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?
It is a wonderful idea in the realm of academics.
Unfortunately, this entire experiment is likely to cause difficulties for Pop later on out in society, because like as not, the rest of society will still be gendered, even if Pop isn't.
THAT is why I see this as a bad idea.
So, eventually, this child will be gendered by society even if the parents don't actively do it themselves.
OK.
This child will still have at least one less source of pressure to conform in his or her life. How is that a bad thing?
I'm not arguing that "it's an experiment" is a good reason to dislike it, I'm arguing that it most certain is an experiment.
If this is true, then it is trivially true -- that is, it has no impact on the ethics of this behavior either way. If you define 'experiment' in such a way that any course of action is an experiment, then it means that conducting an experiment is a morally neutral act.
This is NOT my argument, but it is AN argument:
The reason that the fact that this is an experiment is bad can be seen in the recent circumcision thread. In essence, these parents are putting Pop through a process that will have a lasting effect for the rest of Pop's life, and doing so without Pop's consent or even knowledge.
They may claim that they are letting Pop chose its own gender, but they are also actively witholding relevant information from Pop. Maybe Pop is biological male, but instead it decideds to wear dresses because it likes the colors on them. If Pop were aware that this might cause social stigma, maybe Pop would prefer a pair of slacks instead, because the dresses weren't THAT important.
It is one thing to encourage an individual to "be themselves" in face fo the consequences when they are aware fo the consequences. What these parents are doing is creating an artificial reality for Pop, and they can't sustain this artificial reality forever, meanign that, at some point, Pop is going to have to go out in to the world and deal with consequences that it was unaware existed.
Evander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Every human endeavor involves unanticipated consequences.
The problem occurs when those endeavors are undertaken on other people who do not have the capacity to object.
This is actually an argument against the very notion of parenting, since parenting necessarily involves the imposition of values on a passive subject. Which is interesting, but I do not think it is the direction you want to go.
Do you have an actual reason to believe that raising a child in this way is more harmful than raising him or her according to conventional gender prescriptions, or are you simply allowing your attachment to the status quo overwhelm you with baseless fears?
Please do not mistake my objections to this particular methodology as my attachment to the status quo.
I have many reasons to believe that raising a child this way is more harmful. The primary among them is, how will the child's peers treat him/her when they are not able to categorize him/her as a boy or a girl? Like Feral says, the ability to identify people as male or female is most likely an evolved trait. So, down the line, you're looking at quite a few potential problems in the child's social development.
So the child, at some point in his or her early development, will encounter a social situation that prompts him or her to make a choice about his or her gender identity.
Isn't this the very point of what the parents are doing? To allow that choice?
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?
It is a wonderful idea in the realm of academics.
Unfortunately, this entire experiment is likely to cause difficulties for Pop later on out in society, because like as not, the rest of society will still be gendered, even if Pop isn't.
THAT is why I see this as a bad idea.
So, eventually, this child will be gendered by society even if the parents don't actively do it themselves.
OK.
This child will still have at least one less source of pressure to conform in his or her life. How is that a bad thing?
Will it?
People who are different have MORE pressure to conform placed on them by society than people who are conventional to begin with. I could argue that the parents are actually ensuring that Pop will deal with greater levels of pressure in life, once it leaves their protective bubble.
Evander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
People who are different have MORE pressure to conform placed on them by society than people who are conventional to begin with. I could argue that the parents are actually ensuring that Pop will deal with greater levels of pressure in life, once it leaves their protective bubble.
This assumes that Pop will act differently in some way. We have no reason to believe that Pop will express an unusual gender identity. In fact, if the gender essentialists are correct then we can be reasonably sure that Pop won't.
And if he or she does, then isn't it good that the parents notice it sooner so they can prepare to talk to their child honestly about this issue?
Hachface on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
If you think this is a harmful practice, you need to explain why.
Well, I'm actually little worried. During years 0-3, children don't have critical factor at all, and the subconscious mind drains in new ideas like a sponge. When Pop gets to adulthood, all these learnt rules will be still running on the background. Pop might have consciously decided to be man, but subconscious mind uses learnt rules. This can lead into serious conflict of interests, and broken identity.
I fail to see how a fluid identity in early childhood can lead to a broken identity in adulthood. In fact, it seems logical to me that the opposite would be the case: a strictly gendered childhood has great potential for causing psychological conflict later in life.
As someone pointed out, this sounds wonderful academically and idealistically. Unfortunately, we live in neither an academic nor an idealistic society. Gender roles exist, and while yes, letting them be gender fluid may help one aspect of later adulthood identity, it can also cause their social development years to be crushingly bad as they can never fit in with a peer group during the single most important social development time of your life.
We already have people in this thread saying "I was ostracized when I was very young, because I didn't fit in to a gender peer group"....and making a kid gender neutral helps this how? Unless things have changed drastically since I was a kid, there isn't a ready made "gender neutral social group" in the places most kids group up. This idea that they will somehow fluidly shift between social groups is silly. They can possibly do that, but the other children in the peer group are very, very unlikely to be accepting of that, because like it or not, they were probably taught strict gender roles.
My point through all this has been: In a social vacuum, this might possibly be a decent thing to do. Since the idea of social vacuum is basically not possible (without doing really bad harm to a childs social development), you have to consider the social and peer issues this could possibly bring up.
Out of curiosity, does any of the original material say how old Pop is?
I fail to see how a fluid identity in early childhood can lead to a broken identity in adulthood. In fact, it seems logical to me that the opposite would be the case: a strictly gendered childhood has great potential for causing psychological conflict later in life.
The problem with subconscious mind is that we aren't aware of its actions, or why it decides to do something for 99 percent of the time. Here is example:
Pop consciously decides that he wants to express love to his girlfriend. But for some reason, he gets cold feet and backs away without even knowing what hit hom. No matter what he tries, he always get the cold feet, sabotaging himself. He blames himself, thinking that he is mentally broken, and unworthy. The reason why he gets those cold feets is that Pop, while acting as a "girl", had learnt that touching other girls would be bad thing. And subconscious mind has recorded this as a rule, keeping it safe all these years.
It is true that Pop will be damn flexible in the future, and that kind of mindset will help him a lot. But I just fear that there will be some conflicting ideas running around.
People who are different have MORE pressure to conform placed on them by society than people who are conventional to begin with. I could argue that the parents are actually ensuring that Pop will deal with greater levels of pressure in life, once it leaves their protective bubble.
This assumes that Pop will act differently in some way. We have no reason to believe that Pop will express an unusual gender identity. In fact, if the gender essentialists are correct then we can be reasonably sure that Pop won't.
And if he or she does, then isn't it good that the parents notice it sooner so they can prepare to talk to their child honestly about this issue?
Let's not play games. You and I both expect Pop to behave unconventionally after this, because we both recognize that gender roles are artificial constructs that our society forces in to children. I'm pretty sure that neither of us are fans of them either.
My concern here, though, is that one little mystery-gender child is going to have absolutely zero effect on changing society, but will itself get crushed under society's heel, when it exits the parental bubble completely unaware that it was at all different.
In essence, what I see is two progressive parents attempting to martyr their child. Not literally, but socially. It is wrong, to me, because I see progressivism as going hand in hand with disseminating information, whereas they are actively witholding information that their child may desperately need.
I fail to see how a fluid identity in early childhood can lead to a broken identity in adulthood. In fact, it seems logical to me that the opposite would be the case: a strictly gendered childhood has great potential for causing psychological conflict later in life.
The problem with subconscious mind is that we aren't aware of its actions or why it decides to do something for 99 percent of the time. Here is example:
Pop consciously decideds that he wants to express love to his girlfriend. But for some reason, he gets cold feet and backs away without even knowing what hit hom. No matter what he tries, he always get the cold feet, sabotaging himself. He blames himself, thinking that he is mentally broken, and unworthy. The reason why he gets those cold feets is that Pop, while acting as a "girl", had learnt that touching other girls would be bad thing. And subconscious mind has recorded this as a rule, keeping it safe all these rules.
It is true that Pop will be damn flexible in the future, and that kind of mindset will help him a lot. But I just fear that there will be some conflicting ideas running around.
Lesbians are all incapable of expressing their love to their girlfriends.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
Lesbians are all incapable of expressing their love to their girlfriends.
That doesn't have anything to do with my example. This is about rules that mind gets. But if we are about to talk lesbians... many lesbians, are, as a matter of fact, damn confused, and guilt-ridden about their sexual preferences. For no logical reason at all.
EDIT: Changed text, explained my points clearer.
elkatas on
Hypnotically inclined.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm not arguing that "it's an experiment" is a good reason to dislike it, I'm arguing that it most certain is an experiment.
If this is true, then it is trivially true -- that is, it has no impact on the ethics of this behavior either way. If you define 'experiment' in such a way that any course of action is an experiment, then it means that conducting an experiment is a morally neutral act.
This is NOT my argument, but it is AN argument:
The reason that the fact that this is an experiment is bad can be seen in the recent circumcision thread. In essence, these parents are putting Pop through a process that will have a lasting effect for the rest of Pop's life, and doing so without Pop's consent or even knowledge.
Word. All parenting is then an experiment, which is why Hachface just said that it's trivially true.
With circumcision it wasn't the entire argument. So the comparison is invalid.
Julius on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
People who are different have MORE pressure to conform placed on them by society than people who are conventional to begin with. I could argue that the parents are actually ensuring that Pop will deal with greater levels of pressure in life, once it leaves their protective bubble.
This assumes that Pop will act differently in some way. We have no reason to believe that Pop will express an unusual gender identity. In fact, if the gender essentialists are correct then we can be reasonably sure that Pop won't.
And if he or she does, then isn't it good that the parents notice it sooner so they can prepare to talk to their child honestly about this issue?
Let's not play games. You and I both expect Pop to behave unconventionally after this, because we both recognize that gender roles are artificial constructs that our society forces in to children.
I really don't. (expect Pop to behave all that unconventionally, that is)
I'm pretty sure that neither of us are fans of them either.
I am by no means persuaded of your feelings.
My concern here, though, is that one little mystery-gender child is going to have absolutely zero effect on changing society, but will itself get crushed under society's heel, when it exits the parental bubble completely unaware that it was at all different.
The parents aren't doing this for society. They are doing this for their child. And I think that saying this child will be "crushed under society's heel" is extremely dramatic. I think it is far more likely that the child will simply conform. And if he doesn't... so what?
In essence, what I see is two progressive parents attempting to martyr their child. Not literally, but socially. It is wrong, to me, because I see progressivism as going hand in hand with disseminating information, whereas they are actively witholding information that their child may desperately need.
Hold up. The parents aren't telling other people their child's sex. They aren't withholding this information from the child. Read the article again.
Lesbians are all incapable of expressing their love to their girlfriends.
That doesn't have anything to do with this. This is about rules that mind gets. And many lesbians, are, as a matter of fact, damn confused, and guilt-ridden about their sexual preferences. For no logical reason at all.
It has everything to do with it. Lesbians learn that it's Wrong for them to be sexually attracted to women, so they feel bad about it. But they still end up having healthy relationships with women. They are capable of overriding the silly rules their subconscious has picked up on, and so will Pop.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
People who are different have MORE pressure to conform placed on them by society than people who are conventional to begin with. I could argue that the parents are actually ensuring that Pop will deal with greater levels of pressure in life, once it leaves their protective bubble.
This assumes that Pop will act differently in some way. We have no reason to believe that Pop will express an unusual gender identity. In fact, if the gender essentialists are correct then we can be reasonably sure that Pop won't.
And if he or she does, then isn't it good that the parents notice it sooner so they can prepare to talk to their child honestly about this issue?
Let's not play games. You and I both expect Pop to behave unconventionally after this, because we both recognize that gender roles are artificial constructs that our society forces in to children.
I really don't. (expect Pop to behave all that unconventionally, that is)
I'm pretty sure that neither of us are fans of them either.
I am by no means persuaded of your feelings.
My concern here, though, is that one little mystery-gender child is going to have absolutely zero effect on changing society, but will itself get crushed under society's heel, when it exits the parental bubble completely unaware that it was at all different.
The parents aren't doing this for society. They are doing this for their child. And I think that saying this child will be "crushed under society's heel" is extremely dramatic. I think it is far more likely that the child will simply conform. And if he doesn't... so what?
In essence, what I see is two progressive parents attempting to martyr their child. Not literally, but socially. It is wrong, to me, because I see progressivism as going hand in hand with disseminating information, whereas they are actively witholding information that their child may desperately need.
Hold up. The parents aren't telling other people their child's sex. They aren't withholding this information from the child. Read the article again.
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
Right. Pop will know whether Pop has a vagina or a penis. But Pop will not necessarily act in the way that people expect a penis-bearer or vagina-bearer to act, and Pop's parents will not make these expectations explicit. Pop will be whatever Pop wants to be. And if Pop learns these expectations elsewhere and wants to conform, Pop will conform.
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
I know that I am a girl.
I do not act like a girl.
I get pissed off when people expect me to act like a girl.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
Right. Pop will know whether Pop has a vagina or a penis. But Pop will not necessarily act in the way that people expect a penis-bearer or vagina-bearer to act, and Pop's parents will not make these expectations explicit. Pop will be whatever Pop wants to be. And if Pop learns these expectations elsewhere and wants to conform, Pop will conform.
I think what a lot of us are saying is that to assume Pop will only conform because Pop WANTS to, assumes an overly idealistic view of society. Pop may very well conform because Pop HAS to, to achieve other life goals, such as a career, or a college degree. Of course, we can get in to the argument of "Well, if Pop want's that career, then he/she must want to conform", but that's not something I would readily agree with. I think we've all had to do, or say, something we didn't want to, to achieve another aim.
They are capable of overriding the silly rules their subconscious has picked up on, and so will Pop.
You can change things in subconscious mind, but it isn't exactly easy, because subconscious mind fights fiercely against any change, no matter how positive or negative it could be. In many of these cases, subject doesn't even realize that problem could be in subconscious mind. They start to blame themselves, creating other artificial, painful constructs to themselves, and making change even more difficult.
elkatas on
Hypnotically inclined.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
Right. Pop will know whether Pop has a vagina or a penis. But Pop will not necessarily act in the way that people expect a penis-bearer or vagina-bearer to act, and Pop's parents will not make these expectations explicit. Pop will be whatever Pop wants to be. And if Pop learns these expectations elsewhere and wants to conform, Pop will conform.
I think what a lot of us are saying is that to assume Pop will only conform because Pop WANTS to, assumes an overly idealistic view of society. Pop may very well conform because Pop HAS to, to achieve other life goals, such as a career, or a college degree. Of course, we can get in to the argument of "Well, if Pop want's that career, then he/she must want to conform", but that's not something I would readily agree with. I think we've all had to do, or say, something we didn't want to, to achieve another aim.
People seem to believe that Pop is going to go all the way to high school with an ambiguous gender identity.
I find this highly unlikely.
I expect that Pop will settle on some sort of identity by school age, and that long before the time comes for college or career-seeking Pop will be fully informed of society's expectations and can decide for Popself whether Pop wants to go along with them.
I just have a hard time understanding how societal norms impacting your child's gender identity can be seen as so harmful that it's actually preferable to just give up and withdraw them from society completely. Because honestly that's what these parents are trying to do, and thankfully will fail at. At some point, this kid will eventually get exposed to the idea that girls are 'supposed' to like pink and play with dolls. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, like basically every other member of humanity ever, it's going to be able to process, understand, and find a plave within the society in which it lives.
Meanwhile, this kid gets to be referred to as 'it' and paraded about as a political statement by its parents, which I'm sure is far less damaging than having a toychest full of GI Joes and a closet stuffed with blue clothes.
They are capable of overriding the silly rules their subconscious has picked up on, and so will Pop.
You can change things in subconscious mind, but it isn't exactly easy, because subconscious mind fights fiercely against any change, no matter how positive or negative it could be. In many of these cases, subject doesn't even realize that problem could be in subconscious mind. They start to blame themselves, creating other artificial, painful constructs to themselves, and making change even more difficult.
So lesbians should just date men to be happy?
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
Meanwhile, this kid gets to be referred to as 'it' and paraded about as a political statement by its parents, which I'm sure is far less damaging than having a toychest full of GI Joes and a closet stuffed with blue clothes.
"You" is usually the preferable pronoun when adressing someone...
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
I know that I am a girl.
I do not act like a girl.
I get pissed off when people expect me to act like a girl.
I would say that's more of an exception, though. I'm not an authority on the subject, but my understanding is that humans naturally emulate other human's behavior, and boys tend to spend time with other boys and emulate their behaviors. Same thing with girls.
D&D seems to be offended by the very idea that there are certain generalities which are somewhat safe to expect.
Absolutely not. I'm just pointing out that the change will be damn hard, and many people never get over that stepping stone. Which leads into pretty shitty life.
In the interest of avoiding a long and tedious semantic argument, I propose the adoption of the word "sex" to denote physiological characteristics emanating from the configuration of X and Y chromosomes and the word "gender" for the social identifications that relate to these physiological conditions.
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).
ronya on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
ronya I am unclear why you salmon'd me. I chose my words very carefully for the very reason you limed.
A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.
But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?
In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?
On a related, not entirely serious note, Pop? Really? Surely there's a better gender neutral name they could have gone with.
Alex for example. Although, aren't they in Europe somewhere, perhaps Pop is a very 'Popular' name...
Honestly this is a massive waste of time. Children of that age play with what they are given, until they interact with their peers at which point they play with what they see the kids like them play with. This will have no impact on Pop at all, since within 6 months or so he'll look like a boy or girl.
Meanwhile, this kid gets to be referred to as 'it' and paraded about as a political statement by its parents, which I'm sure is far less damaging than having a toychest full of GI Joes and a closet stuffed with blue clothes.
"You" is usually the preferable pronoun when adressing someone...
It would take time to get used to working around the words "him" or "her."
This is my child, Pop. Pop is a happy child. Pop likes to climb trees. Melrose Place is Pop's favourite television program. Pop enjoys it very much.
I don't like the idea of using a living thing to make a point.
Welcome to parenting.
If that is your idea of parenting, do everybody a favor and please don't ever become a parent.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that throwing all of your food on the floor instead of eating it isn't acceptable.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that after playing with your toys there is a time of cleaning up.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that punching other kids isn't an acceptable method of having an argument.
Parenting is all about instilling 'points' onto your children. If parents didn't that all children would be feral monsters (and despite some rumblings from old people, we're not at that stage yet). Just because a certain 'point' is less socially acceptable doesn't mean it's bad. Perhaps the socially acceptable point is bad.
It's certainly going to make Pop's life more complicated at a certain point, but I've seen no reason that the parents aren't up to it. Until the child shows real behavioral problems, I see no reason to let parents do as they please.
ronya I am unclear why you salmon'd me. I chose my words very carefully for the very reason you limed.
Because the X and Y chromosomes don't create consistent physiological characteristics :P
Apologies if this is what you meant, but your post seemed to imply that they do. And, well, they don't (which leave us with no absolute biological basis of gender, which is one reason why societies throw their hands up in the air and just go with whatever the individual self-identifies as).
A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.
But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?
In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?
I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?
I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.
I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?
I don't like the idea of using a living thing to make a point.
Welcome to parenting.
If that is your idea of parenting, do everybody a favor and please don't ever become a parent.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that throwing all of your food on the floor instead of eating it isn't acceptable.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that after playing with your toys there is a time of cleaning up.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that punching other kids isn't an acceptable method of having an argument.
Parenting is all about instilling 'points' onto your children. If parents didn't that all children would be feral monsters (and despite some rumblings from old people, we're not at that stage yet). Just because a certain 'point' is less socially acceptable doesn't mean it's bad. Perhaps the socially acceptable point is bad.
It's certainly going to make Pop's life more complicated at a certain point, but I've seen no reason that the parents aren't up to it. Until the child shows real behavioral problems, I see no reason to let parents do as they please.
I don't think you get what "making a point" means in this context.
Posts
So, eventually, this child will be gendered by society even if the parents don't actively do it themselves.
OK.
This child will still have at least one less source of pressure to conform in his or her life. How is that a bad thing?
This is NOT my argument, but it is AN argument:
The reason that the fact that this is an experiment is bad can be seen in the recent circumcision thread. In essence, these parents are putting Pop through a process that will have a lasting effect for the rest of Pop's life, and doing so without Pop's consent or even knowledge.
They may claim that they are letting Pop chose its own gender, but they are also actively witholding relevant information from Pop. Maybe Pop is biological male, but instead it decideds to wear dresses because it likes the colors on them. If Pop were aware that this might cause social stigma, maybe Pop would prefer a pair of slacks instead, because the dresses weren't THAT important.
It is one thing to encourage an individual to "be themselves" in face fo the consequences when they are aware fo the consequences. What these parents are doing is creating an artificial reality for Pop, and they can't sustain this artificial reality forever, meanign that, at some point, Pop is going to have to go out in to the world and deal with consequences that it was unaware existed.
This is actually an argument against the very notion of parenting, since parenting necessarily involves the imposition of values on a passive subject. Which is interesting, but I do not think it is the direction you want to go.
So the child, at some point in his or her early development, will encounter a social situation that prompts him or her to make a choice about his or her gender identity.
Isn't this the very point of what the parents are doing? To allow that choice?
Will it?
People who are different have MORE pressure to conform placed on them by society than people who are conventional to begin with. I could argue that the parents are actually ensuring that Pop will deal with greater levels of pressure in life, once it leaves their protective bubble.
This assumes that Pop will act differently in some way. We have no reason to believe that Pop will express an unusual gender identity. In fact, if the gender essentialists are correct then we can be reasonably sure that Pop won't.
And if he or she does, then isn't it good that the parents notice it sooner so they can prepare to talk to their child honestly about this issue?
As someone pointed out, this sounds wonderful academically and idealistically. Unfortunately, we live in neither an academic nor an idealistic society. Gender roles exist, and while yes, letting them be gender fluid may help one aspect of later adulthood identity, it can also cause their social development years to be crushingly bad as they can never fit in with a peer group during the single most important social development time of your life.
We already have people in this thread saying "I was ostracized when I was very young, because I didn't fit in to a gender peer group"....and making a kid gender neutral helps this how? Unless things have changed drastically since I was a kid, there isn't a ready made "gender neutral social group" in the places most kids group up. This idea that they will somehow fluidly shift between social groups is silly. They can possibly do that, but the other children in the peer group are very, very unlikely to be accepting of that, because like it or not, they were probably taught strict gender roles.
My point through all this has been: In a social vacuum, this might possibly be a decent thing to do. Since the idea of social vacuum is basically not possible (without doing really bad harm to a childs social development), you have to consider the social and peer issues this could possibly bring up.
Out of curiosity, does any of the original material say how old Pop is?
The problem with subconscious mind is that we aren't aware of its actions, or why it decides to do something for 99 percent of the time. Here is example:
Pop consciously decides that he wants to express love to his girlfriend. But for some reason, he gets cold feet and backs away without even knowing what hit hom. No matter what he tries, he always get the cold feet, sabotaging himself. He blames himself, thinking that he is mentally broken, and unworthy. The reason why he gets those cold feets is that Pop, while acting as a "girl", had learnt that touching other girls would be bad thing. And subconscious mind has recorded this as a rule, keeping it safe all these years.
It is true that Pop will be damn flexible in the future, and that kind of mindset will help him a lot. But I just fear that there will be some conflicting ideas running around.
Let's not play games. You and I both expect Pop to behave unconventionally after this, because we both recognize that gender roles are artificial constructs that our society forces in to children. I'm pretty sure that neither of us are fans of them either.
My concern here, though, is that one little mystery-gender child is going to have absolutely zero effect on changing society, but will itself get crushed under society's heel, when it exits the parental bubble completely unaware that it was at all different.
In essence, what I see is two progressive parents attempting to martyr their child. Not literally, but socially. It is wrong, to me, because I see progressivism as going hand in hand with disseminating information, whereas they are actively witholding information that their child may desperately need.
Lesbians are all incapable of expressing their love to their girlfriends.
That doesn't have anything to do with my example. This is about rules that mind gets. But if we are about to talk lesbians... many lesbians, are, as a matter of fact, damn confused, and guilt-ridden about their sexual preferences. For no logical reason at all.
EDIT: Changed text, explained my points clearer.
Word. All parenting is then an experiment, which is why Hachface just said that it's trivially true.
With circumcision it wasn't the entire argument. So the comparison is invalid.
I really don't. (expect Pop to behave all that unconventionally, that is)
I am by no means persuaded of your feelings.
The parents aren't doing this for society. They are doing this for their child. And I think that saying this child will be "crushed under society's heel" is extremely dramatic. I think it is far more likely that the child will simply conform. And if he doesn't... so what?
Hold up. The parents aren't telling other people their child's sex. They aren't withholding this information from the child. Read the article again.
It has everything to do with it. Lesbians learn that it's Wrong for them to be sexually attracted to women, so they feel bad about it. But they still end up having healthy relationships with women. They are capable of overriding the silly rules their subconscious has picked up on, and so will Pop.
Wait, what's the point, then? If Pop knows that s/he is a girl or a boy, then s/he will naturally emulate the behaviors shown by his/her sex (this is going to get exhausting pretty quick). I was under the impression that Pop is whatever Pop wants to be.
Right. Pop will know whether Pop has a vagina or a penis. But Pop will not necessarily act in the way that people expect a penis-bearer or vagina-bearer to act, and Pop's parents will not make these expectations explicit. Pop will be whatever Pop wants to be. And if Pop learns these expectations elsewhere and wants to conform, Pop will conform.
I know that I am a girl.
I do not act like a girl.
I get pissed off when people expect me to act like a girl.
Welcome to parenting.
Pop may be interesexed.
If that is the case, then I frankly believe that what the parents are doing is the only way to go about it.
I think what a lot of us are saying is that to assume Pop will only conform because Pop WANTS to, assumes an overly idealistic view of society. Pop may very well conform because Pop HAS to, to achieve other life goals, such as a career, or a college degree. Of course, we can get in to the argument of "Well, if Pop want's that career, then he/she must want to conform", but that's not something I would readily agree with. I think we've all had to do, or say, something we didn't want to, to achieve another aim.
If that is your idea of parenting, do everybody a favor and please don't ever become a parent.
You can change things in subconscious mind, but it isn't exactly easy, because subconscious mind fights fiercely against any change, no matter how positive or negative it could be. In many of these cases, subject doesn't even realize that problem could be in subconscious mind. They start to blame themselves, creating other artificial, painful constructs to themselves, and making change even more difficult.
People seem to believe that Pop is going to go all the way to high school with an ambiguous gender identity.
I find this highly unlikely.
I expect that Pop will settle on some sort of identity by school age, and that long before the time comes for college or career-seeking Pop will be fully informed of society's expectations and can decide for Popself whether Pop wants to go along with them.
Meanwhile, this kid gets to be referred to as 'it' and paraded about as a political statement by its parents, which I'm sure is far less damaging than having a toychest full of GI Joes and a closet stuffed with blue clothes.
So lesbians should just date men to be happy?
By age of four, I would think. This is first time when Pop will start to think himself as an individual.
I would say that's more of an exception, though. I'm not an authority on the subject, but my understanding is that humans naturally emulate other human's behavior, and boys tend to spend time with other boys and emulate their behaviors. Same thing with girls.
D&D seems to be offended by the very idea that there are certain generalities which are somewhat safe to expect.
Absolutely not. I'm just pointing out that the change will be damn hard, and many people never get over that stepping stone. Which leads into pretty shitty life.
Scream this from the rooftops:
But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?
In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?
Alex for example. Although, aren't they in Europe somewhere, perhaps Pop is a very 'Popular' name...
Honestly this is a massive waste of time. Children of that age play with what they are given, until they interact with their peers at which point they play with what they see the kids like them play with. This will have no impact on Pop at all, since within 6 months or so he'll look like a boy or girl.
It would take time to get used to working around the words "him" or "her."
This is my child, Pop. Pop is a happy child. Pop likes to climb trees. Melrose Place is Pop's favourite television program. Pop enjoys it very much.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that throwing all of your food on the floor instead of eating it isn't acceptable.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that after playing with your toys there is a time of cleaning up.
If I have a child, I intend to make a point that punching other kids isn't an acceptable method of having an argument.
Parenting is all about instilling 'points' onto your children. If parents didn't that all children would be feral monsters (and despite some rumblings from old people, we're not at that stage yet). Just because a certain 'point' is less socially acceptable doesn't mean it's bad. Perhaps the socially acceptable point is bad.
It's certainly going to make Pop's life more complicated at a certain point, but I've seen no reason that the parents aren't up to it. Until the child shows real behavioral problems, I see no reason to let parents do as they please.
Because the X and Y chromosomes don't create consistent physiological characteristics :P
Apologies if this is what you meant, but your post seemed to imply that they do. And, well, they don't (which leave us with no absolute biological basis of gender, which is one reason why societies throw their hands up in the air and just go with whatever the individual self-identifies as).
I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?
I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.
I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?
I don't think you get what "making a point" means in this context.