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

11820222324

Posts

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010

    I'm still not getting how assigning a child a gender is any less of an experiment than avoiding doing so. One is simply more common than the other.


    Do we need to supply you with the definition of experimentation? Something that has been the social norm in every society throughout the history of our species isn't "an experiment". Even if you start recording data points, it's still just observation.

    Parents always shape their child. You're making the mistake of assuming the 'norm' is better in some way simply because it is the 'norm'

    Not too long ago the common argument would be that raising your child not as an athiest but as nothing (IE. do not give them religion or tell them religion is wrong, simply give them the option to choose whatever they wish when they are old enough) is absolutely abusive and inviting a great deal of harm for your child.

    In fact I would imagine the majority or at least a great deal of them feel this way today.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • Gennenalyse RuebenGennenalyse Rueben Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?

    Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?

    Uhm. What?

    No, seriously, what?

    Your argument is amazingly goosey and hypocritical. I can't believe this. Nobody said that. No. Body. At all. I will never live to see a more androgynous society. Neither will my theoretical and unlikely children, or grandchildren. Nobody has said there would be a massive upheaval in society. Anywhere. Except you and those who've been arguing alongside you.

    Get this. Getting tolerance going in society would pretty much lead to...an androgynous society! Because tolerance and eventual acceptance in regards to unconventional gender roles, transgenders, and whatnot would upheave gender-related issues quite a bit!

    How about those of you who are preaching this actually be tolerant instead of incredibly reactionary?

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Raising your child as if it is transgendered

    This isn't what they're doing.

    PSN: allenquid
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.

    Just how much do people have to prove this negative?

    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    I already follow this for a lot of other things, and I do not think it is unreasonable at all.

    How do you document precedents if nobody has done it before, and it's considered irresponsible to do it without documented precedent?

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    The trick doesn't seem to be 'remove gender roles' but more 'genders need to be seen as equal'.
    Given the nature of contemporary gender roles, the latter is either functionally impossible, or identical to the former.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.

    Just how much do people have to prove this negative?

    1. Children should not be raised without giving them a gender because it could be harmful, but we don't know.
    2. "Experimenting" would be unethical despite the harm forcing gender roles on children can cause.
    3. This results in a catch 22.
    Now replace gender and gender roles with practices now considering abusive. The argument still works.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.

    It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.

    Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.

    You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?

    Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising

    So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?

    Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?

    I never suggested blowing up society. This would be a less radical shift than you shrieking klaxons suggest.

    I imagine it as being similar to a post-racial society, which is just as much as a pipe dream as a post gender one, yet we all like to imagine it happening someday. You would simply identify people not as a gender but as a person. Gravity won't turn off, the seas won't be as blood, and cats will not befriend dogs.

    I would say most of us born in the past 30 years do identify people as people first, and skin color second, but we aren't asking people to raise all their babies as "grey babies" just in case one day a little black boy decides he wants to be white. While it is being espoused that it's "better" to raise our children as genderless, in case one day your little boy decides he wants to be a little girl.

    Maybe not by you, but it's certainly been espoused several times in this thread, as if it's just like the catch all way all of society should raise their kids. I think that's part of what a lot of people are vehemently disagreeing with.

    oof, salmon of doubt. You're being extremely naive.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.

    Hey quid I heard about some people in sweden who were going to try this!

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.

    Hey quid I heard about some people in sweden who were going to try this!

    Seriously?! Fuck I hope Sweden has scientists!

    PSN: allenquid
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.

    It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.

    Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.

    You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?

    Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising

    So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?

    Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?

    I never suggested blowing up society. This would be a less radical shift than you shrieking klaxons suggest.

    I imagine it as being similar to a post-racial society, which is just as much as a pipe dream as a post gender one, yet we all like to imagine it happening someday. You would simply identify people not as a gender but as a person. Gravity won't turn off, the seas won't be as blood, and cats will not befriend dogs.

    If you completely eliminated people's racial biases we would have a society where race was unimportant beyond some degree of aesthetic recognition. Whether someone is black, white, asian, or whatever, it won't matter to how they're treated.

    The same is not true of gender. Even in a world where there are no gender biases whatsoever with regard to what people 'should' do or 'can' do, you're never going to reach a point where everyone treats everyone else the same. For 90% of society, one gender is composed of potential sexual partners and the other gender is not. So for 90% of people, half of everyone they meet is someone they might potentially be interested in having a romantic or physical relationship with. Completely disregarding matters of gender role, the classification into "someone I would pursue romantically", "someone I will not pursue romantically" and "someone I do not consider a viable target of romance", by itself, will change how they treat those people.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    Assuming we are not advocating the first, rather cretinous possibility, I am instead attacking that second one.

    Because it's far better to raise your child as the gender he or she presents as physically. If on the off chance your kid starts to reject that gender, then reassess and probably consult a psychologist to assess if the kid might be transgendered.

    But raising your kid as a non-gendered thing just in case it might want to choose the gender that doesn't match it's genitals is dumb. And it's also not the same thing as raising your kid to be transsexual, which you have twice now accused me of claiming when I am not doing so.

    So really, it's time to start either reading my posts or not responding to them.

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.
    sidhaethe wrote:
    How do you document precedents if nobody has done it before, and it's considered irresponsible to do it without documented precedent?

    Science has these things called "controlled environments". Go check them out sometime, you might be surprised.

    Or did you really think we test every social theory in real life first?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    The trick doesn't seem to be 'remove gender roles' but more 'genders need to be seen as equal'.
    Given the nature of contemporary gender roles, the latter is either functionally impossible, or identical to the former.

    Removing the groups does not solve the problem though because then some other group arises and gets ostracized for whatever reason. (and ostracizes back)

    Teaching acceptance (which our society slowly is working on with each passing generation) is the best way to solve the root problem.

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Why does this particular case of parenting irk you above all else? The most probable result of this is Pop will simply choose a gender that matches his or her sex given that gender roles are so deeply ingrained in our society and media. Remember that the parents aren't proclaiming that gender doesn't exist, they're just avoiding steering him or her towards a particular gender.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Raising your child as if it is transgendered

    This isn't what they're doing.

    Sure they are. They aren't even using pronouns in private.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.
    sidhaethe wrote:
    How do you document precedents if nobody has done it before, and it's considered irresponsible to do it without documented precedent?

    Science has these things called "controlled environments". Go check them out sometime, you might be surprised.

    Or did you really think we test every social theory in real life first?

    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I just want to say I'm not really sure where the "it's an experiment!" and "they're using the kid to make a political statement!" stuff is coming from.

    I mean, sure, using incredibly vague definitions of those things, you're possibly right, but...isn't that basically what parents do? Like, if parents think that-for example-private school is better than public school, they're not going to send their kid to a public school just to 'avoid making a political statement' or whatever. They're going to send their kid to a private school because they think that is what is best for their child.

    steam_sig.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    Assuming we are not advocating the first, rather cretinous possibility, I am instead attacking that second one.

    Because it's far better to raise your child as the gender he or she presents as physically. If on the off chance your kid starts to reject that gender, then reassess and probably consult a psychologist to assess if the kid might be transgendered.

    But raising your kid as a non-gendered thing just in case it might want to choose the gender that doesn't match it's genitals is dumb. And it's also not the same thing as raising your kid to be transsexual, which you have twice now accused me of advocating when I am not doing so.

    So really, it's time to start either reading my posts or not responding to them.

    No, it really isn't. And additionally, you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    And I am fairly certain I have never accused you of advocating what you say I did.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Raising your child as if it is transgendered

    This isn't what they're doing.

    Sure they are. They aren't even using pronouns in private.

    jeeps, what exactly do you think transgender means?

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.
    sidhaethe wrote:
    How do you document precedents if nobody has done it before, and it's considered irresponsible to do it without documented precedent?

    Science has these things called "controlled environments". Go check them out sometime, you might be surprised.

    Or did you really think we test every social theory in real life first?

    We did with interracial couples. Were/are they wrong?

  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Raising your child as if it is transgendered

    This isn't what they're doing.

    Sure they are. They aren't even using pronouns in private.

    That does not mean they are raising it to be transgendered

    The word here is NOT TRANSGENDERED

    it is agendered

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of gender baggage that isn't HUR HUR DUDE IN A WIFEBEATER WOMAN IN THE KITCHEN. Surely you all of people would be aware of this?

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    Cool. So in order to do this we'll try to get some people to raise their kid and allowing them to choose their gender. Good plan.
    sidhaethe wrote:
    How do you document precedents if nobody has done it before, and it's considered irresponsible to do it without documented precedent?

    Science has these things called "controlled environments". Go check them out sometime, you might be surprised.

    Or did you really think we test every social theory in real life first?

    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    What the fuck?

    Seriously, when we have new theories about how child development occurs under certain conditions, we used controlled experiments first before recommending those methods to parents.

    Are you living under a rock, dude?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.

    Just how much do people have to prove this negative?

    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    It sure looks like someone is advocating experimenting on children.

  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.

    Either way, you are still wrong because the word transgender in no way applies to this situation.

  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited June 2010
    If you completely eliminated people's racial biases we would have a society where race was unimportant beyond some degree of aesthetic recognition. Whether someone is black, white, asian, or whatever, it won't matter to how they're treated.

    The same is not true of gender. Even in a world where there are no gender biases whatsoever with regard to what people 'should' do or 'can' do, you're never going to reach a point where everyone treats everyone else the same. For 90% of society, one gender is composed of potential sexual partners and the other gender is not. So for 90% of people, half of everyone they meet is someone they might potentially be interested in having a romantic or physical relationship with. Completely disregarding matters of gender role, the classification into "someone I would pursue romantically", "someone I will not pursue romantically" and "someone I do not consider a viable target of romance", by itself, will change how they treat those people.

    Not if, as has been theorized, everyone is a little bit bisexual.

    To take a slightly different tack, when I meet a woman for the first time, I almost always do not treat or even consider her as a potential sexual or romantic partner. So there's that.

  • VodkaVodka Registered User
    edited June 2010
    ITT: The Unstoppable Force meets the Immovable Object !!! Watch as both sides present their opinions as fact, there willl be thrills, chills, you may have paid for your whole seat in this thread BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDGE!!!

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of gender baggage that isn't HUR HUR DUDE IN A WIFEBEATER WOMAN IN THE KITCHEN. Surely you all of people would be aware of this?

    I think you will find that you and I strongly disagree on how much of that "gender baggage" is a negative thing.

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.

    It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.

    Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.

    You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?

    Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising

    So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?

    Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?

    I never suggested blowing up society. This would be a less radical shift than you shrieking klaxons suggest.

    I imagine it as being similar to a post-racial society, which is just as much as a pipe dream as a post gender one, yet we all like to imagine it happening someday. You would simply identify people not as a gender but as a person. Gravity won't turn off, the seas won't be as blood, and cats will not befriend dogs.

    If you completely eliminated people's racial biases we would have a society where race was unimportant beyond some degree of aesthetic recognition. Whether someone is black, white, asian, or whatever, it won't matter to how they're treated.

    The same is not true of gender. Even in a world where there are no gender biases whatsoever with regard to what people 'should' do or 'can' do, you're never going to reach a point where everyone treats everyone else the same. For 90% of society, one gender is composed of potential sexual partners and the other gender is not. So for 90% of people, half of everyone they meet is someone they might potentially be interested in having a romantic or physical relationship with. Completely disregarding matters of gender role, the classification into "someone I would pursue romantically", "someone I will not pursue romantically" and "someone I do not consider a viable target of romance", by itself, will change how they treat those people.

    So when you pursue a woman you assume they're not a lesbian and you're correct 100% of the time? That's very convenient, how are you able to manage that?

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Hachface wrote:
    You really have no idea what you are talking about.

    What the fuck?

    Seriously, when we have new theories about how child development occurs under certain conditions, we used controlled experiments first before recommending those methods to parents.

    Are you living under a rock, dude?

    Your position is totally incoherent.
    You say parents shouldn't experiment on children.
    Yet you are advocating subjecting children to controlled scientific studies on child development.
    You are twisting yourself into a logic pretzel in the vain attempt to justify an irrational phobia.

  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.
    But raising the child as if he/she were transgendered is still not what these parents are doing. Raising a child as if he/she were transgendered would involve using opposite-gendered pronouns, not no gendered pronouns, for a start.

    steam_sig.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • ArchArch An insect, therefore, is not afraid of gravity Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of gender baggage that isn't HUR HUR DUDE IN A WIFEBEATER WOMAN IN THE KITCHEN. Surely you all of people would be aware of this?

    I think you will find that you and I strongly disagree on how much of that "gender baggage" is a negative thing.

    And there we will find that you may actually be objectively wrong here.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Swedish doesn't have any gender neutral pronouns?

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.

    Just how much do people have to prove this negative?

    It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.

    It sure looks like someone is advocating experimenting on children.
    Hachface wrote: »
    Your position is totally incoherent.
    You say parents shouldn't experiment on children.
    Yet you are advocating subjecting children to controlled scientific studies on child development.
    You are twisting yourself into a logic pretzel in the vain attempt to justify an irrational phobia.

    In a controlled environment, with both the child's and parents consent (the child's consent is key here, people), and after the ethics board examines the proposal for the experiment and determines no real harm can come to the child.

    We do, after all, study child behavior in controlled environments.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.

    Either way, you are still wrong because the word transgender in no way applies to this situation.

    It absolutely does. The kid is going to have a gender eventually anyway. It's either going to match his or her genitals or not. If not, the kid is transgendered.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Why does this particular case of parenting irk you above all else? The most probable result of this is Pop will simply choose a gender that matches his or her sex given that gender roles are so deeply ingrained in our society and media. Remember that the parents aren't proclaiming that gender doesn't exist, they're just avoiding steering him or her towards a particular gender.

    I honestly don't see how they expect this to work out, or why anyone is worried about it.

    The whole non-gendered thing will last precisely as long as Pop can't talk. Three minutes into playing with other children Pop is going to come ask one of Pop's parents whether Pop is a boy or a girl. Barring the case where Pop is male but just loves dresses or Pop having a significantly different psyche than any young child I've ever met, Pop will be dressing and acting like every other little boy or girl that Pop knows in order to fit in because 3 year old Pop will not understand the social impact of denying gender roles and boundaries.

    Also, writing without pronouns is weird and awkward for me.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of gender baggage that isn't HUR HUR DUDE IN A WIFEBEATER WOMAN IN THE KITCHEN. Surely you all of people would be aware of this?

    I think you will find that you and I strongly disagree on how much of that "gender baggage" is a negative thing.

    I'm very surprised. But you're probably right.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Science has these things called "controlled environments". Go check them out sometime, you might be surprised.
    You can't do that with children or even adults for any decent period of time in situations similar to this.

Sign In or Register to comment.