Jeepguy I am very confused- first you make a post saying that kids should have boundaries, and if someone's little boy wants to wear a dress to school, maybe we should step in and tell them not to do that because it isn't what boys do.
And then you say there is no evidence for gender being a social construct?
I love you man but you are being really silly about this, in addition to being logically inconsistent.
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.
Not gender, sex.
Four year olds know what body parts they have. A four year old who is keeping their body parts a total secret is being coached to do so.
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.
Spot on.
Constructed gender roles ARE harmful to people, but they need to be undone on a societal level, not an individual one.
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.
Not gender, sex.
Four year olds know what body parts they have. A four year old who is keeping their body parts a total secret is being coached to do so.
Oh hey you didn't read the article!
Although Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl, Pop's parents never use personal pronouns when referring to the child – they just say Pop.
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.
Not gender, sex.
Four year olds know what body parts they have. A four year old who is keeping their body parts a total secret is being coached to do so.
Oh hey you didn't read the article!
Although Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl, Pop's parents never use personal pronouns when referring to the child – they just say Pop.
That DOES NOT have anythign to do with what I just said.
I read the article a year ago, when it was published. The kid is now almost four years old. Again, the behavior of a four year old is different from a two year old.
you can certainly argue about the boundary between biological characteristics of genital sex and socialized characteristics of gender.
You're confused about biological sex, it's a lot more than genitals. The Reimer case proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately social scientists cling to the provably false belief that biological sex is limited to the genitals in the face of real scientific evidence showing us that it goes right down to the brain structure.
While it is possible in transgendered people to see a brain-gential mismatch, and suggested by studies of lesbian brains that you see in homosexuals a brain that shows some characteristics of the opposite sex compared to the genitals it is a fact for the most part that our gender choice is dictated by our biology, not our socialization.
I, like others, am just more worried about how Pop's childhood will go when those in society cast him/her out for the off behavior.
Sure, teachers and parents and those who have developed an open mind will encourage him/her but his/her peers, most of them, will see Pop as no more than the 'Weird kid' for a decent chunk of his/her early life.
edit: I am focusing mainly on the looks yes, kids don't mind if you're not as manly or girly or what not, there will always be kids who play together who don't fit in personality wise. It's the whole dressing thing. If they don't encourage Pop to choose a style (or stick to gender neutral clothing and hairstyles) kids will start to notice when Pop goes from looking like a girl in a dress to looking like a boy in a...well, boys don't really have clothing specific to them anymore but some clothes will make him/her ambiguous.
Was nobody here teased as a He/She? Kids can be fucking awful.
edit2: It sounds like the parents might be preparing him/her for this sort of thing though, which, if so, is good. Either that or they're just hoping the gender neutral raising will endow Pop with the ability to endure the constant name calling...I hope not.
But if you have a boy child, and you don't want him to have a horrific childhood, and the social norm is men-blue, dress the fucking kid in blue.
I agree. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with dressing a child blue because that is the current norm? I mean, as far as "gender roles lol" go, it's as harmless as it gets.
Only when you get into behavioral roles like "men need to be aggressive and alpha" and "women need to be polite and submissive" that you need to start treading carefully.
I don't see why everyone is up in arms about this. The parents are letting the child pick the gender role it wants and not telling anyone else the childs sex so that they can't force a gender role on it.
Oh noes! Other children will tease them! They'll be scarred for life! News flash, children get teased. They live. And they get teased for much worse things than acting outside of a gender role. I grew up as a girl who identified more with the male gender role, playing with trucks and hating dresses. And I NEVER got teased for it. I got teased, but not for that. On the scale of things kids will tease each other about, gender role is small potatoes.
I think the parents are doing a good thing by allowing the Pop to choose their own gender to identify with. And if Pop decides to chose a non-traditional role for their sex, the fact that they were allowed to do so will likely leave them more mentally at peace than having a non suited role chosen for them.
In all actuallity Pop will likely gravitate towards their role within the next year or so, if they havn't already, and from then on it will stick. How can it be wrong for them to be able to choose the role they enjoy as opposed to having one forced on them?
Decomposey on
Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
In all actuallity Pop will likely gravitate towards their role within the next year or so, if they havn't already, and from then on it will stick. How can it be wrong for them to be able to choose the role they enjoy as opposed to having one forced on them?
This.
As long as this happens, things should be okay...ish. I mean, no worse than someone who chooses to grow up outside their own gender.
God help Pop if he/she never chooses or chooses late enough that he/she becomes known as something like "You remember how Pop used to wear dresses 8 years ago? Gaaaaaay"
(no offense, really, this is really just how kids can be)
Oh noes! Other children will tease them! They'll be scarred for life! News flash, children get teased. They live. And they get teased for much worse things than acting outside of a gender role. I grew up as a girl who identified more with the male gender role, playing with trucks and hating dresses. And I NEVER got teased for it. I got teased, but not for that.
Say that after your kid commits suicide, or takes up cutting. The parents are putting their kid at a disadvantage, not because they can't afford this, or their job's keep them away, or they just don't know how to handle that. They are doing it to either A.) prove a point or B.) as social experiment. Even in the likelihood that their child eventually finds a comfortable place in life, its doubtful any useful information is gained, and they just end up with a kid that resents them more growing up then most kids usually do. That's a best case scenario really.
Saying kids get teased and bullied is one thing. Introducing something you know your kid is going to get teased or bullied about, only for some selfish reason is sadistic.
The problem isn't that falling completely on one side or the other of this chart is bad, but you get a problem where you are forced down one side due to where you happened to fall on the first question. The other problem is forcing the second selection due to the first as well.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
Well, I for one am curious how this goes. Either Pop will be the most egalitarian well adjusted human being on the planet. Or the most identity crisis ridden monster ever to exist. Or just another angsty spoiled brat who makes everyones life more difficult. Hippies tend to raise that type of kid a lot.
I grew up as a girl who identified more with the male gender role, playing with trucks and hating dresses. And I NEVER got teased for it. I got teased, but not for that. On the scale of things kids will tease each other about, gender role is small potatoes.
I got teased, but not for that. On the scale of things kids will tease each other about, gender role is small potatoes.
On the one hand, all of the dead women who died where you "weren't teased" are rolling in their graves, and on the other hand, all of the dead would-be-women who wore a dress to school when they shouldn't have and ended up in the same place are also rolling in their graves and I'm unable to choose which group you were just more insensitive to.
"Gender role is small potatoes" is ... it's a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. I don't know the context of where you grew up, but the fact you were able to make such a sweepingly broad and sweepingly horrendously wrong statement makes me think you come from either the furthest echelons of privilege or the goddamn moon.
The problem isn't that falling completely on one side or the other of this chart is bad, but you get a problem where you are forced down one side due to where you happened to fall on the first question. The other problem is forcing the second selection due to the first as well.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
Actually the worst case scenario is that your daughter takes your guidelines as rules, and is socially criticized for stepping outside of them. This happens all the time, and there are people who have posted in this thread who have suffered as a result. Guiding a child towards specific gender roles based on the fact that they have certain physical characteristics is exactly the reason these people are doing this.
I grew up as a girl who identified more with the male gender role, playing with trucks and hating dresses. And I NEVER got teased for it. I got teased, but not for that. On the scale of things kids will tease each other about, gender role is small potatoes.
I got teased, but not for that. On the scale of things kids will tease each other about, gender role is small potatoes.
On the one hand, all of the dead women who died where you "weren't teased" are rolling in their graves, and on the other hand, all of the dead would-be-women who wore a dress to school when they shouldn't have and ended up in the same place are also rolling in their graves and I'm unable to choose which group you were just more insensitive to.
"Gender role is small potatoes" is ... it's a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. I don't know the context of where you grew up, but the fact you were able to make such a sweepingly broad and sweepingly horrendously wrong statement makes me think you come from either the furthest echelons of privilege or the goddamn moon.
Seriously, her post was a god damn joke. What the hell were you thinking, Decomposey? That your awesome experiences apply to everyone?
The problem isn't that falling completely on one side or the other of this chart is bad, but you get a problem where you are forced down one side due to where you happened to fall on the first question. The other problem is forcing the second selection due to the first as well.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
Actually the worst case scenario is that your daughter takes your guidelines as rules, and is socially criticized for stepping outside of them. This happens all the time, and there are people who have posted in this thread who have suffered as a result. Guiding a child towards specific gender roles based on the fact that they have certain physical characteristics is exactly the reason these people are doing this.
Sex is not just cosmetic physical characteristics and reproductive organs. This has been disproven by actual science.
Someone really needs to beat this into heads more firmly than I can be bothered to.
The problem isn't that falling completely on one side or the other of this chart is bad, but you get a problem where you are forced down one side due to where you happened to fall on the first question. The other problem is forcing the second selection due to the first as well.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
Actually the worst case scenario is that your daughter takes your guidelines as rules, and is socially criticized for stepping outside of them. This happens all the time, and there are people who have posted in this thread who have suffered as a result. Guiding a child towards specific gender roles based on the fact that they have certain physical characteristics is exactly the reason these people are doing this.
Sex is not just cosmetic physical characteristics and reproductive organs. This has been disproven by actual science.
Someone really needs to beat this into head more firmly than I can be bothered to.
I know that, and it really doesn't change my argument at all, considering the argument in question is based on a sliding scale I posted last page that accounts for this
Kids committing suicide over social issues stemming from interactions with other kids has been making headline news for some time now. Shit, that Irish girl killed herself because the kids she went to high school with railed on her for just being Irish, something she had no control over. Kids need any little reason, or no reason at all, to be malicious to one another, so sending your child out there into the world with something as - dare I say, abnormal - as being "genderless" is like sending them out with a giant target on their chest.
Hopefully this sort of thing won't happen to Pop but hey, you can't know that it won't. Maybe things are different in Switzerland and people are more accepting, so this might be a safe environment for a child like this to grow and prosper.
The problem isn't that falling completely on one side or the other of this chart is bad, but you get a problem where you are forced down one side due to where you happened to fall on the first question. The other problem is forcing the second selection due to the first as well.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
Actually the worst case scenario is that your daughter takes your guidelines as rules, and is socially criticized for stepping outside of them. This happens all the time, and there are people who have posted in this thread who have suffered as a result. Guiding a child towards specific gender roles based on the fact that they have certain physical characteristics is exactly the reason these people are doing this.
Sex is not just cosmetic physical characteristics and reproductive organs. This has been disproven by actual science.
Someone really needs to beat this into head more firmly than I can be bothered to.
I know that, and it really doesn't change my argument at all, considering the argument in question is based on a sliding scale I posted last page that accounts for this
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
It's a type of culture war by proxy that I find offensive.
The most disturbing thing about the news article in the OP was the last paragraph where it says "they are planning to have another child and put her through the same no-gender treatment!"
You know, without even seeing if Pop will actually turn out as awesome as they think he/she will. That alone is proof that they are batshit insane.
The problem isn't that falling completely on one side or the other of this chart is bad, but you get a problem where you are forced down one side due to where you happened to fall on the first question. The other problem is forcing the second selection due to the first as well.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
Actually the worst case scenario is that your daughter takes your guidelines as rules, and is socially criticized for stepping outside of them. This happens all the time, and there are people who have posted in this thread who have suffered as a result. Guiding a child towards specific gender roles based on the fact that they have certain physical characteristics is exactly the reason these people are doing this.
Sex is not just cosmetic physical characteristics and reproductive organs. This has been disproven by actual science.
Someone really needs to beat this into heads more firmly than I can be bothered to.
Thats the funny thing. No matter how much science you bring up, the people who want to believe that ALL gender is merely a social construct will insist that the science was done wrong. Cause, you know, ideology.
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by allowing Pop to have an ambiguous gender presentation.
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by keeping Pop's gender presentation ambiguous.
Thank you
Also Namrok and jeepguy- You guys would do REALLY WELL to read everything backwardsname, feral, and myself said back on page twenty because you are arguing strawmen that nobody here is using
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by allowing Pop to have an ambiguous gender presentation.
Jesus when I said keep these people away from kids you are exactly what I meant.
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by allowing Pop to have an ambiguous gender presentation.
Jesus when I said keep these people away from kids you are exactly what I meant.
Cannot disagree with your post more.
You are the problem here not the parents nor the desire to raise a child as agendered as possible
So his teenager years will be exactly like every other high school student.
No, it will be worse. But who cares right, as long as we learn something interesting from this experiment that's all that matters.
Keep these people away from kids.
Man, do you think this kid is growing up in Alabama or something? Maybe if he was I'd agree, but they're in fucking Sweden. I'm a genderqueer freak who grew up in Central Illinois here in the good ol' US and even my youth hasn't been as horrific as you go on about. Maybe Sweden's ultra strict in regards to gender roles, but I doubt it.
Kids committing suicide over social issues stemming from interactions with other kids has been making headline news for some time now. Shit, that Irish girl killed herself because the kids she went to high school with railed on her for just being Irish, something she had no control over. Kids need any little reason, or no reason at all, to be malicious to one another, so sending your child out there into the world with something as - dare I say, abnormal - as being "genderless" is like sending them out with a giant target on their chest.
I completely agreed with you up until the red part. The thing is, sending your kid out into the world PERIOD is sending them out with a giant target on their chests. Kids will be insecure about things, and other kids will tease them about those things, and it isn't going to matter one bit what that "thing" is. Genderless? Maybe they'll get teased. Too smart? Maybe they'll get teased. Irish? Maybe they'll get teased.
Could the parents try to get Pop to conform in every way possible? Yes. And then Pop wouldn't get teased for those things Pop has some control over. But will that mean Pop is never teased? NO. Could you argue that making Pop "weird" in this way will pre-dispose him slightly to being teased? Maybe... but since I'm pretty sure it happens to every person, for one reason or another, it really doesn't matter.
So if Pop is going to get teased no matter what, it won't matter if the parents tell Pop that Pop is a Martian. What matters is whether the parents give Pop the tools to deal with any inevitable teasing: self confidence, self acceptance, etc. And this article doesn't really say whether the parents are doing that. But really that is the MOST important thing to determine whether this little "experiment" works.
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by allowing Pop to have an ambiguous gender presentation.
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by allowing Pop to have an ambiguous gender presentation.
Jesus when I said keep these people away from kids you are exactly what I meant.
Cannot disagree with your post more.
You are the problem here not the parents nor the desire to raise a child as agendered as possible
No, he is not. He's simply pointing out the obvious that the rest of you seem to be missing because GENDER ROLES ARE BAD AMIRITE
Jeepguy: you're misreading. When I say genital sex, I am not saying that sex is only the genitals. There may well be portions of identity that are biologically determined by genital sex. I have little problem with this. As I said, the question is where the boundary is.
When people say "gender is a construct" they mean that the gender roles - our ideas of what is feminine and what is masculine - are constructed. This is a pretty well supported notion.
They are not saying that the difference between male and female is constructed. Some might say that; I would say that there is some socialization on top of existing genetic and hormonal factors.
Even biologically, sex and gender are much more complicated than M/F. The strict binary is an oversimplification even from a strictly biological point of view. I read just yesterday a claim that there are ten different kinds of biological systems that determine our "sex" and most people have a varied distribution of M or F tendencies in each.
Your objection to this particular situation seems to be that raising a child to defy social norms at risk of harm is irresponsible. I disagree. Enforcing gender roles is itself traumatic. Since you are presumably openly gay, I find your suggestion that we should suppress a child's developing identity for the safety of conformity to be strange.
You may also be underestimating the stark cultural differences between the US and sweden (and its surroundings).
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by keeping Pop's gender presentation ambiguous.
Thank you
Also Namrok and jeepguy- You guys would do REALLY WELL to read everything backwardsname, feral, and myself said back on page twenty because you are arguing strawmen that nobody here is using
I've read your posts dude, do you find it impossible to believe that I might still disagree with this?
We can get female CEOs and astronauts and male touchy-feely social workers without raising creepy bubble-children
It's called telling your kids they can be whoever/whatever that want and making sure they feel supported. Preventing them from socializing like a normal member of their gender is not going to produce these results you want, but I guess we'll just have to wait for your creepy social experiments to pan out for y'all to realize it.
haha do you seriously believe in "an ambiguous gender presentation"
Oh yes, ambiguous gender presentations are very much real! It's certainly possible to take any given person and have them appear "ambiguous" or "androgynous" instead of as one of multiple kinds of failures or undesirables.
There is little more that frustrates me more than the idealist undercurrent supporting bullshit like "androgyny" that doesn't work in the real world in the vast majority of cases, and is equivalent in all actual application to very different things.
Posts
And then you say there is no evidence for gender being a social construct?
I love you man but you are being really silly about this, in addition to being logically inconsistent.
Not gender, sex.
Four year olds know what body parts they have. A four year old who is keeping their body parts a total secret is being coached to do so.
Spot on.
Constructed gender roles ARE harmful to people, but they need to be undone on a societal level, not an individual one.
Oh hey you didn't read the article!
That DOES NOT have anythign to do with what I just said.
I read the article a year ago, when it was published. The kid is now almost four years old. Again, the behavior of a four year old is different from a two year old.
I'm a terrible person.
OK... those are both very shallow examples and those you can prove.
Unquestionably so.
You're confused about biological sex, it's a lot more than genitals. The Reimer case proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately social scientists cling to the provably false belief that biological sex is limited to the genitals in the face of real scientific evidence showing us that it goes right down to the brain structure.
While it is possible in transgendered people to see a brain-gential mismatch, and suggested by studies of lesbian brains that you see in homosexuals a brain that shows some characteristics of the opposite sex compared to the genitals it is a fact for the most part that our gender choice is dictated by our biology, not our socialization.
The word gender is being tossed around along with the bullshit idea that our social gender is something we picked out of a sorting hat.
It doesn't matter whether it's men-blue women-pink or men-pink women-blue. No one cares, fine.
But if you have a boy child, and you don't want him to have a horrific childhood, and the social norm is men-blue, dress the fucking kid in blue.
Sure, teachers and parents and those who have developed an open mind will encourage him/her but his/her peers, most of them, will see Pop as no more than the 'Weird kid' for a decent chunk of his/her early life.
edit: I am focusing mainly on the looks yes, kids don't mind if you're not as manly or girly or what not, there will always be kids who play together who don't fit in personality wise. It's the whole dressing thing. If they don't encourage Pop to choose a style (or stick to gender neutral clothing and hairstyles) kids will start to notice when Pop goes from looking like a girl in a dress to looking like a boy in a...well, boys don't really have clothing specific to them anymore but some clothes will make him/her ambiguous.
Was nobody here teased as a He/She? Kids can be fucking awful.
edit2: It sounds like the parents might be preparing him/her for this sort of thing though, which, if so, is good. Either that or they're just hoping the gender neutral raising will endow Pop with the ability to endure the constant name calling...I hope not.
I agree. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with dressing a child blue because that is the current norm? I mean, as far as "gender roles lol" go, it's as harmless as it gets.
Only when you get into behavioral roles like "men need to be aggressive and alpha" and "women need to be polite and submissive" that you need to start treading carefully.
Oh noes! Other children will tease them! They'll be scarred for life! News flash, children get teased. They live. And they get teased for much worse things than acting outside of a gender role. I grew up as a girl who identified more with the male gender role, playing with trucks and hating dresses. And I NEVER got teased for it. I got teased, but not for that. On the scale of things kids will tease each other about, gender role is small potatoes.
I think the parents are doing a good thing by allowing the Pop to choose their own gender to identify with. And if Pop decides to chose a non-traditional role for their sex, the fact that they were allowed to do so will likely leave them more mentally at peace than having a non suited role chosen for them.
In all actuallity Pop will likely gravitate towards their role within the next year or so, if they havn't already, and from then on it will stick. How can it be wrong for them to be able to choose the role they enjoy as opposed to having one forced on them?
This.
As long as this happens, things should be okay...ish. I mean, no worse than someone who chooses to grow up outside their own gender.
God help Pop if he/she never chooses or chooses late enough that he/she becomes known as something like "You remember how Pop used to wear dresses 8 years ago? Gaaaaaay"
(no offense, really, this is really just how kids can be)
So his teenager years will be exactly like every other high school student.
Say that after your kid commits suicide, or takes up cutting. The parents are putting their kid at a disadvantage, not because they can't afford this, or their job's keep them away, or they just don't know how to handle that. They are doing it to either A.) prove a point or B.) as social experiment. Even in the likelihood that their child eventually finds a comfortable place in life, its doubtful any useful information is gained, and they just end up with a kid that resents them more growing up then most kids usually do. That's a best case scenario really.
Saying kids get teased and bullied is one thing. Introducing something you know your kid is going to get teased or bullied about, only for some selfish reason is sadistic.
I guess I just dont see the problem assuming the norm and guiding down that path until a reason to act differently appears.
I mean, if I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be good at science, I would like to guide him in that direction. If I can get a pretty decent guess my kid is going to be great at baseball, same thing. Unfortunately early on, I wont have those.
I would however, have a pretty good guess that my daughter likely wont be able to complete well as a construction worker due to the fact that I myself am not that big, my fiance is petite and females are naturally smaller.
Guiding her down a path that stays away from that until she shows interest in it, or shows physical abilities which hint at a potential there does not seem bad.
I dont see how its harmful to do so.
If she decides to show interest in it, or show the ability to do well in it, it would be harmful to direct her away from that.
The worst case scenerio here is that perhaps she would have maybe enjoyed construction, and learned to be adequate at it despite her physical short commings and thus missed out. But really, she wont even know so theres no harm done.
Now the way our society treats people who break their assumed gender roles based on sex is something I can definately agree we need to fix. However I dont agree that eliminating the corelation between role and sex is the way to go.
On the one hand, all of the dead women who died where you "weren't teased" are rolling in their graves, and on the other hand, all of the dead would-be-women who wore a dress to school when they shouldn't have and ended up in the same place are also rolling in their graves and I'm unable to choose which group you were just more insensitive to.
"Gender role is small potatoes" is ... it's a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. I don't know the context of where you grew up, but the fact you were able to make such a sweepingly broad and sweepingly horrendously wrong statement makes me think you come from either the furthest echelons of privilege or the goddamn moon.
Actually the worst case scenario is that your daughter takes your guidelines as rules, and is socially criticized for stepping outside of them. This happens all the time, and there are people who have posted in this thread who have suffered as a result. Guiding a child towards specific gender roles based on the fact that they have certain physical characteristics is exactly the reason these people are doing this.
Seriously, her post was a god damn joke. What the hell were you thinking, Decomposey? That your awesome experiences apply to everyone?
No, it will be worse. But who cares right, as long as we learn something interesting from this experiment that's all that matters.
You can't know that
Also Jeep you realize that this is exactly the way I am going to raise any kids I ever have?
Sex is not just cosmetic physical characteristics and reproductive organs. This has been disproven by actual science.
Someone really needs to beat this into heads more firmly than I can be bothered to.
I feel sorry for your future offspring.
I know that, and it really doesn't change my argument at all, considering the argument in question is based on a sliding scale I posted last page that accounts for this
Hopefully this sort of thing won't happen to Pop but hey, you can't know that it won't. Maybe things are different in Switzerland and people are more accepting, so this might be a safe environment for a child like this to grow and prosper.
You are not actually paying attention to what anyone in this thread is actually saying.
You also seem to have a problem with confusing negative gender stereotypes (women can't be competitive, boy's can't cry) with simple elements of society that don't damage us except by our failure to conform to them. You gain nothing by trying to get your children to buck these trends, and only make their lives worse.
It's a type of culture war by proxy that I find offensive.
You know, without even seeing if Pop will actually turn out as awesome as they think he/she will. That alone is proof that they are batshit insane.
Thats the funny thing. No matter how much science you bring up, the people who want to believe that ALL gender is merely a social construct will insist that the science was done wrong. Cause, you know, ideology.
Except that when dealing with a small child, other people will take the way the child is dressed and other external presentations as a signifier of their gender, and treat them differently as a result. If the parents wish to avoid having outside sources enforce toxic gender norms on Pop, the only way they can accomplish this is by allowing Pop to have an ambiguous gender presentation.
Thank you
Also Namrok and jeepguy- You guys would do REALLY WELL to read everything backwardsname, feral, and myself said back on page twenty because you are arguing strawmen that nobody here is using
Jesus when I said keep these people away from kids you are exactly what I meant.
Cannot disagree with your post more.
You are the problem here not the parents nor the desire to raise a child as agendered as possible
Man, do you think this kid is growing up in Alabama or something? Maybe if he was I'd agree, but they're in fucking Sweden. I'm a genderqueer freak who grew up in Central Illinois here in the good ol' US and even my youth hasn't been as horrific as you go on about. Maybe Sweden's ultra strict in regards to gender roles, but I doubt it.
Could the parents try to get Pop to conform in every way possible? Yes. And then Pop wouldn't get teased for those things Pop has some control over. But will that mean Pop is never teased? NO. Could you argue that making Pop "weird" in this way will pre-dispose him slightly to being teased? Maybe... but since I'm pretty sure it happens to every person, for one reason or another, it really doesn't matter.
So if Pop is going to get teased no matter what, it won't matter if the parents tell Pop that Pop is a Martian. What matters is whether the parents give Pop the tools to deal with any inevitable teasing: self confidence, self acceptance, etc. And this article doesn't really say whether the parents are doing that. But really that is the MOST important thing to determine whether this little "experiment" works.
Oh christ, I never even thought of that.
No, he is not. He's simply pointing out the obvious that the rest of you seem to be missing because GENDER ROLES ARE BAD AMIRITE
When people say "gender is a construct" they mean that the gender roles - our ideas of what is feminine and what is masculine - are constructed. This is a pretty well supported notion.
They are not saying that the difference between male and female is constructed. Some might say that; I would say that there is some socialization on top of existing genetic and hormonal factors.
Even biologically, sex and gender are much more complicated than M/F. The strict binary is an oversimplification even from a strictly biological point of view. I read just yesterday a claim that there are ten different kinds of biological systems that determine our "sex" and most people have a varied distribution of M or F tendencies in each.
Your objection to this particular situation seems to be that raising a child to defy social norms at risk of harm is irresponsible. I disagree. Enforcing gender roles is itself traumatic. Since you are presumably openly gay, I find your suggestion that we should suppress a child's developing identity for the safety of conformity to be strange.
You may also be underestimating the stark cultural differences between the US and sweden (and its surroundings).
I've read your posts dude, do you find it impossible to believe that I might still disagree with this?
We can get female CEOs and astronauts and male touchy-feely social workers without raising creepy bubble-children
It's called telling your kids they can be whoever/whatever that want and making sure they feel supported. Preventing them from socializing like a normal member of their gender is not going to produce these results you want, but I guess we'll just have to wait for your creepy social experiments to pan out for y'all to realize it.
Oh yes, ambiguous gender presentations are very much real! It's certainly possible to take any given person and have them appear "ambiguous" or "androgynous" instead of as one of multiple kinds of failures or undesirables.
There is little more that frustrates me more than the idealist undercurrent supporting bullshit like "androgyny" that doesn't work in the real world in the vast majority of cases, and is equivalent in all actual application to very different things.