Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
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 is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.
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.
oh but of course, but I thought we were only talking about the gender/gender role status quo
THIS
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
How would you know if you saw a little boy in a dress?
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
The kid's probably being force fed crack every day in my opinion.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd rather have no evidence than just anecdotal evidence, because anecdotal evidence can be easily made up.
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.
Right?
Life will always have problems so we shouldn't try to improve it is a shit argument.
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.
See sidhaethe's post on the previous page.
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?
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 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.
So we should keep a system that harms just about everyone because of a quote?
They are not trying to make their kid transgendered are you daft
Are you going to pony up the proof showing Pop is suffering for this at some point?
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.
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.
They are not doing that. They are letting Pop choose. Stop saying they are doing things they are not doing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.