Letting the child choose its own gender (even on a day-to-day basis) and supporting/defendign that choice would be one thing, but insisting that the child be genderless out in the world is not some simple little thing that can be done with no reaction from society.
Here's what bugs me about what you're saying: gender, in Western societies, is constructed as a largely binary choice of categorized behaviors, not so much a linear spectrum. The parents aren't trying to deviate from a spectrum, they're just rebelling against the categorization, it seems. They're attempting to remove any influence a label might have on the child's choice of behaviors. Instead of being a neutral gender, it will simply be a-gendered, unbound by any of the rules regarding gendered behaviors. If the child were simply choosing its own gender, it's still adhering to those gender constructs, and that's antithetical to the parents' goals.
I think it's an interesting experiment, but I also think society is a helluva lot stronger of an influence than parents, and an environment like, for instance, public school will completely erase anything the parents have done.
except that they say later on that they will let the child choose its gender
really, the whole thing is a mess of contradictions. I'm not certain that the parents even know exactly what their own goal is.
Which gets back to the whole point that they are using an unwitting child to make some huge social statement. THAT is what is harmful to the kid here.
Evander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I can see how you might think that considering what I'd just said in the post above about children needing guidance and then posting the seemingly contradictory story afterward. Indeed the two posts do seem to contradict themselves so I'll clarify my position:
I don't think that the notion of changing a child's gender at any stage of their development is healthy for said child, and parents should help guide the children into the role that they were assigned from birth. When the child has matured and reaches a point where they begin to call their identity and gender into question, and make life changing decisions for themselves and understand the consequences of said decisions, then they can do whatever they want.
But why do we believe that children need guidance to behave according to their gender? If gender is intrinsically linked with physiology, then the child will express a conventional gender identity even without parental prompting. On the other hand, if gender identity is something that a child needs to be guided toward, then it is obviously not essential to the child's sex. Why not let the child express what comes naturally? Or, assuming that totally "natural" (that is, completely uninfluenced by society) gender identification is impossible, why not at least relax the parental pressures toward conformity?
I do agree with Evander here that in order for this experiment to bear out bearably for the child, I think the parents need to cede ground at every impasse or at least defer to the child instead of posturing and holding to a chalkboard ideal
If the parents are observing the kid, and once the kid starts to clearly aim for a gender, they go with that and start treating the kid as such and integrating it into society as that gender, fine.
If their goal is to raise their child in a genderless bubble they should have their kid taken away because they are monsters.
It's too early to tell, but they sound like fruitcakes and I don't get a positive vibe from their own explanation of what they are doing.
But why do we believe that children need guidance to behave according to their gender? If gender is intrinsically linked with physiology, then the child will express a conventional gender identity even without parental prompting. On the other hand, if gender identity is something that a child needs to be guided toward, then it is obviously not essential to the child's sex. Why not let the child express what comes naturally? Or, assuming that totally "natural" (that is, completely uninfluenced by society) gender identification is impossible, why not at least relax the parental pressures toward conformity?
Gender identity will be expressed and the child will need guidance to fit into society. If the parents aren't providing that appropriate guidance and just letting the kids physiology express itself, then they aren't parenting, they're trying to raise a cave-baby.
Letting the child choose its own gender (even on a day-to-day basis) and supporting/defendign that choice would be one thing, but insisting that the child be genderless out in the world is not some simple little thing that can be done with no reaction from society.
Here's what bugs me about what you're saying: gender, in Western societies, is constructed as a largely binary choice of categorized behaviors, not so much a linear spectrum. The parents aren't trying to deviate from a spectrum, they're just rebelling against the categorization, it seems. They're attempting to remove any influence a label might have on the child's choice of behaviors. Instead of being a neutral gender, it will simply be a-gendered, unbound by any of the rules regarding gendered behaviors. If the child were simply choosing its own gender, it's still adhering to those gender constructs, and that's antithetical to the parents' goals.
I think it's an interesting experiment, but I also think society is a helluva lot stronger of an influence than parents, and an environment like, for instance, public school will completely erase anything the parents have done.
It's the only way to avoid the imposition of a role by others.
There's a ton of evidence that people treat little boys and girls very differently even if they're not aware that they're doing it. So saying "please do not impose a gender role on my little boy" is likely to be completely ineffective.
And how do you think people treat the baby when the parents refuse to say what gender it is?
My guess: "like an alien".
THIS, I see as a problem for Pop's socialization.
Evander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
If the parents are observing the kid, and once the kid starts to clearly aim for a gender, they go with that and start treating the kid as such and integrating it into society as that gender, fine.
If their goal is to raise their child in a genderless bubble they should have their kid taken away because they are monsters.
It's too early to tell, but they sound like fruitcakes and I don't get a positive vibe from their own explanation of what they are doing.
So if they actually do what they say they will do and truly accept the child's choices, it's fine.
If they do not do what they say they will do, then ... who knows!
But why do we believe that children need guidance to behave according to their gender? If gender is intrinsically linked with physiology, then the child will express a conventional gender identity even without parental prompting. On the other hand, if gender identity is something that a child needs to be guided toward, then it is obviously not essential to the child's sex. Why not let the child express what comes naturally? Or, assuming that totally "natural" (that is, completely uninfluenced by society) gender identification is impossible, why not at least relax the parental pressures toward conformity?
Gender identity will be expressed and the child will need guidance to fit into society. If the parents aren't providing that appropriate guidance and just letting the kids physiology express itself, then they aren't parenting, they're trying to raise a cave-baby.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Best America on
right you got it
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
But why do we believe that children need guidance to behave according to their gender? If gender is intrinsically linked with physiology, then the child will express a conventional gender identity even without parental prompting. On the other hand, if gender identity is something that a child needs to be guided toward, then it is obviously not essential to the child's sex. Why not let the child express what comes naturally? Or, assuming that totally "natural" (that is, completely uninfluenced by society) gender identification is impossible, why not at least relax the parental pressures toward conformity?
Gender identity will be expressed and the child will need guidance to fit into society. If the parents aren't providing that appropriate guidance and just letting the kids physiology express itself, then they aren't parenting, they're trying to raise a cave-baby.
Please be more specific. What exactly do the parents need to do once the child has "chosen" a gender?
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
But why do we believe that children need guidance to behave according to their gender? If gender is intrinsically linked with physiology, then the child will express a conventional gender identity even without parental prompting. On the other hand, if gender identity is something that a child needs to be guided toward, then it is obviously not essential to the child's sex. Why not let the child express what comes naturally? Or, assuming that totally "natural" (that is, completely uninfluenced by society) gender identification is impossible, why not at least relax the parental pressures toward conformity?
Gender identity will be expressed and the child will need guidance to fit into society. If the parents aren't providing that appropriate guidance and just letting the kids physiology express itself, then they aren't parenting, they're trying to raise a cave-baby.
Please be more specific. What exactly do the parents need to do once the child has "chosen" a gender?
Provide it with pink frilly dresses or tonka trucks as appropriate, of course. :P
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
Two year olds are most certainly not pre-verbal.
I don't think you really know that much about early childhood development.
-edit-
And did you really miss the sarcasm inherent in the frilly dresses/tonka trucks statement?
The "damage" and risks of this approach are negligible stacked against the towering sum of neuroses and trauma that can arise from our current model of awakening.
For real. Assuming the parents are honest with their intentions (and good lord, for the fiftieth time we have no reason to think they aren't), the worst-case scenario here is that teenaged Pop has some embarrassing pictures of himself in a dress at age 4.
We also have no reason to think that they ARE honest.
They a couple of 24 year olds who are using a baby in a social experiment. What is it that makes you certain that they are saints?
Evander it is incredibly goosey of you to bring this up over and over again. If you assume some kind of malice or dishonesty, you can draw whatever conclusion you like, but it's impossible to talk about it reasonably because we just don't have enough information; it just becomes an endless series of "But what ifs!" with no resolution.
Meanwhile if you take the parents at their word and consider the consequences of their approach to childrearing as they describe it, then you still have a lot to talk about.
I've explained this at least two times prior to this. I am not going to repeat myself again. The only profit you'll find in impugning these parents' motives is making it look like you don't actually have any argument against the practice itself.
If the parents are observing the kid, and once the kid starts to clearly aim for a gender, they go with that and start treating the kid as such and integrating it into society as that gender, fine.
If their goal is to raise their child in a genderless bubble they should have their kid taken away because they are monsters.
It's too early to tell, but they sound like fruitcakes and I don't get a positive vibe from their own explanation of what they are doing.
I can agree to this entirely
with the caveat that I still think parading around a "baby alien" is harmful to the baby, even if it is too young to remember the incidents specifically
Evander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
I think it's incredibly telling that a child with an unknown sex is regarded as an "alien."
Yes, at 2 a child is learning how to talk. They will generally have a vocabulary of about 200 words and can put together two-word sentences.
This is still way too early for Pop to be enduring the opprobrium of his/her peers over gender matters. There is no reason at all to believe Pop is being isolated from other children. You just made that up because you are suspicious of the parents' motives.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
Children also shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. They need boundaries. Wearing a dress to school (when you are in fact a boy) might possibly seem like a good idea to a kid, but if the parent doesn't step and say "Uh, no hun." they are allowing that kid to have an extremely unpleasant experience that will probably be scarring.
It's important to recognize transgenderism early, but it's fairly rare and you don't need to (and should not want to) treat your child as a transgender or non-gendered person "just in case".
That makes about as much sense as putting your kid on chemotherapy just in case they have childhood leukemia.
-edit-
And everything about this thread confirms my belief that sociologists and their disciples should be kept away from children.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
What sort of gender-specific behavior do you feel the not-quite-4 year old is missing out on, exactly?
Hint; kids that age haven't really started sorting themselves yet.
I think it's incredibly telling that a child with an unknown sex is regarded as an "alien."
Telling about what? Are you going to pretend that I'm some kind of secret conventionalist again?
Did you skip the context of my posts, that parading around a baby that you refuse to tell people the sex of in public will have the baby treated as an "alien" by members of society? I am not defending them, I am jst pointing out that is how out culture is.
One of my favorite things about all this is that everyone is worried about the kid due to the fact that it will have a hard time integrating into society because it doesn't follow cis-gendered norms (theoretically at least, Pop very well could)
Or as Hachface said, the fact that people refer to this child raised with the first (and maybe second) scalar on the gender identity continuum hidden from the public makes it then an "alien".
Children also shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. They need boundaries. Wearing a dress to school (when you are in fact a boy) might possibly seem like a good idea to a kid, but if the parent doesn't step and say "Uh, no hun." they are allowing that kid to have an extremely unpleasant experience that will probably be scarring.
It's important to recognize transgenderism early, but it's fairly rare and you don't need to (and should not want to) treat your child as a transgender or non-gendered person "just in case".
That makes about as much sense as putting your kid on chemotherapy just in case they have childhood leukemia.
If you are setting boundaries for your 3 year old that are gender-based, there's probably something wrong with your household.
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
Hey, look, more assumptions.
You really have no reason to suppose this at all. It is just as likely that Pop ended up with a conventional gender expression and ceased to be newsworthy. Neither of us know.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
What sort of gender-specific behavior do you feel the not-quite-4 year old is missing out on, exactly?
Hint; kids that age haven't really started sorting themselves yet.
What does that have to do with my post you quoted?
Children also shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. They need boundaries. Wearing a dress to school (when you are in fact a boy) might possibly seem like a good idea to a kid, but if the parent doesn't step and say "Uh, no hun." they are allowing that kid to have an extremely unpleasant experience that will probably be scarring.
What.
The.
Fuck.
This is EXACTLY the reason the parents of this child are doing what they are doing.
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
Hey, look, more assumptions.
You really have no reason to suppose this at all. It is just as likely that Pop ended up with a conventional gender expression and ceased to be newsworthy. Neither of us know.
Right, both options are just as likely, so you are going to treat the one you like as gospel, and accuse me of making assumptions on the other.
Children also shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. They need boundaries. Wearing a dress to school (when you are in fact a boy) might possibly seem like a good idea to a kid, but if the parent doesn't step and say "Uh, no hun." they are allowing that kid to have an extremely unpleasant experience that will probably be scarring.
What.
The.
Fuck.
This is EXACTLY the reason the parents of this child are doing what they are doing.
Concealing the kids gender in case he prefers unbifurcated garments is the single fucking stupidest thing I have ever heard.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
What sort of gender-specific behavior do you feel the not-quite-4 year old is missing out on, exactly?
Hint; kids that age haven't really started sorting themselves yet.
What does that have to do with my post you quoted?
The fact that Pop is about to turn 4 and nobody knows Pop's gender isn't some sort of travesty. Can you come up with one gender-specific thing that you think Pop should be doing at this point during "healthy" development? Because if not, then the fact that Pop hasn't been publicly outed as a member of either gender really has no bearing on how he is being raised.
Children also shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want. They need boundaries. Wearing a dress to school (when you are in fact a boy) might possibly seem like a good idea to a kid, but if the parent doesn't step and say "Uh, no hun." they are allowing that kid to have an extremely unpleasant experience that will probably be scarring.
What.
The.
Fuck.
This is EXACTLY the reason the parents of this child are doing what they are doing.
But, you see, Pop's parents are only parents to Pop, not to ALL of the other kids.
Meaning that while Pop can do whatever Pop chooses, Pop will still face social consequences for those choices.
Which gets back to the point I made a while ago about Pop being raised as a martyr.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
What sort of gender-specific behavior do you feel the not-quite-4 year old is missing out on, exactly?
Hint; kids that age haven't really started sorting themselves yet.
What does that have to do with my post you quoted?
The fact that Pop is about to turn 4 and nobody knows Pop's gender isn't some sort of travesty. Can you come up with one gender-specific thing that you think Pop should be doing at this point during "healthy" development? Because if not, then the fact that Pop hasn't been publicly outed as a member of either gender really has no bearing on how he is being raised.
I didn't call it a travesty.
I mentioned it as a strong suggestion that Pop's parents are actively keeping Pop from reveling its own sex to people, rather than the passive sort of "we wont' say it and just let it come out naturally" than Hach seemed to be saying they were going for.
If the parents are observing the kid, and once the kid starts to clearly aim for a gender, they go with that and start treating the kid as such and integrating it into society as that gender, fine.
If their goal is to raise their child in a genderless bubble they should have their kid taken away because they are monsters.
It's too early to tell, but they sound like fruitcakes and I don't get a positive vibe from their own explanation of what they are doing.
I can agree to this entirely
with the caveat that I still think parading around a "baby alien" is harmful to the baby, even if it is too young to remember the incidents specifically
Agreed. Kids learn very young, their ability to adapt and learn pretty much slows down as they get older not the other way around. Much like a dog, even pre-verbal children will recognize social structures. Things they learn at age two could take years of "re-education" as they try to fit in with society.
The big thing missing is that what might be good for society (breaking from this is girly or this is manly), isn't necessarily the best thing for the child. Kids are extremely adaptable and many will find ways of fitting within society as productive members no matter what is missing in their upbringing. That said things as simple as a name can cause problems with a child fitting in with school mates, giving trouble growing up that is already hard enough, trouble that can easily be avoided.
Would it be nice if some of the gender walls could be broken? Sure. But it will take someone more insensitive, with a much larger ego then myself to introduce more obstacles for my kids to send that message to the world.
I disagree the child needs guidance to fit into society, at least from the parents. If the parents are absent caregivers on this subject, the child is still going to get far more than necessary tutoring from his or her peers. The only tutelage that matters is tutelage that corresponds to the conform/notconform boolean of the situation, and the child is going to be put through those paces no matter his or her gender and no matter to which extent he or she expresses it.
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
What sort of gender-specific behavior do you feel the not-quite-4 year old is missing out on, exactly?
Hint; kids that age haven't really started sorting themselves yet.
What does that have to do with my post you quoted?
The fact that Pop is about to turn 4 and nobody knows Pop's gender isn't some sort of travesty. Can you come up with one gender-specific thing that you think Pop should be doing at this point during "healthy" development? Because if not, then the fact that Pop hasn't been publicly outed as a member of either gender really has no bearing on how he is being raised.
I didn't call it a travesty.
I mentioned it as a strong suggestion that Pop's parents are actively keeping Pop from reveling its own sex to people, rather than the passive sort of "we wont' say it and just let it come out naturally" than Hach seemed to be saying they were going for.
That's only likely in the reality you seem to be constructing around this kid.
Equally likely if not moreso is that Pop simply doesn't view his or her own gender as being important enough to work into conversation. You're inferring based on effectively zero evidence that Pop is being repressed here.
If Pop's parents aren't trying to prove a point, it's very likely Pop will adopt a traditional gender role.
The problem is that it really looks like the parents are trying to prove a point.
I mean, maybe. But that's not something you can just say with no evidence. All you have are suspicions based on... not sure what.
But it's ok to say gender is a social construct without evidence? I mean, really.
What? How is this a response to my post?
Anyway, I posted earlier that this whole social construct/innate trait thing is kind of a red herring. It doesn't really matter for instance whether, say, being transgendered is something socialized or something physiological. The point is that sometimes, for whatever reason, people aren't comfortable with the gender/sex roles they are expected to carry out due to their appearance.
Posts
except that they say later on that they will let the child choose its gender
really, the whole thing is a mess of contradictions. I'm not certain that the parents even know exactly what their own goal is.
Which gets back to the whole point that they are using an unwitting child to make some huge social statement. THAT is what is harmful to the kid here.
But why do we believe that children need guidance to behave according to their gender? If gender is intrinsically linked with physiology, then the child will express a conventional gender identity even without parental prompting. On the other hand, if gender identity is something that a child needs to be guided toward, then it is obviously not essential to the child's sex. Why not let the child express what comes naturally? Or, assuming that totally "natural" (that is, completely uninfluenced by society) gender identification is impossible, why not at least relax the parental pressures toward conformity?
If their goal is to raise their child in a genderless bubble they should have their kid taken away because they are monsters.
It's too early to tell, but they sound like fruitcakes and I don't get a positive vibe from their own explanation of what they are doing.
Gender identity will be expressed and the child will need guidance to fit into society. If the parents aren't providing that appropriate guidance and just letting the kids physiology express itself, then they aren't parenting, they're trying to raise a cave-baby.
And how do you think people treat the baby when the parents refuse to say what gender it is?
My guess: "like an alien".
THIS, I see as a problem for Pop's socialization.
So if they actually do what they say they will do and truly accept the child's choices, it's fine.
If they do not do what they say they will do, then ... who knows!
Please be more specific. What exactly do the parents need to do once the child has "chosen" a gender?
Normally yes, even children with neglectful parents will hash out a place in society (though their odds of it being a good place are much lower than children with active parents).
But we can't assume Pop is able to or allowed to interact with peers because if it were, it's gender would quickly become a reality. It's likely it's parents are keeping it from having meaningful interaction with other children.
Provide it with pink frilly dresses or tonka trucks as appropriate, of course. :P
There's actually nothing in the OP that indicates this is the case. This is, yet again, an utterly baseless assumption. At two years old, Pop and his childhood playmates are pre-verbal. They have no understanding of sex and gender.
----
And re: filly dresses and tonka trunks: As per the OP, Pop is already being allowed to wear whatever clothes Pop wants and whatever toys Pop wants to play with. So... All right, go parents!
Two year olds are most certainly not pre-verbal.
I don't think you really know that much about early childhood development.
-edit-
And did you really miss the sarcasm inherent in the frilly dresses/tonka trucks statement?
Their motives are incredibly important, Hach.
Ignoring things doesn't make them go away.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I can agree to this entirely
with the caveat that I still think parading around a "baby alien" is harmful to the baby, even if it is too young to remember the incidents specifically
@Jeepguy
Yes, at 2 a child is learning how to talk. They will generally have a vocabulary of about 200 words and can put together two-word sentences.
This is still way too early for Pop to be enduring the opprobrium of his/her peers over gender matters. There is no reason at all to believe Pop is being isolated from other children. You just made that up because you are suspicious of the parents' motives.
The interview that the article is based on is more than a year old, currently. As far as I can tell, there are no updates with the gender of the child, and considering how big of a news item wthis was last year, I would expect there would be if it got out.
Which means that Pop right now is about to turn 4 years old, and still no one is aware of its sex.
It's important to recognize transgenderism early, but it's fairly rare and you don't need to (and should not want to) treat your child as a transgender or non-gendered person "just in case".
That makes about as much sense as putting your kid on chemotherapy just in case they have childhood leukemia.
-edit-
And everything about this thread confirms my belief that sociologists and their disciples should be kept away from children.
Hint; kids that age haven't really started sorting themselves yet.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Telling about what? Are you going to pretend that I'm some kind of secret conventionalist again?
Did you skip the context of my posts, that parading around a baby that you refuse to tell people the sex of in public will have the baby treated as an "alien" by members of society? I am not defending them, I am jst pointing out that is how out culture is.
Or as Hachface said, the fact that people refer to this child raised with the first (and maybe second) scalar on the gender identity continuum hidden from the public makes it then an "alien".
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Hey, look, more assumptions.
You really have no reason to suppose this at all. It is just as likely that Pop ended up with a conventional gender expression and ceased to be newsworthy. Neither of us know.
What does that have to do with my post you quoted?
The problem is that it really looks like the parents are trying to prove a point.
What.
The.
Fuck.
This is EXACTLY the reason the parents of this child are doing what they are doing.
Right, both options are just as likely, so you are going to treat the one you like as gospel, and accuse me of making assumptions on the other.
You are very silly, Hach. Very silly.
Concealing the kids gender in case he prefers unbifurcated garments is the single fucking stupidest thing I have ever heard.
I mean, maybe. But that's not something you can just say with no evidence. All you have are suspicions based on... not sure what.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
But it's ok to say gender is a social construct without evidence? I mean, really.
But, you see, Pop's parents are only parents to Pop, not to ALL of the other kids.
Meaning that while Pop can do whatever Pop chooses, Pop will still face social consequences for those choices.
Which gets back to the point I made a while ago about Pop being raised as a martyr.
I didn't call it a travesty.
I mentioned it as a strong suggestion that Pop's parents are actively keeping Pop from reveling its own sex to people, rather than the passive sort of "we wont' say it and just let it come out naturally" than Hach seemed to be saying they were going for.
And how can you be certain that they aren't?
Agreed. Kids learn very young, their ability to adapt and learn pretty much slows down as they get older not the other way around. Much like a dog, even pre-verbal children will recognize social structures. Things they learn at age two could take years of "re-education" as they try to fit in with society.
The big thing missing is that what might be good for society (breaking from this is girly or this is manly), isn't necessarily the best thing for the child. Kids are extremely adaptable and many will find ways of fitting within society as productive members no matter what is missing in their upbringing. That said things as simple as a name can cause problems with a child fitting in with school mates, giving trouble growing up that is already hard enough, trouble that can easily be avoided.
Would it be nice if some of the gender walls could be broken? Sure. But it will take someone more insensitive, with a much larger ego then myself to introduce more obstacles for my kids to send that message to the world.
That's only likely in the reality you seem to be constructing around this kid.
Equally likely if not moreso is that Pop simply doesn't view his or her own gender as being important enough to work into conversation. You're inferring based on effectively zero evidence that Pop is being repressed here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
What? How is this a response to my post?
Anyway, I posted earlier that this whole social construct/innate trait thing is kind of a red herring. It doesn't really matter for instance whether, say, being transgendered is something socialized or something physiological. The point is that sometimes, for whatever reason, people aren't comfortable with the gender/sex roles they are expected to carry out due to their appearance.
What is it with you?
Gender roles are clearly constructed. Women enjoying dresses and the colour pink, for example, are provably cultural impositions.
"Gender" means "the social identity ascribed to a genital sex."
you can certainly argue about the boundary between biological characteristics of genital sex and socialized characteristics of gender.
But the word "gender" is used by definition to refer to social constructs in the context of these discussions.