Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Pop the mysterious child

surrealitychecksurrealitycheck you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
edited June 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
In Sweden, a couple have decided to keep their child's sex a secret from the public. The child, named Pop, has a wardrobe full of clothes for both sexes, and is allowed to pick whatever they want every morning. Casual inquiries from strangers are met with the statement that the parents do not wish to give out that information.

In other words, they're doing quite an interesting thing with the child's gender. The full text of the article from a swedish newspaper is lurking in the spoiler.
Spoiler:

At first I was confused - surely it would be fairly obvious what sex the child was pretty soon- but the more I thought about it, the more interesting it is. I wonder how much gender stuff happens very early on in a child's life.

What do you chaps think? Good, evil, bizarre? And what do you think will come of it?

surrealitycheck on
obF2Wuw.png
«13456724

Posts

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Bizarre, sorry. Gender roles are okay, it's okay for males and females to be different, provided they aren't discriminated on. It's okay for little boys to be little boys, and little girls to be little girls. I hate this sort of forced equality play.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Fucking bizarre. The parents have this idea that this will lead to better personality and higher self-confidence, yet we have no idea where they got that notion from.

    What will most likely happen is that a few years down the line, Pop will want to use a public restroom, and everyone will freak out. A BOY GOING INTO A GIRL'S RESTROOM!? WAIT, WHAT IF HE'S A GIRL GOING INTO THE BOY'S RESTROOM!?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I've heard of experiments like this before which generally result in parents who are disappointed but resigned when by age two their child is already clearly latching on to all the same respective gender stereotypes anyway.

  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I think this is a great idea.

    Elaborate.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Bizarre, sorry. Gender roles are okay, it's okay for males and females to be different, provided they aren't discriminated on. It's okay for little boys to be little boys, and little girls to be little girls. I hate this sort of forced equality play.

    Is it not okay for Pop to be whatever he or she wants?

  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I've heard of experiments like this before which generally result in parents who are disappointed but resigned when by age two their child is already clearly latching on to all the same respective gender stereotypes anyway.

    Yeah don't ever let the little child see daddy/mommy taking a shower.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • NylonathetepNylonathetep Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hemophradite. Yup I said it.

    714353-1.png
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User
    edited June 2010
    I thought this thread would be about finding a mysterious child and squeezing them until they pop. I am disappointed.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hemophradite. Yup I said it.
    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" /> I... you. ahahahahahaha

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    MrMister wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Bizarre, sorry. Gender roles are okay, it's okay for males and females to be different, provided they aren't discriminated on. It's okay for little boys to be little boys, and little girls to be little girls. I hate this sort of forced equality play.

    Is it not okay for Pop to be whatever he or she wants?

    I have a small child, and she doesn't know whether she wants fucking PB&J or a cookie half the time, asking her to make a gender determination is stupid. No child is mentally or emotionally capable of making a life altering decision like that, and they certainly aren't going to do it based on you letting them choose their clothes every morning.

    This kind of crap is 100% about the parents, and can't possibly have the true emotional well being of the child at heart.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    As long as they aren't harming the kid then whoop dee doo. Just don't get too sad when, before you know it, she's already abandoned all the cars and trucks and only wants to play house with the dolls.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Also I greatly dislike the work of BOTH Pinkers

    But steve loves you! Why you gotta be like that

    obF2Wuw.png
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I think this is a great idea.

    Elaborate.

    Alright-

    I too believe gender is a social construct, and would most likely do the same with my children if I ever have any.

    I don't know that I will go so far as to "hide" their biological sex, but I am of the mindset that gender roles are in most cases completely prescribed by culture given that as little as a hundred years ago, pink was considered a color for men to wear, and blue was the color for baby girls, and even further back had men wearing the latest "fashions" which included lots and LOTS of lace and makeup. What the previous sentence means is that things like "dresses are for girls" and "boys like trucks" are completely made up by our shared culture, and I think that breaking the chains those have placed on people is the first step toward legitimate gender equality.

    And demonstrating that gender roles ARE social constructs that can be avoided goes a long way towards achieving that goal.

    This is not to say that legitimately enjoying "gender appropriate" things is bad or wrong, but enjoying them because your gender should enjoy them IS bad and wrong.

    If Pop DOES have a penis, and ends up liking trucks then that is cool. If Pop has a vagina and likes tea parties, also cool.

    However if Pop has a penis and likes tea parties and dresses? ALSO cool. And in many cases a little boy would NOT be allowed to like these things WITHOUT mockery or even negative responses from his parents.

    Please note the obvious gender stereotypes I have made in this post and recognize that they are used to illustrate a point.

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think raising a child in a household which supports non-traditional roles and egalitarian ideas about how genders should be treated is more likely to produce a positive result than some poorly conceived political experiment.

    But that doesn't get you on the news, so...

    Edit:
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    No. You are wrong. Sex is your physical makeup, Gender is a social construct. That's how the entire social/scientific community has decided to delineate the two. You are wrong.

    jk0Btsj.png
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Delzhand wrote: »
    I think raising a child in a household which supports non-traditional roles and egalitarian ideas about how genders should be treated is more likely to produce a positive result than some poorly conceived political experiment.

    But that doesn't get you on the news, so...

    I have zero issue with this. My little girl is constantly told "Play with the toys you want, enjoy the things you want". If she wants to play with GI Joe, I am totally okay with this. But this story is a political stunt, nothing more.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    No. Sex is the construct of your genitals. Gender is a social construct.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    gender is the social construct

    sex is the dangly or dimply bits

  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    BZZZZZZZZT incorrect please play again

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    No. Sex is the construct of your genitals. Gender is a social construct.

    After looking up the dictionary definition of 'gender', I will concede this...but I think for a lot of people the words are interchangeable (right or wrong).

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think this is a great idea.

    Elaborate.

    Alright-

    I too believe gender is a social construct, and would most likely do the same with my children if I ever have any.

    I don't know that I will go so far as to "hide" their biological sex, but I am of the mindset that gender roles are in most cases completely prescribed by culture given that as little as a hundred years ago, pink was considered a color for men to wear, and blue was the color for baby girls, and even further back had men wearing the latest "fashions" which included lots and LOTS of lace and makeup. What the previous sentence means is that things like "dresses are for girls" and "boys like trucks" are completely made up by our shared culture, and I think that breaking the chains those have placed on people is the first step toward legitimate gender equality.

    And demonstrating that gender roles ARE social constructs that can be avoided goes a long way towards achieving that goal.

    This is not to say that legitimately enjoying "gender appropriate" things is bad or wrong, but enjoying them because your gender should enjoy them IS bad and wrong.

    If Pop DOES have a penis, and ends up liking trucks then that is cool. If Pop has a vagina and likes tea parties, also cool.

    However if Pop has a penis and likes tea parties and dresses? ALSO cool. And in many cases a little boy would NOT be allowed to like these things WITHOUT mockery or even negative responses from his parents.

    Please note the obvious gender stereotypes I have made in this post and recognize that they are used to illustrate a point.

    None of that really matters since these kids aren't old enough to make a decision as complex as their gender, and probably won't be for quite a while.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.

    No. Sex is the construct of your genitals. Gender is a social construct.

    After looking up the dictionary definition of 'gender', I will concede this...but I think for a lot of people the words are interchangeable (right or wrong).

    And for a lot of people, irony is interchangeable with "amusing coincidence."

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I've heard of experiments like this before which generally result in parents who are disappointed but resigned when by age two their child is already clearly latching on to all the same respective gender stereotypes anyway.

    I've never heard of an experiment like this before.

    Most such "experiments" involve the imposition of a particular role. This is the exact opposite - it's the nonimposition of any gender role.
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Bizarre, sorry. Gender roles are okay, it's okay for males and females to be different, provided they aren't discriminated on. It's okay for little boys to be little boys, and little girls to be little girls. I hate this sort of forced equality play.

    Again, they're not "forcing" anything on their child. They're refusing to force a gender role on their child. Not the same thing at all.
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    The "political statement" here is "imposing gender roles are harmful." If they believe that imposing gender roles is harmful, then it logically follows that they wouldn't want to allow that harm to come to their children. You're basically saying that only hypocrites can be parents.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote:
    I've never heard of an experiment like this before.

    This is exactly why I think it's wrong. We have no idea how this will affect the child, at all, because it is completely unprecedented. What if he/she ends up horribly confused and becomes depressed/suicidal? That's just one horrible possibility out of many.

    Also, who is to say that Pop will not be mocked by his/her peers for being genderless?

    The parents are effectively using their kid as a guinea pig.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    They are forcing a political statement on their child, to say otherwise is silly goosery. They are forcing their child to be a guinea pig in a political experiment.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, D3: Brainling#1998, NintendoID: Brainling
  • miscellaneousinsanitymiscellaneousinsanity In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same.Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    This is the first thing that sprang to mind.
    Spoiler:
    But it seems to me that all the parents are doing is just preventing the child from exploring a part of their identity entirely.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    This is stupid.

    I mean yeah, my kid can play with whatever they want, but I'm going to explain the physical differences between sexes for a reason.

    And their identity will be shaped by other things aside from gender anyway, like the country they live in.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    After looking up the dictionary definition of 'gender', I will concede this...but I think for a lot of people the words are interchangeable (right or wrong).

    The word gender used to be a lot more useful when people thought of it as either being grammar or sociology.

    On my part, I don't think this will do any particular harm to the child. By the time he's 4-6 it'll be relatively obvious if he's male or female.
    What the previous sentence means is that things like "dresses are for girls" and "boys like trucks" are completely made up by our shared culture

    IMO it doesn't even matter if those statements are true - in the scientific sense(I have seen evidence that male baby macaque monkeys prefer to play with trucks over dolls to a greater degree than female baby macaque monkeys); the fact that 2% of the variation in what toy you like come from your sex doesn't outweigh the 98% of effect from everything else, which is what we should be focusing on. Tiny percentage tendencies are an irrelevance.

    obF2Wuw.png
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    I think this is a great idea.

    Elaborate.

    Alright-

    I too believe gender is a social construct, and would most likely do the same with my children if I ever have any.

    I don't know that I will go so far as to "hide" their biological sex, but I am of the mindset that gender roles are in most cases completely prescribed by culture given that as little as a hundred years ago, pink was considered a color for men to wear, and blue was the color for baby girls, and even further back had men wearing the latest "fashions" which included lots and LOTS of lace and makeup. What the previous sentence means is that things like "dresses are for girls" and "boys like trucks" are completely made up by our shared culture, and I think that breaking the chains those have placed on people is the first step toward legitimate gender equality.

    And demonstrating that gender roles ARE social constructs that can be avoided goes a long way towards achieving that goal.

    This is not to say that legitimately enjoying "gender appropriate" things is bad or wrong, but enjoying them because your gender should enjoy them IS bad and wrong.

    If Pop DOES have a penis, and ends up liking trucks then that is cool. If Pop has a vagina and likes tea parties, also cool.

    However if Pop has a penis and likes tea parties and dresses? ALSO cool. And in many cases a little boy would NOT be allowed to like these things WITHOUT mockery or even negative responses from his parents.

    Please note the obvious gender stereotypes I have made in this post and recognize that they are used to illustrate a point.

    None of that really matters since these kids aren't old enough to make a decision as complex as their gender, and probably won't be for quite a while.

    BAM


    Transgendered at six years old.

    If it can happen at six, I am willing to believe it can happen even earlier

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote:
    I've never heard of an experiment like this before.

    This is exactly why I think it's wrong. We have no idea how this will affect the child, at all, because it is completely unprecedented. What if he/she ends up horribly confused and becomes depressed/suicidal? That's just one horrible possibility out of many.

    Also, who is to say that Pop will not be mocked by his/her peers for being genderless?

    The parents are effectively using their kid as a guinea pig.

    I think these are valid concerns.

    I think that this has a much better shot of working in Sweden than it would in the US.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I have a small child, and she doesn't know whether she wants fucking PB&J or a cookie half the time, asking her to make a gender determination is stupid. No child is mentally or emotionally capable of making a life altering decision like that, and they certainly aren't going to do it based on you letting them choose their clothes every morning.

    Is it a crucial life-altering decision if he or she can always change his or her mind the next day?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    But it seems to me that all the parents are doing is just preventing the child from exploring a part of their identity entirely.

    Allowing the child access to the clothes and toys of both genders is preventing them from exploring a part of their identity?

    Is today backwards day?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote:
    I've never heard of an experiment like this before.

    This is exactly why I think it's wrong. We have no idea how this will affect the child, at all, because it is completely unprecedented. What if he/she ends up horribly confused and becomes depressed/suicidal? That's just one horrible possibility out of many.

    Also, who is to say that Pop will not be mocked by his/her peers for being genderless?

    The parents are effectively using their kid as a guinea pig.

    There are also many GOOD possibilities to come out of this

    Not to say those concerns are invalid, but they also blind themselves to the potential benefits of this.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    They are forcing a political statement on their child, to say otherwise is silly goosery. They are forcing their child to be a guinea pig in a political experiment.
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    The "political statement" here is "imposing gender roles are harmful." If they believe that imposing gender roles is harmful, then it logically follows that they wouldn't want to allow that harm to come to their children. You're basically saying that only hypocrites can be parents.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    This is the first thing that sprang to mind.
    Spoiler:
    But it seems to me that all the parents are doing is just preventing the child from exploring a part of their identity entirely.
    How are they preventing the child from exploring? If anything I would almost lean toward them giving the child too much leeway at this stage in it's life. Though I don't really know that there's such a thing in this specific case, and the kid probably doesn't know what's going on anyway. Just that he/she gets to pick whether or not they want to wear the blue onsie today or the pink one.

  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Like I said, the fiancee and I have had a LONG discussion about this- if we ever have kids we will be buying the most gender-neutral things we can until our child is old enough to decide for themselves what they want to play with.

    And at no point will "but that is for boys/girls, why don't you do/use X instead" be said.

    This just seems to be taking it a step further.

«13456724
Sign In or Register to comment.