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!
Posts
I am inclined to say poor kid.
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Also this post.
Yes it is slightly ad hom. But only because the individual in question is being remarkably silly about all this.
There's a difference between
a) the child being identified by the sex s/he is born as (which is not always going to end up right, I realize, as some identify as the opposite gender) and most likely living a normal, healthy life
and
b) hiding your sexuality because people will hate you for it.
The child was not likely in danger of being different when it was born. It was born as a child that would most likely be a pretty normal and healthy human being.
Both have the ability to cause serious harm. The only difference is that one is physical and the other is psychological/developmental. Besides that, there are no differences that would make the comparison invalid.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
Oh good. Platitudes are exactly what this thread needed.
If you think I'm secretly pro-patriarchy, or whatever, then there's really no point in looking at anything else, is there?
If you're going to call me a liar, then bring some proof.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on gender will change.
Their intentions and motivations are unknowable. It is fruitless to discuss them. And yet you are the one who has consistently been arguing against these phantom motives.
It's unclear how this story broke. But if they were approached by a journalist, and they believed they were doing the right thing, why in the world should they refuse an interview?
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
No, I will never see what you are saying if, after a comparison to the first couples who had interracial children amidst the judgment of society around them, and not knowing how or how well their child would integrate into either culture's society - given that I believe we as a nation are better for those pioneers and fuck the naysayers, and that just because a life is challenging does not make the challenges unworthwhile - your response is "see? and this is even worse!"
Again, this is a red herring. Even if there is a political statement involved here, it is immaterial to the child's well being.
I haven't read the article at all, but the LAST time that a thread was made about Pop it became clear that the parents were actually ding this to make a statement to society. They wanted to gain attention by it. Pop was also too oung to be picking out its own clothing at the time, and a big deal was made about dressing it in gender neutral colors, and witholding any gendered toys from it.
That they've progressed to phase two of the experiment does not negate what phase one was.
With regards to the child's well-being, the only solid argument is that, unless you know for a fact that something will not cause harm to your child, you should not do it.
If you want to disagree, then I'm afraid that says a lot more about you than about me.
Indeed, by it's nature, it can't be a political statement. It may be a cultural statement, but until they call political attention to their case, push for laws to raise all kids their way, lobby to political parties to support their cause, I can't call this a political statement.
It's certainly a cultural statement, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, cultural statements are what's parenting is all about. Keep in mind though, that 'Choose any religion you want' or 'Choose any sexuality you want' are also cultural statements.
These are statements I admire. Perhaps 'Choose any gender you want' is not so different in a culture-free environment, and may be the best choice.
However, I do want to implore to Pop's parents that in the current world this isn't an easy path. He/she will have questions some day, and they should be as honest as possible. But if they accept this, I see no reason to interfere.
Yeah sure. Whatever.
The point is that the parents actually believe that the traditional way to raise a child is wrong. It's not about homosexuality, it's about their belief that raising Pop along traditional gender lines wouldn't make her/him the best normal and healthy human being.
There are plenty of perfectly normal people who still aren't satisfied by traditional gender roles. My society is pretty laid-back and liberal about these things, but even here boys who do ballet are made fun of. Depression about gender-roles happens in heterosexual teenagers too. It took some time for me to realise that gender roles are shit and that there's no reason I'm not supposed to like this kind of music or that kind of movie or any other number of shit that is divided along gender-lines.
This stance makes parenting impossible.
It says that I have reasonable standards of certainty.
Somebody has to try it. If you really, genuinely believed something, you'd raise your kids and express that belief to them and hope they expressed it as well.
I want to be clear that I'm not calling you racist or anti-gay. I'm just pointing out that, in the face of uncertainty, these statements could have as easily been made by well-meaning parents in 1890 or 1960.
because our society views gender as a standardized binary proposition, but religion is accepted to be multifaceted and nuanced.
I said this before: the two are different. Hiding homosexuality is actively harmful, and there's no choice in being homosexual or heterosexual. But gender is so difficult for us to define, and it's a pretty safe assumption that if you're child is a boy and you raise it as a boy, he's going to turn out okay (or at least not be damaged as a result). Now these parents have put this kid in jeopardy for no justifiable reason.
Or raising a biracial child. Or a black one, or any visible minority, for that matter.
And the problem with their plan is that they COMPLETELY ignored the fact that the rest of society is still raising their kids the old way, meaning that Pop is going to be released in to a society that, absolute best case scenario, is going to undo all of their hard work and socialized Pop with the gender roles that they avoided, and potentially do far worse harm.
Just like all those vegetarians should shut the fuck up about not eating meat. If they don't want to, fine, but why are they getting all up in the media if they really cared for animals?
Why the fuck does it matter if, when approached by a journalist, these people talk about their view on what the correct way to raise a child is?
I mostly refused to comment on it because religion is a potentially inflammatory topic and can derail the thread.
Hachface, your "reasonable standards" do not require any scientific evidence. You are literally making them up out of thin air. There is nothing reasonable about those standards.
The concept is very simple. Someone comes out with a new product. Before feeding it to your child, or using it on your child, or giving it to your child, you first want to do research to make sure that it will not cause harm. You want to see how it was manufactured. You want to see its ingredients. You want to maybe read studies done with regards to those ingredients, what types of things they can be consumed with and whatnot.
This is what parenting is. Looking after your child and doing the best possible fucking job you can so that no harm comes to them. It is not supposed to be easy, because looking after another human being and making their decisions for them is a huge responsibility.
I am done with this retarded argument since you're so out of touch with what responsible parenting entails. I strongly hope you never have a child if your standards are so lax.
Errr, I dunno. If the parents weren't advertising this, shopping it around, somehow, I highly doubt a reporter just picked up on the story, though I guess it's possible.
Whereas if I raised my kid to not be indoctrinated into the majority religion a hundred years ago, it would of course be deeply immoral.
Are these people experts? Do you think journalists just randomly approach people in the street and ask how they raise their kids?
Pop's parents called the attention to themselves deliberately, because the entire point of the way that they are raising Pop is to make a statment. It is a statement that doesn't actually do anythign, though, because it is being ignored by EVERYONE who disagrees with them, and a fair number of people who DO agree with them (but theink they are going about it the wrong way.)
Hiding homosexuality wasn't actively harmful in 1960. Homosexuality got you sent to prison and/or chemically castrated. Nor was hiding a view of racial equality in 1890, people weren't exactly fond of the folks who told them to stop being mean to blacks.
My parents raised me not to be a racist and not to be anti-gay. And I grew up in a conservative area (one of the most conservative areas of my country) where racism and anti-gay sentiment was the norm among my peers. I got into lots of arguments and more than one physical fight over my views. I was even teased in school.
So, my parents raised me wrong, I suppose?
These people don't believe that gender roles are naturally occuring. My parents didn't believe in spanking me or subjecting me to Judeo-Christian religion. Why do we have to clear completely unintrusive shit like this with people like you before we try it? It's not like they're denying their kid medical care for religious reasons or crazy shit like that. They're letting him or her dress him/herself based on the feelings he/she wakes up with. Hell, I remember wanting to wear capes and sombreros in public when I was a kid. I don't remember my folks clearing that with the city council.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Well it's Norway, so...
but whatever, saying their beliefs are incorrect or do not have the intended result is one thing. Saying that they're wrong for experimenting on a child is another. painting them as whackos or attention-whores is bullshit.
First of all, I never called anything "deeply immoral", i said what Pop's parents are doing is potentially very harmful to Pop.
If you lived in the past, in a culture where atheists were publically executed, then yes, teaching your child to publically deny the existance fo god would have been equally irresponsible. Teaching your child behind closed doors that their belief is really their own personal choice, and they should follow the evidence they see, not just what they are told to follow, and then informing them to be careful being open about this in public unless they are sure that they are either A) in a safe space, or B) able to defend themselves from attack (verbal, physical, emotional, etc.) THAT would have been a responsible way to go about it.
You don't. Here's a question though: Did you parents go to the local paper and tell the journalists there how they were raising you by not spanking you, and not instilling Judeo-Christian religious values in you? Did a reporter every show up randomly at your house and ask your parents how they raised you?
That, to me, is what takes this from "new parenting technique" to "social guinea pig".
Do you, like, not read other people's posts?
Did I ever say I would raise my kids in a gender-free household?
I hope you do abandon this argument because your position is silly for at least three reasons:
1. The parents do have a fair bit of scientific evidence on their side.
2. Absolute certainty is impossible, and parenting is full of tough decisions in which you don't have all the facts.
3. Plenty of children are raised in all kinds of ways that don't have rigorous scientific backing (religious homes, vegetarian homes), but we don't condemn their parents for it.
Man, I don't see how you don't get the distinction. I really don't.
1) you were taught not to be racist.
2) you were taught not to be anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual.
good. we should be teaching children that
3) you should not hate anyone for their gender identity.
that's all well and good, and I agree. but the situation is
4) I have a child and I'm going to let it choose what gender it wants to be.
that doesn't teach anyone not to hate that kid, does it? he's walking into a minefield.