Child speech deviates from adult speech in predictable ways. Are listeners who routinely interact with children implicitly aware of these systematic deviations, and thereby better at understanding children? Or do idiosyncratic differences in how children pronounce words overwhelm these systematic deviations? In Experiment 1, we use a speech-in-noise transcription task to test who "speaks kid" among four listener groups: undergraduates (n = 48), mothers of young children (n = 48), early childhood educators (n = 48), and speech-language pathologists (SLPs; n = 48). All listeners transcribed speech by typically developing children and adults. In Experiment 2, we use a similar task to test an additional group of mothers (n = 50) on how intelligible they found their own child versus another child. Contrary to previous claims, we find no evidence for an experience-based general child speech intelligibility advantage. However, we do find that mothers understand their own child best. We also observe a general task advantage by SLPs. Our findings demonstrate that routine (and even extensive) exposure to children may not make all children more intelligible, but that it may instead make particular children one has experience with more intelligible. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).