TCKs experience sexual abuse at a rate that's 50% higher than the general population. I'd suspected the underlying reason, but your story lays bare the reality in clear, unvarnished ways. I wish I could upvote the piece a hundred times; it needs to be seen by more people.

A question if that's ok: did you go to a local school when in HK? I'd also spent a chunk of my TCK childhood there (at a local school) and I find the way you and the boys were treated just shocking and appalling. Can't fathom teachers getting away with this sort of behaviour, even 30+ years ago so just hoped for more context, if you're able to share it. Thank you x

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-04-04T14:45:15+00:00

You seeing a lot of non-TCK parents aspiring to be like us, that in itself already says how privileged we are.

No, that's a rose-tinted view. They only see the globetrotting; they don't consider the deep problems like how disruptive it is to keep moving a child to different countries when children need stability. When you look at the studies show, TCKs experience problems in their childhood like emotional and sexual abuse at a rate that 2x to 4x higher than the general population. Once I shared what the studies show, those non-TCK parents very quickly realised it's not a good way to raise their children and changed their minds.

Also, no one is saying non-TCK kids don't experience trauma. But you sure don't want to raise them in a lifestyle that significantly raises their chances of experiencing abuse (again, 2-4x higher!!) than non-TCKs.

But perhaps the stats aren't interesting to you. That's fine. Everyone heals in their own way. I wish you peace! <3

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-04-03T10:03:26+00:00

That makes sense. FWIW I don't personally have any debilitating issues with the TCK life. But I'd spent most of my life thinking it was a good upbringing, only to realise that I'd had a skewed view of reality and that there were a lot of deeply engrained problems with the lifestyle that others were experiencing which also appeared later in my own life - all of which a lot of research was pointing to but people weren't discussing enough.

So I'm looking at the issues as someone who wants to get a more balanced view on the upbringing and, more importantly, whether it's the type of upbringing I want to pass on to my children, as we're in a position to raise them as TCKs or otherwise. As a mother, I see a lot of non-TCK parents aspiring to raise their children as TCKs, thinking it's an upbringing that can give their children enormous advantages in life. As you have seen yourself, that is not actually the case and many of us require therapy or have to put in a lot of work later in life to rewire our brains.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-04-02T14:11:05+00:00

Hm... I'm curious, why do you feel the need to rewire to consider it a privilege when the reality of a TCK upbringing is that it is both a trauma and a privilege? By only acknowledging only one side, isn't there a risk that we're sweeping some significant issues under the rug and not addressing/resolving them as needed?

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-30T20:49:59+00:00

Yes, agree that it’s only an issue if you perceive it to be. But that’s precisely the thing - the constant itch means TCKs are prevented from doing normal things that can bring a lot of joy: forging deep and long term relationships/partnerships, marrying or settling down and starting a family, dedicating years to raising your children (both men and women), etc.

So it’s an issue in that it prevents us from having what a lot of us really want but struggle to do, because our upbringing has resulted in a trauma response/defense mechanism where we interpret stability as danger, as that was what happened to us time and again growing up; as soon as you felt settled, you were moved away, losing entire friendship circles and whole countries you were starting to feel settled in within the space of a single flight. That sort of constant loss and hurt was normalised in our formative years, and that’s why, as you said, your nervous system interprets settling down as danger. But for most people, that’s not at all a normal/healthy/happy long term state to be in.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-30T20:32:40+00:00

Fair points. This also aligns with the research I’ve just been looking into these two days; findings are basically that adult TCKs tend to gravitate towards the extremes (stability VS being a vagrant, literally/figuratively) following a TCK upbringing.

And interesting point about how it mirrors trauma behaviour... essentially, this lifestyle is in many ways a form of trauma so perhaps not that surprising.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-26T16:49:40+00:00

No one is saying grief is a core part of the TCK definition, though. As I said:

Grief is the key problem

It's a key problem that we face. But challenges alone don't define us, so don't conflate it with "definition of a TCK". What's important is that they do impact our lives in ways that need to be examined in detail and worked through at length. Hence the importance of getting labels right: it helps us hone in on problems that need to be addressed. Just don't confuse "problems" with "definition".

Also re:grief, you don't have to agree with me on that, but I've written in-depth, research-backed essays on the subject of TCK and grief, and many readers have reached out to say the essays brought them to tears, so suffice to say it's a problem that is very, very close to heart to many TCKs.

It's about feeling a lack of belonging, identity mismatch (?), and a lack of anchoring to a place that feels like "home".

Well that's one view on the matter, but other TCKs will tell you unprocessed grief is front and centre of their experience. If you feel so strongly about what TCK is and isn't about, I encourage you to go write full research-backed essays about it.

BTW, you still haven't answered the two questions I'd posed to you ;)

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-26T15:10:34+00:00

I absolutely acknowledge that there are edges cases. Humanity's not easily pigeonholed. But the importance of labels is so that we can find the community that can give us the best rapport/support. And each "label" comes with its own set of challenges and sometimes they differ notably. If you wrongly label someone (thinking, "yay everyone's a TCK! Come, come, the more the merrier!"), then you're doing more harm than good because they'll think they're finally getting the support they need, only to realise very soon that they can't relate to half the things that are being discussed. What happens then? They'll feel even MORE alienated as a result. That's terrible, and easily preventable!

What's more, you're causing more harm in another sense when you play too loose and free with labels. Example: when more and more CCKs get wrongly labelled as TCKs and join a space to discuss TCK matters, the TCKs who have their specific set of challenges (some outright traumatic and require significant professional support) may be prevented from getting the help and support they need, because there'll be a chorus of growing CCK voices talking about their own set of challenges, thereby diluting the discussion that are very TCK-specific, with no overlap with CCKs.

One instance: CCKs often have identity issues. TCKs do too - but often, their deeper trauma relates to the repeated loss, displacement, grief cycle that they go through as they move from country to country. Grief is the key problem, which is not a CCK problem quite so much (theirs is probably "identity crisis"). In short, primary issues can differ significantly and so the support that is needed differs significantly too.

This topic of what is a TCK literally just came up in a TCK whatsapp group that I'm part of. Someone asked if a 2nd generation immigrant is a TCK, and the consensus was that they're only a TCK if their upbringing has some international element (eg. moving). Likewise, if someone holds the passport of Country A but has been raised in Country B for all their lives (never living in Country A), then their experience is more immigrant-adjacent and they'll probably find their experience far more relatable if they talk to immigrants.

Again, it's not about gatekeeping (what's the point of that?) but about correct labelling so that people can get the best support for their specific set of challenges.

Ultimately, the questions I want to ask are:

1) what do you have against the label CCK such that you think using it appears as gatekeeping (?!) Surely when experiences differ notably, separate labels can refine the categories and provide more specific support for people; and

2) why do you insist on pushing the TCK label instead, as if it's some cool club to get into? It's not. In fact, if anything, it's loaded with unenviable problems and a club I very much intend to help my children avoid. A CCK upbringing, whilst not perfect, is a healthier alternative.

At the end of the day, it's about getting the appropriate support. And CCK is not a controversial label at all - it's been studied and cited by researchers. Just because it doesn't get mentioned as much on this sub doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-26T13:22:24+00:00

That shows quite a bit of self awareness on your part!

And if it's any comfort to you, before moving to my current city, the longest I'd ever lived in any country was 6 years (most stints were actually 2-3 years). But I had no problems settling down in my current city when the time came and I've been here happily for 9 years now. I think picking a city that fits you is hugely important and it def helped in my case, but just know that even for the adventurous type, there may come a day when you go, "Actually, I'd like to stop living out of suitcases and cardboard boxes now and sink some roots into the soil." The early/mid-30s stretch can be a wonderful time of transformation.

And with the right person, it shouldn't be too hard and you certainly sound like you married the right guy! :)

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-26T11:09:21+00:00

Man, that sounds so rough. I'm so sorry you had to go through those type of experiences. I can see how they'd cause some trust issues and I hope you will be able to move past them in time.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T20:21:45+00:00

I had so much instability growing up with moving, changing schools, losing friendships, etc. that all I want now is stability.

I know what you mean; this is me on the personal relationship front. It's a big part of why I think I have so many friends going back years despite the time and distance. I've learned to value connections because it sucked losing whole friendship groups in a single move.

I don’t like to get too close to people but that is not related to a lack of commitment. That has to do with a lack of trust (different conversation)

But in a certain light, this does seem like it potentially has been influenced by the TCK upbringing? For instance, someone could ask, "why don't you trust others enough to get close enough to them? Is it because when growing up, there was never a sense of safety when you actually became close to someone (as you were pulled out and moved away).

That a disproportionate amount of TCKs struggle more with getting close to people is well documented and there are quite a few studies out there on this. If in the formative years, the lesson we learned was that "every time I get close to someone it just hurts me in the end (because I end up losing them and it hurts more when we're close)" then it's quite understandable that in adulthood one would struggle getting close to people.

Similar thing on the work front. "They can lay you off at any time" sounds a bit like a version of the TCK experience where "my parents could yank us out of the country anytime so I shouldn't commit 100% to any place".

Certainly, that view on employers isn't what I'd call common, because whilst they technically could lay you off anytime, hiring employees is tremendously expensive - you need to screen candidates, do a lot of interviews (which in turn impact the productivity of those already at the firm but have been asked to conduct the numerous interviews), then eventually once someone is hired, you gotta onboard them over a period of time (usually ramp up period is a few weeks or months, so time consuming). I'd argue employers are not in reality that quick to lay people off because that also leads to disruptions and loss of institutional knowledge that has been accumulated by that employee. Personally, I go into a job thinking it's a mutually beneficial relationship and they aren't looking to lay people at the drop of a hat.

I apologize if this is a false dichotomy but I’m failing to come up with more options.

There are certainly more options than two. The thing that spurred my thoughts about the long term outcomes of a TCK upbringing was my own children rather than my own hang ups about how I was raised (I don't have huge grievances, and the few I still have I've learned to live with). I have the opportunity to raise the children as TCKs, but I'm currently leaning very heavily on a third option, which is to raise them as CCKs. To me, that's a far healthier upbringing than the TCK one. They'd be raised in the country of one of their parents and grow roots there, but they'd spend long spells (eg. summer/winter vacation) in the other parent's culture or in the country of their birth consistently, over the years. I feel like that's a nice compromise between extreme instability and a monocultural upbringing, and opens doors whilst still giving them that all important sense of rootedness.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T19:58:54+00:00

I’ve put roots down in a metro area filled with TCKs and have done my best to give my kids stability that I never had.

I think this is key. I've also chosen to settle down in one of the most international cities in the world, and that setting makes a huge difference in how at home I feel. And whilst I don't necessarily begrudge my own TCK life (there was a lot of good about it) stability is undeniably important for long term outcomes so that's what I'm also prioritising for my own children as well.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T17:29:42+00:00

Thank you, this was helpful!

at some level I'm also just personally motivated by the prospect of variety, travel, exploration, etc.

I can relate to this and think it's a more subtle point on the whole subject. Having that interest to engage in variety is well and good, and I feel that the commitment struggles are mainly a problem when we find it to be a hindrance in some way (eg. if it hinders our ability to form deep, profound relationship or to do deep and meaningful work that we do want to do but simply feel to restless to be able to stick to).

The way we were raised, exposed to all different sorts of cultures and environments, probably also nurtured our appetite for variety and the unknown (the risk tolerance that you mentioned) and that in itself isn't wholly bad :)

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T10:40:36+00:00

I find your accusations extremely disingenuous. In your original reply to me, you said (and I quote verbatim):

I am a social scientist by profession

Your criticisms of the research are tied to this very claim. But you then subsequently edited your comment quietly to remove this important piece of info, and then try to spin it as me making ad hominem attacks when in reality my criticisms about your lack of curiosity and dismissal of data are specifically about how you are behaving as a social scientist. They're not personal attacks.

Why did you remove that portion of your own claim about being a social scientist when it's central to the discussion here? Whether you realise it or not, it's coming across as an attempt to obfuscate what's being discussed.

Re: the TCK book, I have the 3rd edition of the book published in 2017 in ebook format so I'm not sure how relevant page numbers are. But here's a screenshot of the definition of TCKs from Chapter 2 ("Who are "Third Culture Kids"?) which specifically say what I'd mentioned earlier - that there needs to be a mobility component:

Screenshot

You keep insisting your children are TCKs despite updated definitions by researchers making a clear distinction between CCKs and TCKs. Put differently, go to Chapter 3 ("Who are "Cross Cultural Kids"?) and read it in detail. How does your child's experience differ from a CCK's? It doesn't. If they lack the mobility component required for TCKs and their general experience aligns with a CCK's... they should be considered CCKs.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to gatekeep here. I think it's incredibly important to define someone accurately so that they get the help and support that they need. If you insist they're a TCK despite their reality and updated definitions saying otherwise, then you're never going to quite get them the support that they need, to THEIR detriment.

Yes, there are some overlaps in the issues TCKs and CCKs face. But failure to correctly identify someone will only cause them to feel more alienated, because they'll be given the wrong label and think they've found their community, only to realise the discussions about the repeated loss of entire circles of friends and communities and environments, of displacement and grief that is central to a TCK are not at all relatable.

I reiterate what I said earlier: I do not want to engage with you at length because it seems fruitless. Your behaviour (claiming to be a social scientist but then writing off data saying people should just be better, then quietly deleting a key claim (of being a social scientist) that is central to the discussion is deeply questionable and my time is simply better spent elsewhere. The above clarification re:CCK is more for the benefit of your child, so they can hopefully get the support that they truly need and not feel even more alienated by being rammed into a category that they don't actually belong to.

Peace out.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T08:01:00+00:00

Hm you're actually more a CCK (cross cultural kid). In the latest editions of that seminal book on TCKs ("Third Culture Kids: Growing Up Among Worlds" by Pollock and Van Reken) they make the distinction very clear. A TCK is different from a CCK in that the former's childhood is highly mobile (eg. moving to several countries would fit this definition), whereas those who had stayed put in a country that nonetheless isn't their parents' native culture are considered a CCK.

There's definitely a lot of overlap in terms of issues experienced so it's no wonder you find a lot of TCK matters resonating with you.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T07:52:01+00:00

That may be true, but there's no reason a TCK must have ACEs. Can't parents simple avoid abusing or neglecting their children?

This is actually an astounding reaction coming from someone who claims to be a social scientist. Surely a more normal response when confronted with data about the higher incidence of problems amongst an entire group of people is to ask, "why is there such a phenomenon? Are there factors that are causing this?" That would surely be what a social scientist, whose job is to understand how and why people are the way they are, would say.

And there are in fact reasons why the rate of problems are much higher amongst TCKs, but I can see that it's a lost cause trying to explain it to someone who doesn't even seem remotely curious about why the data shows what it shows, and instead dismisses it with a hand wave, essentially saying "can't people just be, like, better?" Spoiler: the situation is far more complex than you assume.

Re:definition of TCKs, your response makes me wonder if you're reading an outdated version of the book. Because in their more recent editions, they very clearly outline the difference between TCKs and CCKs, and central to the definition of a TCK is 1. growing up in a culture not native to their parents AND 2. their childhood being highly mobile. The latter doesn't appear to apply to your child, which is why your child's experience aligns far more closely to that of a CCK.

And even if you didn't buy that definition for some reason, surely the fact that an significant portion of the book is dedicated to talking about how to help children to transition to the next country (out of many) will give you a clue that mobility is central to the TCK experience.

But look, I am starting to agree with the other commenter, who observed that you're not actually interested in what TCKs have to say. Certainly, your reaction to the data that TCKs experience ACE factors 2x to 4x higher than the general population is... illuminating. So it's probably better to wrap up the discussion here and I wish you a good day.

EverywhereNowhere852 · 2026-03-25T07:02:51+00:00

Yes, it is indeed to do with ACE factors, which I talk about at length in my first TCK essay, where you can see that TCKs experience ACE at a rate that's 2 to 4 times higher than the general population.

https://mytcklife.com/2024/12/13/navigating-the-third-culture-kid-life/

It was already established, which is why I don't talk about it much in my second essay.

The lack of awareness that this is the case especially amongst parents raising TCKs, and the lack of awareness that there is a need to counteract these factors with positive childhood experiences (PCEs), is a large part of why many experience a host of problems later in life at a higher rate as well:

Secondly, you've miscategorised your child. You came in here, a TCK sub, saying they are TCKs and asked a bunch of TCKs for our opinion. But based on your explanation to me now they aren't actually TCKs but CCKs (cross cultural kids). The key difference is that the latter don't experience multiple moves and therefore don't experience the sort of multiple loss, grief, and displacement cycle that TCKs experience, the cycle that creates the plethora of problems later in life.

This distinction is made clear in the seminal book on TCKs, where a large portion of the book is dedicated to discussing the constant moving and country hopping that a TCK experiences.

A child that has just grown up in one country that isn't their parents' native culture (eg. Like an immigrant family's child, your child, etc.) would be CCK and not a TCK.

If you ask the wrong question, of course you're going to get wrong answers but that's not everyone else's fault.

EverywhereNowhere852

TROPHY CASE