Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

2456724

Posts

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Hey, as long as the parents aren't going to get upset when it starts playing with trucks every day and announces "dolls are stupid".

    None of that cajoling or anything, trying to break it back out of its self chose gender, either.

    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.
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    Instead of imposing gender roles, you're imposing gender neutrality. In any case, you are imposing something on your child, and you're doing so with absolutely no fore knowledge of what the long term effects will be.

    That's a political statement, and it's you making your child a political guinea pig.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    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

    The link is blocked for me, but did you just use one person out of 6.5+ billion as a supporting evidence for your argument that it is "possible"?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    We may be able to glean interesting data from this. I eagerly await results.

    Though, you know, the more I think about it, the more I find that the notion "All gender differences are socially imposed" is a non-falsifiable claim.

    Say that Pop ends up assuming a number of behaviors stereotypical to his/her sex, what will proponents of the "gender as complete social construct" theory have to say about it?

    Ultimately, perhaps we just won't be able to glean anything from studying this, as we've failed to glean any really useful information from gender-effect-on-development experiments in the past.

    mjoa2p.jpg
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank, the ideal way (what I suppose people are assuming) this little experiment goes down is the parents say, "play with whatever you want", and not, "you played with dolls yesterday, are you sure you don't want to play with trucks today?", and as such I see no use of the child as a guinea pig. You're going to need to be more specific with us.

    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.
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Its imposing something on your child

    but giving a female kid a pink room and nothing but dolls is just as imposing. Consciously or not parents all program their kids to understand social norms and what is expected of them.

    Gnome if you really want to make that argument it's not much of a stretch to apply it to anything you teach a kid.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck NONSTOP INFINITE CLIMAX POSTING you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The problem is that people think of male and female as binary properties:

    They're really not.

    For every aspect of masculinity and femininity as conventionally measured, people will vary all over the shop. Being male or female is measured as an aggregate of these properties by people. Some boys will be super masculine in some ways, and quite feminine in others. There's no reason why we shouldn't try to liberate these properties from the restrictive categories and let people express their personalities; if the built in differences exist, they will emerge naturally instead of as a result of coercion/social pressure.

    obF2Wuw.png
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    GnomeTank, the ideal way (what I suppose people are assuming) this little experiment goes down is the parents say, "play with whatever you want", and not, "you played with dolls yesterday, are you sure you don't want to play with trucks today?", and as such I see no use of the child as a guinea pig. You're going to need to be more specific with us.

    But they are taking it farther than this. I already do this with my little girl. They are going beyond just being open, reasonable people, in to the territory of being secretive about the gender, which takes it from "Good parenting" to "bizarre".

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    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.

    My mother attempted to do this. I had a yellow room and was bought all manner of different types of toys.

    It wasn't good enough, though. My dolls were still Barbies rather than action men, my clothes had kittens on them instead of trucks, so I ended up caving to social pressure and going female. Had my parents been stricter with keeping both options open to me and making a point of not letting me be swayed by outside influences, I think I'd be a lot happier today than I am now.

    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited June 2010
    but giving a female kid a pink room and nothing but dolls is just as imposing. Consciously or not parents all program their kids to understand social norms and what is expected of them.

    I would be (not pedo) interested in how they decorated the kids room when they first delivered.

    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.
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    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

    The link is blocked for me, but did you just use one person out of 6.5+ billion as a supporting evidence for your argument that it is "possible"?

    Given that my argument is "it is possible for people to be transgendered or have ideas about what gender they are much younger than most people believe"

    Yes, yes I did.

  • PeenPeen Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It can't stay a secret for long. Their doctors know and if Sweden is anything like the US someone's going to leak it eventually, medical confidentiality or no.

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

    Touch a sore spot a little? It's a completely valid question to ask, and I'm sorry you don't like it.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

    Touch a sore spot a little? It's a completely valid question to ask, and I'm sorry you don't like it.

    Yes it did a bit, and I apologize.

    However, this argument line is still bullshit, and an invalid question.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    Though, you know, the more I think about it, the more I find that the notion "All gender differences are socially imposed" is a non-falsifiable claim.

    Good thing nobody here is making that claim.

    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.
  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The problem is that people think of male and female as binary properties:

    They're really not.

    For every aspect of masculinity and femininity as conventionally measured, people will vary all over the shop. Being male or female is measured as an aggregate of these properties by people. Some boys will be super masculine in some ways, and quite feminine in others. There's no reason why we shouldn't try to liberate these properties from the restrictive categories and let people express their personalities; if the built in differences exist, they will emerge naturally instead of as a result of coercion/social pressure.

    If there are indeed biological sex differences, this is the way we will coax them out as well.

    I, for one, am totally behind this experiment.

    mjoa2p.jpg
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    The problem is that people think of male and female as binary properties:

    They're really not.

    For every aspect of masculinity and femininity as conventionally measured, people will vary all over the shop. Being male or female is measured as an aggregate of these properties by people. Some boys will be super masculine in some ways, and quite feminine in others. There's no reason why we shouldn't try to liberate these properties from the restrictive categories and let people express their personalities; if the built in differences exist, they will emerge naturally instead of as a result of coercion/social pressure.

    If there are indeed biological sex differences, this is the way we will coax them out as well.

    I, for one, am totally behind this experiment.

    This is just one of the positive outcomes of this experiment.

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

    Touch a sore spot a little? It's a completely valid question to ask, and I'm sorry you don't like it.

    The reasoning is about as valid as, "Houston's full of fatties, I bet you're a real porker."
    They are going beyond just being open, reasonable people, in to the territory of being secretive about the gender, which takes it from "Good parenting" to "bizarre".

    Outside of your realm of experience is not the same as bizarre political guinea pig.

    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.
  • ArlingtonArlington Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    I really cant figure out if I think this is a great or horrible idea.

    One counter point for the depression/suicide argument is .... doesn't that happen sometimes when traditional gender roles are enforced?

  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    Though, you know, the more I think about it, the more I find that the notion "All gender differences are socially imposed" is a non-falsifiable claim.

    Good thing nobody here is making that claim.

    No, I'm not implying you are, Feral.

    I don't think that it's a complete strawman either, though. I've seen more than one instance of this point being argued for.

    It doesn't help that often people will polarize themselves for the sake of debate, and in the case of the whole "nature versus nurture" (blegh) debate polarization is particularly harmful.

    mjoa2p.jpg
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I just really hope that the parents don't also keep Pop in the dark, as well as everyone else.

    "Mommy, what's the difference between girls and boys?"
    "Nothing Pop, it's all a construct of society."

    But we have no way of knowing this one way or another, it seems.

    camo_sig2.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals.

    As you have previously conceded, gender is indeed a social construct.

    But it is worth also noting that even "the construct of your genitals" is badly defined, because biological sexual ambiguity is surprisingly common: there is a chromosomal definition (i.e., whether or not you have a Y chromosome) and a phenotypic definition (i.e., the type of sex organs you might be born with). The two do not necessarily cohere, and the phenotypic definition has of course a myriad of ambiguous presentations in between the two ends of "male" and "female".

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arlington wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    I really cant figure out if I think this is a great or horrible idea.

    One counter point for the depression/suicide argument is .... doesn't that happen sometimes when traditional gender roles are enforced?

    Yes it does, quite often.

    Not to be mean, but ask Lieberkuhn about it sometime

  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

    Touch a sore spot a little? It's a completely valid question to ask, and I'm sorry you don't like it.

    Yes it did a bit, and I apologize.

    However, this argument line is still bullshit, and an invalid question.

    So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Interesting.

    I don't see much wrong with it. Obviously the parents believe that gender is a meaningless social construct and that self determination of gender is better. If they're wrong, the kid will gravitate towards 'traditional' maleness/femaleness and that's gonna be the end of that.

    If they're right, the kid will get to pick what he or she wants to be. What's wrong with that? From cross-dressing to gender-reassignment, I just don't care much about someone's sexuality or gender. Do whatcha want. There are worse things than a world where humans view clothes as wearable by any sex and kids play with toy cars AND dolls.

    Erik
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck NONSTOP INFINITE CLIMAX POSTING you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It doesn't help that often people will polarize themselves for the sake of debate, and in the case of the whole "nature versus nurture" (blegh) debate polarization is particularly harmful.

    It's a particularly stupid debate because both sides are comically wrong, and both sides believe that admitting the other side is right will cause the END OF MORALITY AS WE KNOW IT

    Two classic stinkers from NvN arguments:

    1) Environment = chosen (this is a standard one in "OH GOD THE GAYS")
    2) Gene effects are consistent and independent of the presence of other genes (lol epistasis)

    in fact there are so many I could go on forever, but I won't.

    eDIT:
    But it is worth also noting that even "the construct of your genitals" is badly defined, because biological sexual ambiguity is surprisingly common: there is a chromosomal definition (i.e., whether or not you have a Y chromosome) and a phenotypic definition (i.e., the type of sex organs you might be born with). The two do not necessarily cohere, and the phenotypic definition has of course a myriad of ambiguous presentations in between the two ends of "male" and "female".

    Roughly 1/100 births are slightly ambiguous, with 1/1000 requiring some kind of corrective surgery (this is genitalia).

    obF2Wuw.png
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

    Touch a sore spot a little? It's a completely valid question to ask, and I'm sorry you don't like it.

    Yes it did a bit, and I apologize.

    However, this argument line is still bullshit, and an invalid question.

    So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?

    I can cut a tree down with a hatchet, doesn't mean it is always the best tool to use.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    I don't think that it's a complete strawman either, though. I've seen more than one instance of this point being argued for.

    In D&D?

    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 HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Interesting.

    I don't see much wrong with it. Obviously the parents believe that gender is a meaningless social construct and that self determination of gender is better. If they're wrong, the kid will gravitate towards 'traditional' maleness/femaleness and that's gonna be the end of that.

    If they're right, the kid will get to pick what he or she wants to be. What's wrong with that? From cross-dressing to gender-reassignment, I just don't care much about someone's sexuality or gender. Do whatcha want. There are worse things than a world where humans view clothes as wearable by any sex and kids play with toy cars AND dolls.

  • LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arlington wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    I really cant figure out if I think this is a great or horrible idea.

    One counter point for the depression/suicide argument is .... doesn't that happen sometimes when traditional gender roles are enforced?

    Yes it does, quite often.

    Not to be mean, but ask Lieberkuhn about it sometime

    Haha seriously I'm completely fucking crazy and I blame dresses

    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I would be curious to do a little data poll to see how opinions fall on this, and more important, which opinions are from actual parents, and which are from people who have no kids.

    Okay this is that bullshit "only parents know how to be parents" line.

    Please don't continue this tangent.

    Touch a sore spot a little? It's a completely valid question to ask, and I'm sorry you don't like it.

    Yes it did a bit, and I apologize.

    However, this argument line is still bullshit, and an invalid question.

    So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?

    I can cut a tree down with a hatchet, doesn't mean it is always the best tool to use.

    No, but it does mean you've actually cut a tree down, and now you know a hatchet probably isn't the best tool. If someone who's never cut a tree down comes up and say "Dude, a hatchet is the wrong tool, use an axe", they may be right, they may be wrong, but they can't possibly be sure, they've never tried cutting a tree down with a hatchet. (Of course, we all know cutting a tree down with a hatchet is stupid...I wish the daily decisions I have to make with a kid were as simple as the tool to cut a tree down with).

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    I just really hope that the parents don't also keep Pop in the dark, as well as everyone else.

    "Mommy, what's the difference between girls and boys?"
    "Nothing Pop, it's all a construct of society."

    But we have no way of knowing this one way or another, it seems.

    It is actually a complicated question, even though it's certainly not something you should lie about or withhold.

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    I am mostly curious about how they are going to solve the problem of public bathrooms.

    My guess is that it will explode in their faces because no one will allow Pop to use either the boys restroom or the girls restroom, and I will laugh.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?
    Unless I'm yet again not understanding D&D terms, it sounds like an argument from authority.

    "I'm a parent. You should listen to me when we discuss parenting." But we don't know anything about your parenting. I mean, your little girl could be shanking people at daycare.

  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Winky wrote: »
    I don't think that it's a complete strawman either, though. I've seen more than one instance of this point being argued for.

    In D&D?

    Yes.

    I definitely don't have a citation for that, so take it as you will.

    I mean, I don't think it's absurd to say "Someone in D&D was arguing a ridiculous position", it happens all the time :P.

    mjoa2p.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Interesting.

    I don't see much wrong with it. Obviously the parents believe that gender is a meaningless social construct and that self determination of gender is better. If they're wrong, the kid will gravitate towards 'traditional' maleness/femaleness and that's gonna be the end of that.

    If they're right, the kid will get to pick what he or she wants to be. What's wrong with that? From cross-dressing to gender-reassignment, I just don't care much about someone's sexuality or gender. Do whatcha want. There are worse things than a world where humans view clothes as wearable by any sex and kids play with toy cars AND dolls.

    I think a big part of the problem here is that "sex" is the first way we try to classify people upon meeting them. If somebody's sex is obfuscated, it creeps a lot of people out. (I'm going to throw Winky an evo-psych bone here - I think the ability to identify others of your species by sex is evolved.) So to find out that a child is being raised in a way that doesn't allow an easy heuristic, it spins people into a gender panic.

    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.
  • BethrynBethryn Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    article wrote:
    Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.
    This is the interesting part. The child psychologist proposes that children stick with their own sex, but a common feminist assertion is that they only do so because the Patriarchy has asserted their sex upon them, so they already identify with them.

    So (ignoring sample size for a moment) if the child does go to their own group, that's a blow for the old "Patriarchy enforces gender identity" argument, whereas if they mingle or go to the opposite group, that's a blow for "gender identity is inherent and unaffected by social factors".

    So yeah, that'll be fun to never read about because no newspaper is going to follow this more than once.

    bethryn.png
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I am mostly curious about how they are going to solve the problem of public bathrooms.

    My guess is that it will explode in their faces because no one will allow Pop to use either the boys restroom or the girls restroom, and I will laugh.

    Or, they use whichever restroom that pertains to the gender they most currently resemble and use the privat stall

    In addition, a small child of either gender is usually exempt from 'bathroom rules' when accompanied by a parent, and also I am fairly sure Sweden has co ed bathrooms, but someone feel free to correct me.

Sign In or Register to comment.