Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Pop the mysterious child

1151618202124

Posts

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    As far as I can tell, the parents have decided that the imposition of gender roles by peers and external influences is harmful. They want to keep it from happening. To do so, they have kept their child's sex a secret.

    They have decided that the potential harm from being androgynous or ambiguous and the accompanying mockery is less than the potential harm of being defined and constrained by what shape your junk is.

    I tend to agree with them. However, I'm not sure that it will work, because of the many possible problems mentioned - secondary sex characteristics, the assumption that a child of ambiguous gender is female, etc.

    I don't think the child will actually suffer. For most transfolk I know, their trauma was not the mockery of who they really are. The trauma was being forced into an identity that is not yours. If they overcame the latter, the former was nothing in comparison.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Dude fucking seriously. I swear you either lied about reading this article, or just plain can't fucking read.
    "I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime," said Pop's mother.

    Yes, we have the parents' word that pop has "shaped [a lot of] self confidence and personality". Except for the little detail that, a lot compared to what? How did they measure it? Is Pop significantly and noticeably more self-confident than other kids her age?

    Again, you're waaaaaay too biased towards the parents here, and giving them the benefit of the doubt when they don't really deserve it.

    And the opposite viewpoint is frankly, MORE ridiculous (that is, the view that these people are irrational lunatics who should not be trusted with children)

    You are entitled to your opinion on that, but the FACT stands that we do not know whether Pop is actually more self-confident and has a "better" personality, and, even if she does, it can be attributed to her genderless upbringing (and not to countless of other possible factors).

    This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

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

    The status quo seems to be just fine

    Hmmmmmm I think that lots of people really really disagree with you. And you may even be objectively wrong here.

    Having an androgenous society is quite a big shift, I'd like to see some evidence that it would solve any of the problems people are bitching about, and not lead to a whole set of other problems. From what I can gather, it's just what people feel would be better, not any actual hardcore data.

    There is an enormous gap between these two statements:

    1. "The status quo seems to be just fine."

    2. "It is uncertain how good alternatives to the status quo would be."

    Do not pretend that you made Reasonale Statement #2 when in fact you made Asinine Statement #1.

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    the status quo is fucking awesome if you're a straight white male

    Sorry, had to add the bolded

    oh but of course, but I thought we were only talking about the gender/gender role status quo

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    As far as I can tell, the parents have decided that the imposition of gender roles by peers and external influences is harmful. They want to keep it from happening. To do so, they have kept their child's sex a secret.

    They have decided that the potential harm from being androgynous or ambiguous and the accompanying mockery is less than the potential harm of being defined and constrained by what shape your junk is.

    I tend to agree with them. However, I'm not sure that it will work, because of the many possible problems mentioned - secondary sex characteristics, the assumption that a child of ambiguous gender is female, etc.

    I don't think the child will actually suffer. For most transfolk I know, their trauma was not the mockery of who they really are. The trauma was being forced into an identity that is not yours. If they overcame the latter, the former was nothing in comparison.

    THIS

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.

    The status quo seems to be just fine

    Hmmmmmm I think that lots of people really really disagree with you. And you may even be objectively wrong here.

    Having an androgenous society is quite a big shift, I'd like to see some evidence that it would solve any of the problems people are bitching about, and not lead to a whole set of other problems. From what I can gather, it's just what people feel would be better, not any actual hardcore data.

    The reasoning is "the current status quo is bad, so anything would be an improvement to it!!!!!!"

    Which is insane. There are ways to fix the problems with gender roles without eliminating gender from society altogether.
    This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

    You need to be a little more detailed than that if you actually want to have a discussion, rather than just try to demonize the opposition.

    Do we have any actual evidence that the way they are raising Pop is actually having positive effects on her personality, besides the parents' anecdotes?

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    georgersig.jpg
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited June 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This would be like in Georgia circa 50's if genetic engineering was possible, a white couple having the pigment of their kids skin changed prior to birth to be darker. Sure the kid isn't African-American, and even if he was shouldn't affect the way he is treated. But why in the world would you go out of the way to make life harder on your kid as a social experiment.

    No, it would be as if they let the kid choose their skin pigmentation.

    The parents aren't forcing jack shit on the kid. They are letting the kid choose whenever the kid wants to. Can you grasp this?

    The kid chooses, the parents support. The horror.

    But again, the kid isn't choosing. Society assigns 'female' to a child who wears dresses at all regularly and plays with dolls if not informed otherwise. The parents have assigned female to their child by their plan.

    I'm curious, what sorts of situations would see a 2.5-year-old absent its parents, but around people who would make this determination and interact significantly with the child?

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Protein Shakes the only evidence I have is the parent's word, and given that this is the only evidence of ANY type in this instance, I would say my position is MUCH stronger than yours and Evander's.

    Where are the facts to back up your claim that this is irresponsible parenting? Don't throw down the "f-word" if you don't have any on your side either.

  • Best AmericaBest America __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This would be like in Georgia circa 50's if genetic engineering was possible, a white couple having the pigment of their kids skin changed prior to birth to be darker. Sure the kid isn't African-American, and even if he was shouldn't affect the way he is treated. But why in the world would you go out of the way to make life harder on your kid as a social experiment.

    No, it would be as if they let the kid choose their skin pigmentation.

    The parents aren't forcing jack shit on the kid. They are letting the kid choose whenever the kid wants to. Can you grasp this?

    The kid chooses, the parents support. The horror.

    But again, the kid isn't choosing. Society assigns 'female' to a child who wears dresses at all regularly and plays with dolls if not informed otherwise. The parents have assigned female to their child by their plan.

    I'm curious, what sorts of situations would see a 2.5-year-old absent its parents, but around people who would make this determination and interact significantly with the child?
    What does "absent the parents" mean here? Consensus reality + instantaneous effects, bro

    right you got it
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited June 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »

    Well, I haven't LIVED in Sweden, so possibly there is an underlying layer of permissiveness that I missed, but I saw lots of little girls running around in long pants and doing 'boyish' things, and no little boys in dresses. It's just the way the world is right now.

    How would you know if you saw a little boy in a dress?

    tmkm.jpg
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    the status quo is fucking awesome if you're a straight white male

    Sorry, had to add the bolded

    Actually, this is taking place in Sweden. The status quo is pretty awesome for everyone. Leader in gay rights, approved gay marriage by 90%-10%. First to give women the right to vote. #1 worldwide for womens rights. #1 in smallest gender gap. #1 in women seated in government (47%, within error of absolute equality). #1 in democracy

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Guys you can't trust the parents.

    The kid's probably being force fed crack every day in my opinion.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    Pop's mother is a 24 year old mother of Pop, not a behavioral expert, or gener expert, or whatever.

    Just because she says that she thinks what she is doing will make Pop confident doesn't mean it actually will.

    Tell me, how do you know that a two and a half year olf is confident in its gender identify?



    Stop reading the article as you WANT it to be, and look at it honestly.

    So? You're talking out your ass, sorry, theorizing, just as much as everyone else. Stop trying to sound like an authority figure here. You have no idea if this will negatively affect Pop just as we only think it won't.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.

    The status quo seems to be just fine

    Hmmmmmm I think that lots of people really really disagree with you. And you may even be objectively wrong here.

    Having an androgenous society is quite a big shift, I'd like to see some evidence that it would solve any of the problems people are bitching about, and not lead to a whole set of other problems. From what I can gather, it's just what people feel would be better, not any actual hardcore data.

    The status quo is pretty bad for gays, transfolk, and women. It's even bad for straight men, since out cultural ideal of masculinity is deeply fucked up.

    No one has really provided any reasons that gender roles are in any way positive as a cultural force. Wouldn't it be better if people could be defined on their own merits and preferences? That's all I'm suggesting. It's about letting a person be what they want without restriction based on their genitals.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.

    The status quo seems to be just fine

    Hmmmmmm I think that lots of people really really disagree with you. And you may even be objectively wrong here.

    Having an androgenous society is quite a big shift, I'd like to see some evidence that it would solve any of the problems people are bitching about, and not lead to a whole set of other problems. From what I can gather, it's just what people feel would be better, not any actual hardcore data.

    That is a very different statement than "The Status Quo is just fine", and I hope you realize that.

    The devil you know is better than the one you don't.

    Humanity's problems will always exist, with genders or not. Those who don't have something will always cause conflict with those who have it. Social inequity will always exist.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »

    Well, I haven't LIVED in Sweden, so possibly there is an underlying layer of permissiveness that I missed, but I saw lots of little girls running around in long pants and doing 'boyish' things, and no little boys in dresses. It's just the way the world is right now.

    How would you know if you saw a little boy in a dress?

    Because once a child is over 5 or 6 you can just tell by looking. And, you can hear the names their parents call them.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    What eddy said is just as much an argument against Evander's view of the parents here as it is against Protein Shakes'

  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.

    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm very sorry guys, but thread over!

    Seriously, nothing else needs to be said. Evander just nailed it in the fucking head. If you want to change the status quo, go and do it yourself. DO NOT USE YOUR CHILD.
    Protein Shakes the only evidence I have is the parent's word, and given that this is the only evidence of ANY type in this instance, I would say my position is MUCH stronger than yours and Evander's.

    I'd rather have no evidence than just anecdotal evidence, because anecdotal evidence can be easily made up.
    Where are the facts to back up your claim that this is irresponsible parenting?

    This is from like 15 pages ago, please either pay attention or go back and review the arguments. It is irresponsible parenting because the parents are trying something that has never been tried before on their 2 year old child with blind assumptions about how it will lead to much better results than the normal way. They literally have zero scientific evidence that raising kids in a genderless environment makes them more confident and have better personalities.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Protein shakes we have scientific evidence that there can be psychological harm from raising children in a cis-gendered manner, you DO realize that right?

    Right?

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The devil you know is better than the one you don't.

    Humanity's problems will always exist, with genders or not. Those who don't have something will always cause conflict with those who have it. Social inequity will always exist.

    Life will always have problems so we shouldn't try to improve it is a shit argument.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    Gender roles are so deeply ingrained into our society that a grown man wearing a dress is not practical. In fact, they are so deep that if you put on a dress it would probably feel physically uncomfortable to you. Think about that - the only reason the dress is 'feminine' is because humans decided it was.

    raising our children to view themselves and others as a person first and a gender second is not a bad idea. Or in clearer terms, teaching them to simply place less emphasis on gender is not a bad thing.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Protein Shakes, that limed statement from Evander is ridiculous on its face and you should be ashamed that you believe that it is actually insightful enough to not only lime, but put in obnoxiously big type.

    See sidhaethe's post on the previous page.

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Not only that protein, but from 15 pages ago ElJeffe pretty easily destroyed the argument you just made about "scientific evidence" and parenting.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Seriously, nothing else needs to be said. Evander just nailed it in the fucking head. If you want to change the status quo, go and do it yourself. DO NOT USE YOUR CHILD.

    You mean like the status quo of how you have to raise your child exactly like everyone else insists you do lest they decide to be assholes?

    PSN: allenquid
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    Pop's mother is a 24 year old mother of Pop, not a behavioral expert, or gener expert, or whatever.

    Just because she says that she thinks what she is doing will make Pop confident doesn't mean it actually will.

    Tell me, how do you know that a two and a half year olf is confident in its gender identify?



    Stop reading the article as you WANT it to be, and look at it honestly.

    So? You're talking out your ass, sorry, theorizing, just as much as everyone else. Stop trying to sound like an authority figure here. You have no idea if this will negatively affect Pop just as we only think it won't.

    The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.

    Seriously, responsible parenting. Go read some books on it, or something, because this is fucking depressing.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    "Well that's a nifty idea, I wonder how it will work out". But then I come to the realization that this is happening because of the decision the parents are making for their child. A decision that even if the kid eventually ends up fitting in somewhere, will undoubtedly have a horrible affect on their childhood.

    Why?

    Why do you think this?

    If Pop ends up conforming to a traditional role, which most people in this thread seem to agree Pop will, barring (wholly unsubstantiated) parental pressure, Pop probably won't have any memory of this part of his or her life.

    My belief is that this will feed a gender role confusion that will continue for quite awhile. I figure that while he will find his place, its not going to be one day him saying to himself (assuming its a boy) "hey I am guy, time to stop wearing dresses, playing with barbie dolls, liking the color pink, pissing in the girls bathroom...etc". Each one will slowly and surely be stamped out by pressure from same sex classmates, possibly even opposite sex classmates, and the later these happen the harder emotionally any damage incurred will be to overcome. Even if its almost all like normal by the time they are 7 or 8. You have successfully made your child's childhood harder on him, just because you wanted to. A child isn't some kind of barbie doll so we should just keep on truckin' and enforcing the traditional views.

    I added something to your post, do you see how it invalidates your entire argument? Because by raising them cis-gendered you are raising them in a way you want to which ignores the problems a transgendered individual raised cis genderedly can face! You have just made their childhood harder on them!

    I don't see how it invalidates my point. You have on one hand societal norm, if your kid fits in, sweet they are set up well for life, the world is their oyster. On the other hand you have a rarity (otherwise it would be normal) break from the norm. Parents should want their kids to be normal, I wouldn't hope my kid is birthed disfigured, sick, you handle the obstacles that come up. But assuming or making your kid different just to be different is bad.

    TLDR. Nothing is wrong with having a transgendered kid. But trying to make your kid transgendered is endangering the kids future. Assuming your kid has a rare desire to break from gender roll norms, is just plain strawmanning a reason to put your kid through a social experiment.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So how are they supposed to raise themselves in order to allow themselves to determine how they will act? I guess they could use a time machine.

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

    The status quo seems to be just fine

    Hmmmmmm I think that lots of people really really disagree with you. And you may even be objectively wrong here.

    Having an androgenous society is quite a big shift, I'd like to see some evidence that it would solve any of the problems people are bitching about, and not lead to a whole set of other problems. From what I can gather, it's just what people feel would be better, not any actual hardcore data.

    That is a very different statement than "The Status Quo is just fine", and I hope you realize that.

    The devil you know is better than the one you don't.

    Humanity's problems will always exist, with genders or not. Those who don't have something will always cause conflict with those who have it. Social inequity will always exist.

    So we should keep a system that harms just about everyone because of a quote?

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    "Well that's a nifty idea, I wonder how it will work out". But then I come to the realization that this is happening because of the decision the parents are making for their child. A decision that even if the kid eventually ends up fitting in somewhere, will undoubtedly have a horrible affect on their childhood.

    Why?

    Why do you think this?

    If Pop ends up conforming to a traditional role, which most people in this thread seem to agree Pop will, barring (wholly unsubstantiated) parental pressure, Pop probably won't have any memory of this part of his or her life.

    My belief is that this will feed a gender role confusion that will continue for quite awhile. I figure that while he will find his place, its not going to be one day him saying to himself (assuming its a boy) "hey I am guy, time to stop wearing dresses, playing with barbie dolls, liking the color pink, pissing in the girls bathroom...etc". Each one will slowly and surely be stamped out by pressure from same sex classmates, possibly even opposite sex classmates, and the later these happen the harder emotionally any damage incurred will be to overcome. Even if its almost all like normal by the time they are 7 or 8. You have successfully made your child's childhood harder on him, just because you wanted to. A child isn't some kind of barbie doll so we should just keep on truckin' and enforcing the traditional views.

    I added something to your post, do you see how it invalidates your entire argument? Because by raising them cis-gendered you are raising them in a way you want to which ignores the problems a transgendered individual raised cis genderedly can face! You have just made their childhood harder on them!

    I don't see how it invalidates my point. You have on one hand societal norm, if your kid fits in, sweet they are set up well for life, the world is their oyster. On the other hand you have a rarity (otherwise it would be normal) break from the norm. Parents should want their kids to be normal, I wouldn't hope my kid is birthed disfigured, sick, you handle the obstacles that come up. But assuming or making your kid different just to be different is bad.

    TLDR. Nothing is wrong with having a transgendered kid. But trying to make your kid transgendered is endangering the kids future. Assuming your kid has a rare desire to break from gender roll norms, is just plain strawmanning a reason to put your kid through a social experiment.

    They are not trying to make their kid transgendered are you daft

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.

    Are you going to pony up the proof showing Pop is suffering for this at some point?

    PSN: allenquid
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    The devil you know is better than the one you don't.

    Humanity's problems will always exist, with genders or not. Those who don't have something will always cause conflict with those who have it. Social inequity will always exist.

    Life will always have problems so we shouldn't try to improve it is a shit argument.

    Saying your solution is better than what we've got, with no evidence to back it up is a shit argument. Pretending that an androgenous society is going to be a eutopia is silly.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    Pop's mother is a 24 year old mother of Pop, not a behavioral expert, or gener expert, or whatever.

    Just because she says that she thinks what she is doing will make Pop confident doesn't mean it actually will.

    Tell me, how do you know that a two and a half year olf is confident in its gender identify?



    Stop reading the article as you WANT it to be, and look at it honestly.

    So? You're talking out your ass, sorry, theorizing, just as much as everyone else. Stop trying to sound like an authority figure here. You have no idea if this will negatively affect Pop just as we only think it won't.

    The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.

    Seriously, responsible parenting. Go read some books on it, or something, because this is fucking depressing.

    Actually what these parents are doing probably isn't too too far out of the mainstream from what a lot of parenting books are saying nowadays. I know there are lots of parents who keep a diverse set of toys around for their kids for pretty much the same reasons as the parents in the OP. They just don't take the extra step of keeping their kids' sex a big secret.

    Also, seriously, go back and review the responses people gave to your scientific pretenses way back in the beginning of the thread. You keep repeating the same tired shit and it never stops being absurd.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    TLDR. Nothing is wrong with having a transgendered kid. But trying to make your kid transgendered is endangering the kids future. Assuming your kid has a rare desire to break from gender roll norms, is just plain strawmanning a reason to put your kid through a social experiment.

    They are not doing that. They are letting Pop choose. Stop saying they are doing things they are not doing.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Protein shakes we have scientific evidence that there can be psychological harm from raising children in a cis-gendered manner, you DO realize that right?

    Right?

    Just because it didn't rain yesterday does not mean that it was sunny. You are committing a serious logical fallacy if you're following the line of reasoning that you just implied you did. Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited June 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This would be like in Georgia circa 50's if genetic engineering was possible, a white couple having the pigment of their kids skin changed prior to birth to be darker. Sure the kid isn't African-American, and even if he was shouldn't affect the way he is treated. But why in the world would you go out of the way to make life harder on your kid as a social experiment.

    No, it would be as if they let the kid choose their skin pigmentation.

    The parents aren't forcing jack shit on the kid. They are letting the kid choose whenever the kid wants to. Can you grasp this?

    The kid chooses, the parents support. The horror.

    But again, the kid isn't choosing. Society assigns 'female' to a child who wears dresses at all regularly and plays with dolls if not informed otherwise. The parents have assigned female to their child by their plan.

    I'm curious, what sorts of situations would see a 2.5-year-old absent its parents, but around people who would make this determination and interact significantly with the child?
    What does "absent the parents" mean here? Consensus reality + instantaneous effects, bro

    You're going to have to elaborate.

    But I'll go first: by "absent the parents" I mean, without having the parents around to explain that Pop isn't presenting as anything in particular. I can think of daycare and school, but even there, Pop's parents will be involved to a sufficient degree that they can explain to the authority figures that Pop isn't to be pigeonholed.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.

    1. Yes, and plenty of people raised in a gendered environment turn out fucked up. So the track record for a gendered upraising is spotty at best. Why not try something else?

    2. That is not what the fundamental attribution error is.

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

    Pop's mother is a 24 year old mother of Pop, not a behavioral expert, or gener expert, or whatever.

    Just because she says that she thinks what she is doing will make Pop confident doesn't mean it actually will.

    Tell me, how do you know that a two and a half year olf is confident in its gender identify?



    Stop reading the article as you WANT it to be, and look at it honestly.

    So? You're talking out your ass, sorry, theorizing, just as much as everyone else. Stop trying to sound like an authority figure here. You have no idea if this will negatively affect Pop just as we only think it won't.

    The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.

    Seriously, responsible parenting. Go read some books on it, or something, because this is fucking depressing.

    I realize this is very difficult for you to understand but a lot of people would argue that raising a child in a highly gender roled enironment is extremely harmful to the child's development.

    methinks the shakes protests too much. perhaps this is less THINK OF THE CHILDREN and more OH SHIT THIS WEIRDS ME THE FUCK OUT

    I mean come on by the time he/she gets old enough to actually socially require gender Pop can probably figure it out by pop's self.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.

    Are you going to pony up the proof showing Pop is suffering for this at some point?

    Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.

    You're trying to lay the burden of proof on me because you cannot find a rational way to disagree with my claim that responsible parenting means you need to make sure no harm will come to your child before deciding on a way to raise them a certain way.

    This is what a lot of D&D folks do when they get stuck in debates. They ask for proof and citation no matter how asinine it is.

    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
Sign In or Register to comment.