Won't this fall apart if the following conversation ever occurs between the kid and his/her friends.
"Are you a boy?"
"I don't know."
"Do you have a penis?"
Bam, kid is told what they are and, as kids are won't to do, they identify with it.
Nah.
My parents never told me about God or religion when I was little. Then I went to school and the kids were horrified when they found out I didn't believe in God. So the following conversation occoured:
"Do you believe in Santa?"
"I guess so."
"Well Santa is a saint, so if you believe in him then you have to believe in God."
"Oh. I guess Santa's not real then."
Also, I doubt that Pop's parents haven't or won't tell her about penises. They're simply hiding the fact that people with a penis are expected to act one way and that people without one are expected to act another.
Wut? God and Santa can't be proven or disproved, given fully developed organs, sex can be proven or disproved.
That would be like you saying "Oh, well vaginas must not exist because I have a penis". One is a provable hypothesis, the other is not. I can prove vaginas exist, I can't prove either way if God or Santa do.
Sex is different from gender.
When the boys refused to let me play football because I was a girl, I got upset. I didn't understand why having a female body meant I wasn't allowed to play with the boys.
This is pretty hard to explain to a child I think though. I know adults who still don't understand this concept.
You are making unwarranted assumptions about these parents' motives. I find it likely they believe this will lead to their child being healthier psychologically.
What they believe is quite irrelevant since it is just blind belief and is not supported by any scientific studies or experiments done under controlled environments by professionals.
Seriously, this is the first experiment of its kind, performed on a live child. This should strike more of you as wrong. I'm really freaking out here, and you guys are creeping me out on top of that with your non-nonchalant attitudes.
It's not an experiment, so you should stop characterizing it as such. The parents have a belief about gender, and it's far from an uncommon one. A great deal of research, frankly, supports the position that gender is socially constructed.
Maybe you should examine why this freaks you out so much. It is very likely that the child will end up expressing a conventional gender identity and will never remember this so-called "experimentation."
It is definitely an experiment. The parents have a hypothesis that this will lead to a healthier personality and higher self-confidence in the child. They have no proof for it yet, no supporting evidence, which is why this is a hypothesis. They are then acting on this hypothesis by performing the experiment, i.e. collecting data, of what happens when they impose a gender role on the kid.
In the meantime, all other concerns that would be relevant in an actual research setting, such as possible risks, are sidelined and ignored.
Oh no someone who thinks that the gender status quo is A-ok is freaking out at attempts to defy it!
That's not what I said you goose of the silliest order. I said gender status quo is okay if the alternative is trying to validate untested hypotheses by running experiments on a live child.
I too believe gender is a social construct, and would most likely do the same with my children if I ever have any.
Gender, per se, isn't social construct. Men and women have quite different brains, and are also from psychological standpoint very different. There is very good and natural reason why both genders have tendency to tilt towards certain kind of roles. This isn't sexism, but just plain fact. But I agree that social conditioning has created artificial and forced limitations on what are acceptable roles.
EDIT: Clarified things, fixed text.
elkatas on
Hypnotically inclined.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Won't this fall apart if the following conversation ever occurs between the kid and his/her friends.
"Are you a boy?"
"I don't know."
"Do you have a penis?"
Bam, kid is told what they are and, as kids are won't to do, they identify with it.
Nah.
My parents never told me about God or religion when I was little. Then I went to school and the kids were horrified when they found out I didn't believe in God. So the following conversation occoured:
"Do you believe in Santa?"
"I guess so."
"Well Santa is a saint, so if you believe in him then you have to believe in God."
"Oh. I guess Santa's not real then."
Also, I doubt that Pop's parents haven't or won't tell her about penises. They're simply hiding the fact that people with a penis are expected to act one way and that people without one are expected to act another.
Wut? God and Santa can't be proven or disproved, given fully developed organs, sex can be proven or disproved.
That would be like you saying "Oh, well vaginas must not exist because I have a penis". One is a provable hypothesis, the other is not. I can prove vaginas exist, I can't prove either way if God or Santa do.
Sex is different from gender.
When the boys refused to let me play football because I was a girl, I got upset. I didn't understand why having a female body meant I wasn't allowed to play with the boys.
True, and that's silly. If you want to play football, play football....but that's not what you responded to. You responded to him saying kids will eventually identify what Pop is, regardless of the parents influence....and it's not a hypothesis. If Pop has a penis, physically (though possibly not psychologically), he's most likely a male. If Pop has a vagina, she is most likely a female (again, physically, I'm not getting in to mental gender issues here). In that case, Pop's little friends will say "You're X, come play with trucks" or "You're Y, come play with dolls". Completely out of the control of the parents, unless they simply lock Pop off from society and let absolutely no outside social or gender pressure in.
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited June 2010
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
When the boys refused to let me play football because I was a girl, I got upset. I didn't understand why having a female body meant I wasn't allowed to play with the boys.
This is pretty hard to explain to a child I think though. I know adults who still don't understand this concept.
It's not that hard. The main reason so many people struggle with it is because we're expected to conform to our gender roles from babyhood, and never expected to question it.
I grasped it easily enough because my mother never attempted to hide the absurdity of gender from me. I remember asking her once why watches and jewellery had such different designs for men and women, and why you never saw women wearing chunky rings or men wearing delicate diamond earrings. Her response was that jewellery is a fashion and fashion is silly like that sometimes. Simple.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
It is definitely an experiment. The parents have a hypothesis that this will lead to a healthier personality and higher self-confidence in the child. They are acting on this hypothesis by performing the experiment, i.e. collecting data.
That's a definition of experiment that is such a broad church it admits just about every act of parenting ever. And given how experiments can be repeats, that also means that a parent feeding their child is also performing an experiment: they believe it will be to the benefit of their child.
Fuck gender roles, but also fuck careless parents who are willing to experiment on their child for the sake of making a political statement or rebelling against society.
Dude, if you genuinely believed that, say, mathematics caused people to become schizophrenics in later life, wouldn't you try and stop it being taught to your child?
I doubt the parents have evil intentions. And it's not like they're doing it "just to see what happens" - the point of an experiment - they're doing it because they think it's the best thing they can do for their child. Saying they shouldn't do it just a priori makes the assumption that they already know that it isn't the best thing they can do for their child - which isn't tenable.
People seem to be up in arms (well, not literally) about "What's going to happen when the child interacts!". But the parents seemed to have demonstrated--not just claimed, but through their actual actions--that they're intensely hands-on in their child's upbringing that I don't see why they won't be able to address that either. If any parent was attempting to carefully gauge a child's social interaction insofar as gender roles, it'd be these two.
Say it happens around the age of four. Honestly, any earlier than that, and I'd be surprised if Pop remembered a unfamiliar conversation from ten minutes ago, so it doesn't really matter. Well, Pop is still primarily dependent on the parents for everything else anyway--the parents will simply have to pay attention and then decide where to go from there. Explain gender roles. Modify their initial practices. Whatever.
Of course this won't work indefinitely. No facet of behavior from the earliest of childhood is supposed to--that's part of learning and developing, facets are replaced by others.
Synthesis on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
I too believe gender is a social construct, and would most likely do the same with my children if I ever have any.
Gender, per se, isn't social construct. Men and women have quite different brains, and are also from psychological standpoint very different. There is very good and natural reason why both genders have tendency to tilt towards certain kind of roles. This isn't sexism, but just plain fact. But gender roles are often just old, shitty social conditioning.
In the interest of avoiding a long and tedious semantic argument, I propose the adoption of the word "sex" to denote physiological characteristics emanating from the configuration of X and Y chromosomes and the word "gender" for the social identifications that relate to these physiological conditions.
Oh no someone who thinks that the gender status quo is A-ok is freaking out at attempts to defy it!
That's not what I said you goose of the silliest order. I said gender status quo is okay if the alternative is trying to validate untested hypotheses by running experiments on a live child.
Anytime a parent tries something new with their child, they are running an 'experiment'. You think video games make people violent? You take away video games, or at least limit their accessibility.
You think that harsh negatives enforce more rebellious behavior? You don't negate actions, but rather redirect behavior towards more productive areas.
you think children should be seen and not heard? You yell at kids to shut up when mommy is talking.
Spare the rod and spoil the child? Experiment
Physical Punishment is the best way to teach a kid? Experiment.
You just seem to be getting in a tizzy because you don't like that this kid isn't gonna do what their genitals 'say' they should do.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
I was unaware that these parents are scientists.
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
But how are you certain that raising children with conventional gender roles produces a psychologically optimized child? You aren't. You are just going on a "gut feeling."
Won't this fall apart if the following conversation ever occurs between the kid and his/her friends.
"Are you a boy?"
"I don't know."
"Do you have a penis?"
Bam, kid is told what they are and, as kids are won't to do, they identify with it.
Nah.
My parents never told me about God or religion when I was little. Then I went to school and the kids were horrified when they found out I didn't believe in God. So the following conversation occoured:
"Do you believe in Santa?"
"I guess so."
"Well Santa is a saint, so if you believe in him then you have to believe in God."
"Oh. I guess Santa's not real then."
Also, I doubt that Pop's parents haven't or won't tell her about penises. They're simply hiding the fact that people with a penis are expected to act one way and that people without one are expected to act another.
Wut? God and Santa can't be proven or disproved, given fully developed organs, sex can be proven or disproved.
That would be like you saying "Oh, well vaginas must not exist because I have a penis". One is a provable hypothesis, the other is not. I can prove vaginas exist, I can't prove either way if God or Santa do.
Sex is different from gender.
When the boys refused to let me play football because I was a girl, I got upset. I didn't understand why having a female body meant I wasn't allowed to play with the boys.
True, and that's silly. If you want to play football, play football....but that's not what you responded to. You responded to him saying kids will eventually identify what Pop is, regardless of the parents influence....and it's not a hypothesis. If Pop has a penis, physically (though possibly not psychologically), he's most likely a male. If Pop has a vagina, she is most likely a female (again, physically, I'm not getting in to mental gender issues here). In that case, Pop's little friends will say "You're X, come play with trucks" or "You're Y, come play with dolls". Completely out of the control of the parents, unless they simply lock Pop off from society and let absolutely no outside social or gender pressure in.
But why did I get upset when I was forbidden from playing football? Why didn't I shrug and go play houses with the girls? Why did I go sit in the corner and cry because I didn't fit in with anyone?
And why didn't I start believing in God? The arguments they used to "prove" God's existence, while laughable to me now as an adult, were very convincing when I was 6. They were as solid as the sight of a penis. But I didn't fall for it, because I trusted my parents more.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
In the interest of avoiding a long and tedious semantic argument, I propose the adoption of the word "sex" to denote physiological characteristics emanating from the configuration of X and Y chromosomes and the word "gender" for the social identifications that relate to these physiological conditions.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct.
How are they convinced of it? Where is the scientific evidence showing how other kids that have been raised in a similar no-gender-role environment have developed? Because scientific evidence and precedent is the only valid data that can be used to justify an experiment like this.
I too believe gender is a social construct, and would most likely do the same with my children if I ever have any.
Gender, per se, isn't social construct. Men and women have quite different brains, and are also from psychological standpoint very different. There is very good and natural reason why both genders have tendency to tilt towards certain kind of roles. This isn't sexism, but just plain fact. But gender roles are often just old, shitty social conditioning.
In the interest of avoiding a long and tedious semantic argument, I propose the adoption of the word "sex" to denote physiological characteristics emanating from the configuration of X and Y chromosomes and the word "gender" for the social identifications that relate to these physiological conditions.
You responded much better to this than I could have Hachface; thank you.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct.
How are they convinced of it? Where is the scientific evidence showing how other kids that have been raised in a similar no-gender-role environment have developed? Because scientific evidence and precedent is the only valid data that can be used to justify an experiment like this.
But in the absence of an experiment, there is no scientific evidence.
You need to get off the whole "experimentation" thing. This line of discussion is a dead end. If you think this is a harmful practice, you need to explain why.
Hachface on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Won't this fall apart if the following conversation ever occurs between the kid and his/her friends.
"Are you a boy?"
"I don't know."
"Do you have a penis?"
Bam, kid is told what they are and, as kids are won't to do, they identify with it.
Nah.
My parents never told me about God or religion when I was little. Then I went to school and the kids were horrified when they found out I didn't believe in God. So the following conversation occoured:
"Do you believe in Santa?"
"I guess so."
"Well Santa is a saint, so if you believe in him then you have to believe in God."
"Oh. I guess Santa's not real then."
Also, I doubt that Pop's parents haven't or won't tell her about penises. They're simply hiding the fact that people with a penis are expected to act one way and that people without one are expected to act another.
Wut? God and Santa can't be proven or disproved, given fully developed organs, sex can be proven or disproved.
That would be like you saying "Oh, well vaginas must not exist because I have a penis". One is a provable hypothesis, the other is not. I can prove vaginas exist, I can't prove either way if God or Santa do.
Sex is different from gender.
When the boys refused to let me play football because I was a girl, I got upset. I didn't understand why having a female body meant I wasn't allowed to play with the boys.
True, and that's silly. If you want to play football, play football....but that's not what you responded to. You responded to him saying kids will eventually identify what Pop is, regardless of the parents influence....and it's not a hypothesis. If Pop has a penis, physically (though possibly not psychologically), he's most likely a male. If Pop has a vagina, she is most likely a female (again, physically, I'm not getting in to mental gender issues here). In that case, Pop's little friends will say "You're X, come play with trucks" or "You're Y, come play with dolls". Completely out of the control of the parents, unless they simply lock Pop off from society and let absolutely no outside social or gender pressure in.
But why did I get upset when I was forbidden from playing football? Why didn't I shrug and go play houses with the girls? Why did I go sit in the corner and cry because I didn't fit in with anyone?
And why didn't I start believing in God? The arguments they used to "prove" God's existence, while laughable to me now as an adult, were very convincing when I was 6. They were as solid as the sight of a penis. But I didn't fall for it, because I trusted my parents more.
I have a hard time believing some six year olds trying to convince you of an entity you can't see is quite as strong as something you can see, and touch (ugg, I feel weird even typing that given the context, but hey). I trusted my parents too, but if my parents told me the sky was purple, and I know it's blue (something I can observe myself), I wouldn't suddenly believe the sky was purple.
Why did you get upset? I dunno, same reason everyone gets upset when they feel rejected. Not letting you play football wasn't right, and was very stupid.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct.
How are they convinced of it? Where is the scientific evidence showing how other kids that have been raised in a similar no-gender-role environment have developed? Because scientific evidence and precedent is the only valid data that can be used to justify an experiment like this.
What about the evidence that children who grow up "normally" have strong pre conceived notions about gender, and that transgendered people raised in families that followed the 'gender status quo' can and frequently do, end up with psychological damage?
hell even cisgendered people raised in the "normal way" can still be damaged by it.
And there are MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence to support both these things.
So then we have evidence that the "normal way" is damaging, and thus we form the hypothesis that raising a child in a forced gender neutral environment would be less damaging and then carry it out.
Except that is not what happened here, and this is just some parents raising their kid in the way they see best.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
I was unaware that these parents are scientists.
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
But how are you certain that raising children with conventional gender roles produces a psychologically optimized child? You aren't. You are just going on a "gut feeling."
You're right, I am, but I am also not arguing that doing such isn't an experiment. Everything we do as a parent that isn't 100% proven is a working experiment. Unfortunately, most of us won't know what the result is for 18 years.
Won't this fall apart if the following conversation ever occurs between the kid and his/her friends.
"Are you a boy?"
"I don't know."
"Do you have a penis?"
Bam, kid is told what they are and, as kids are won't to do, they identify with it.
Nah.
My parents never told me about God or religion when I was little. Then I went to school and the kids were horrified when they found out I didn't believe in God. So the following conversation occoured:
"Do you believe in Santa?"
"I guess so."
"Well Santa is a saint, so if you believe in him then you have to believe in God."
"Oh. I guess Santa's not real then."
Also, I doubt that Pop's parents haven't or won't tell her about penises. They're simply hiding the fact that people with a penis are expected to act one way and that people without one are expected to act another.
Wut? God and Santa can't be proven or disproved, given fully developed organs, sex can be proven or disproved.
That would be like you saying "Oh, well vaginas must not exist because I have a penis". One is a provable hypothesis, the other is not. I can prove vaginas exist, I can't prove either way if God or Santa do.
Sex is different from gender.
When the boys refused to let me play football because I was a girl, I got upset. I didn't understand why having a female body meant I wasn't allowed to play with the boys.
True, and that's silly. If you want to play football, play football....but that's not what you responded to. You responded to him saying kids will eventually identify what Pop is, regardless of the parents influence....and it's not a hypothesis. If Pop has a penis, physically (though possibly not psychologically), he's most likely a male. If Pop has a vagina, she is most likely a female (again, physically, I'm not getting in to mental gender issues here). In that case, Pop's little friends will say "You're X, come play with trucks" or "You're Y, come play with dolls". Completely out of the control of the parents, unless they simply lock Pop off from society and let absolutely no outside social or gender pressure in.
But why did I get upset when I was forbidden from playing football? Why didn't I shrug and go play houses with the girls? Why did I go sit in the corner and cry because I didn't fit in with anyone?
And why didn't I start believing in God? The arguments they used to "prove" God's existence, while laughable to me now as an adult, were very convincing when I was 6. They were as solid as the sight of a penis. But I didn't fall for it, because I trusted my parents more.
I have a hard time believing some six year olds trying to convince you of an entity you can't see is quite as strong as something you can see, and touch (ugg, I feel weird even typing that given the context, but hey). I trusted my parents too, but if my parents told me the sky was purple, and I know it's blue (something I can observe myself), I wouldn't suddenly believe the sky was purple.
Why did you get upset? I dunno, same reason everyone gets upset when they feel rejected. Not letting you play football wasn't right, and was very stupid.
A penis is real, but the idea that everyone with a penis must behave a certain way? Not so much. Likewise, the existence of intelligent, complex animals is pretty solid, but the idea that it was created by God? Not so much.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
You're right, I am, but I am also not arguing that doing such isn't an experiment. Everything we do as a parent that isn't 100% proven is a working experiment. Unfortunately, most of us won't know what the result is for 18 years.
Indeed. For this reason arguing against the parents' decision because "It's an experiment!" is unsound. We need some specific reasons this is a problem.
Hachface on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
A penis is real, but the idea that everyone with a penis must behave a certain way? Not so much. Likewise, the existence of intelligent, complex animals is pretty solid, but the idea that it was created by God? Not so much.
Agreed, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing, that without total social isolation, the parents cannot possibly keep Pop from eventually being exposed to gender roles at school, or in play groups.
A penis is real, but the idea that everyone with a penis must behave a certain way? Not so much. Likewise, the existence of intelligent, complex animals is pretty solid, but the idea that it was created by God? Not so much.
Agreed, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing, that without total social isolation, the parents cannot possibly keep Pop from eventually being exposed to gender roles at school, or in play groups.
And her argument is that if the parents (and many of us!) are right, it won't matter if pop is exposed to these gender roles
Also, I doubt that Pop's parents haven't or won't tell her about penises. They're simply hiding the fact that people with a penis are expected to act one way and that people without one are expected to act another.
This.
What Pop's sex is is hidden from everyone else, not from Pop. They could easily give her sex-ed without mentioning gender roles. In fact, if it's anything like here Pop couldn't get any gender-roles from sex-ed. Drawing of naked people and a description of what sex is tells you nothing about how people are supposed to act.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct.
How are they convinced of it? Where is the scientific evidence showing how other kids that have been raised in a similar no-gender-role environment have developed? Because scientific evidence and precedent is the only valid data that can be used to justify an experiment like this.
But in the absence of an experiment, there is no scientific evidence.
You need to get off the whole "experimentation" thing. This line of discussion is a dead end. If you think this is a harmful practice, you need to explain why.
I already explained why it is a bad practice. We do not know the potential risks. It is the equivalent of feeding an untested pill to your child because you believe the pill will make them smarter.
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
The same thing, of course, being true of every other action and decision ever made by anyone in the universe. Or, if not, why not?
Aroused Bull on
0
Options
miscellaneousinsanitygrass grows, birds fly, sun shines,and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
On a related, not entirely serious note, Pop? Really? Surely there's a better gender neutral name they could have gone with.
A penis is real, but the idea that everyone with a penis must behave a certain way? Not so much. Likewise, the existence of intelligent, complex animals is pretty solid, but the idea that it was created by God? Not so much.
Agreed, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing, that without total social isolation, the parents cannot possibly keep Pop from eventually being exposed to gender roles at school, or in play groups.
And her argument is that if the parents (and many of us!) are right, it won't matter if pop is exposed to these gender roles
Exactly. By your logic, Gnome, I should believe in God because I was exposed to the (majority opinion) that God exists when I went to school, and informed that this view makes sense because the universe exists. Teachers pushed this on me as well as peers. But I never fell for it because my parents made a point of letting me discover religion for myself.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
The same thing, of course, being true of every other action and decision ever made by anyone in the universe. Or, if not, why not?
Go back a page, I already said parenting is one giant experiment. I'm not arguing that "it's an experiment" is a good reason to dislike it, I'm arguing that it most certain is an experiment.
And her argument is that if the parents (and many of us!) are right, it won't matter if pop is exposed to these gender roles
Why?
There are sixteen children. One child has not been exposed to gender roles and doesn't care about how it dresses with regards to what is "gender appropriate" and what toys it plays with similarly. Fifteen other children have been exposed and do care. These children all form a peer group.
So when the child (say it's a boy) puts on a dress and plays with a doll, it will likely be exposed to the other children saying "that's not what boys should do".
Now, do you think that the child will not value their opinion (or, if it gets to that, will be capable of shouldering them ostracising it for not conforming to their gender roles)?
Bethryn on
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I already explained why it is a bad practice. We do not know the potential risks. It is the equivalent of feeding an untested pill to your child because you believe the pill will make them smarter.
This really is just the "It's an experiment!" objection, rephrased.
Every human endeavor involves unanticipated consequences. Do you have an actual reason to believe that raising a child in this way is more harmful than raising him or her according to conventional gender prescriptions, or are you simply allowing your attachment to the status quo overwhelm you with baseless fears?
This isn't an "experiment" except in the loosest sense of the word--in the sense that any time someone does something new, it is an experiment. This is not the parents testing out a hypothesis; they are already convinced their views on gender are correct. There is no control group.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
The same thing, of course, being true of every other action and decision ever made by anyone in the universe. Or, if not, why not?
Go back a page, I already said parenting is one giant experiment. I'm not arguing that "it's an experiment" is a good reason to dislike it, I'm arguing that it most certain is an experiment.
In which case it's just a distracting semantic tangent.
If you think this is a harmful practice, you need to explain why.
Well, I'm actually little worried. During years 0-3, children don't have critical factor at all, and the subconscious mind drains in new ideas like a sponge. Almost everything will be recorded, for better and worse. When Pop gets to adulthood, all these learnt rules will be still running on the background. Pop might have consciously decided to be man, but subconscious mind uses all its learnt rules. This can lead into seriously confused identity.
elkatas on
Hypnotically inclined.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I'm not arguing that "it's an experiment" is a good reason to dislike it, I'm arguing that it most certain is an experiment.
If this is true, then it is trivially true -- that is, it has no impact on the ethics of this behavior either way. If you define 'experiment' in such a way that any course of action is an experiment, then it means that conducting an experiment is a morally neutral act.
Bizarre, sorry. Gender roles are okay, it's okay for males and females to be different, provided they aren't discriminated on. It's okay for little boys to be little boys, and little girls to be little girls. I hate this sort of forced equality play.
Is it not okay for Pop to be whatever he or she wants?
It is a wonderful idea in the realm of academics.
Unfortunately, this entire experiment is likely to cause difficulties for Pop later on out in society, because like as not, the rest of society will still be gendered, even if Pop isn't.
THAT is why I see this as a bad idea.
Evander on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
If you think this is a harmful practice, you need to explain why.
Well, I'm actually little worried. During years 0-3, children don't have critical factor at all, and the subconscious mind drains in new ideas like a sponge. When Pop gets to adulthood, all these learnt rules will be still running on the background. Pop might have consciously decided to be man, but subconscious mind uses learnt rules. This can lead into serious conflict of interests, and broken identity.
I fail to see how a fluid identity in early childhood can lead to a broken identity in adulthood. In fact, it seems logical to me that the opposite would be the case: a strictly gendered childhood has great potential for causing psychological conflict later in life.
Gender is not a god damn social construct, gender is a construct of your genitals. How we TREAT the genders is a social construct.
gender is the social construct
sex is the dangly or dimply bits
Late to the party.
Is gender a social construct that we control, or one that's intrinsic to being human? Specifically, is it human nature to do these things or is it something a Western Society picked up?
It's pretty common in most species for things with dangly bits to do what things with dangly bits do, and things with holes do what things with holes do. With some groups that don't fit into either of those roles.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Every human endeavor involves unanticipated consequences.
The problem occurs when those endeavors are undertaken on other people who do not have the capacity to object.
Do you have an actual reason to believe that raising a child in this way is more harmful than raising him or her according to conventional gender prescriptions, or are you simply allowing your attachment to the status quo overwhelm you with baseless fears?
Please do not mistake my objections to this particular methodology as my attachment to the status quo.
I have many reasons to believe that raising a child this way is more harmful. The primary among them is, how will the child's peers treat him/her when they are not able to categorize him/her as a boy or a girl? Like Feral says, the ability to identify people as male or female is most likely an evolved trait. So, down the line, you're looking at quite a few potential problems in the child's social development.
Posts
This is pretty hard to explain to a child I think though. I know adults who still don't understand this concept.
It is definitely an experiment. The parents have a hypothesis that this will lead to a healthier personality and higher self-confidence in the child. They have no proof for it yet, no supporting evidence, which is why this is a hypothesis. They are then acting on this hypothesis by performing the experiment, i.e. collecting data, of what happens when they impose a gender role on the kid.
In the meantime, all other concerns that would be relevant in an actual research setting, such as possible risks, are sidelined and ignored.
That's not what I said you goose of the silliest order. I said gender status quo is okay if the alternative is trying to validate untested hypotheses by running experiments on a live child.
Gender, per se, isn't social construct. Men and women have quite different brains, and are also from psychological standpoint very different. There is very good and natural reason why both genders have tendency to tilt towards certain kind of roles. This isn't sexism, but just plain fact. But I agree that social conditioning has created artificial and forced limitations on what are acceptable roles.
EDIT: Clarified things, fixed text.
True, and that's silly. If you want to play football, play football....but that's not what you responded to. You responded to him saying kids will eventually identify what Pop is, regardless of the parents influence....and it's not a hypothesis. If Pop has a penis, physically (though possibly not psychologically), he's most likely a male. If Pop has a vagina, she is most likely a female (again, physically, I'm not getting in to mental gender issues here). In that case, Pop's little friends will say "You're X, come play with trucks" or "You're Y, come play with dolls". Completely out of the control of the parents, unless they simply lock Pop off from society and let absolutely no outside social or gender pressure in.
If you object to this practice, you should argue specific ways it is harmful to the child. Moralizing about 'experimentation' is a red herring.
It's not that hard. The main reason so many people struggle with it is because we're expected to conform to our gender roles from babyhood, and never expected to question it.
I grasped it easily enough because my mother never attempted to hide the absurdity of gender from me. I remember asking her once why watches and jewellery had such different designs for men and women, and why you never saw women wearing chunky rings or men wearing delicate diamond earrings. Her response was that jewellery is a fashion and fashion is silly like that sometimes. Simple.
That's a definition of experiment that is such a broad church it admits just about every act of parenting ever. And given how experiments can be repeats, that also means that a parent feeding their child is also performing an experiment: they believe it will be to the benefit of their child.
People seem to be up in arms (well, not literally) about "What's going to happen when the child interacts!". But the parents seemed to have demonstrated--not just claimed, but through their actual actions--that they're intensely hands-on in their child's upbringing that I don't see why they won't be able to address that either. If any parent was attempting to carefully gauge a child's social interaction insofar as gender roles, it'd be these two.
Say it happens around the age of four. Honestly, any earlier than that, and I'd be surprised if Pop remembered a unfamiliar conversation from ten minutes ago, so it doesn't really matter. Well, Pop is still primarily dependent on the parents for everything else anyway--the parents will simply have to pay attention and then decide where to go from there. Explain gender roles. Modify their initial practices. Whatever.
Of course this won't work indefinitely. No facet of behavior from the earliest of childhood is supposed to--that's part of learning and developing, facets are replaced by others.
Accept you can't possibly be convinced of anything until you do...an experiment. Scientists don't just go "Oh well, I think the atom is actually made of cheese, and I feel so strongly about it, I'm going to just assume atoms are made of cheese and run my life based on this hypothesis".
The parents are testing out a hypothesis, because no matter how strong their conviction is, they can't possibly know that this is not harmful. It's 100% impossible to know that. They are going completely on a gut feeling.
In the interest of avoiding a long and tedious semantic argument, I propose the adoption of the word "sex" to denote physiological characteristics emanating from the configuration of X and Y chromosomes and the word "gender" for the social identifications that relate to these physiological conditions.
Anytime a parent tries something new with their child, they are running an 'experiment'. You think video games make people violent? You take away video games, or at least limit their accessibility.
You think that harsh negatives enforce more rebellious behavior? You don't negate actions, but rather redirect behavior towards more productive areas.
you think children should be seen and not heard? You yell at kids to shut up when mommy is talking.
Spare the rod and spoil the child? Experiment
Physical Punishment is the best way to teach a kid? Experiment.
You just seem to be getting in a tizzy because you don't like that this kid isn't gonna do what their genitals 'say' they should do.
I was unaware that these parents are scientists.
But how are you certain that raising children with conventional gender roles produces a psychologically optimized child? You aren't. You are just going on a "gut feeling."
But why did I get upset when I was forbidden from playing football? Why didn't I shrug and go play houses with the girls? Why did I go sit in the corner and cry because I didn't fit in with anyone?
And why didn't I start believing in God? The arguments they used to "prove" God's existence, while laughable to me now as an adult, were very convincing when I was 6. They were as solid as the sight of a penis. But I didn't fall for it, because I trusted my parents more.
Agreed. Far better that way.
How are they convinced of it? Where is the scientific evidence showing how other kids that have been raised in a similar no-gender-role environment have developed? Because scientific evidence and precedent is the only valid data that can be used to justify an experiment like this.
You responded much better to this than I could have Hachface; thank you.
But in the absence of an experiment, there is no scientific evidence.
You need to get off the whole "experimentation" thing. This line of discussion is a dead end. If you think this is a harmful practice, you need to explain why.
I have a hard time believing some six year olds trying to convince you of an entity you can't see is quite as strong as something you can see, and touch (ugg, I feel weird even typing that given the context, but hey). I trusted my parents too, but if my parents told me the sky was purple, and I know it's blue (something I can observe myself), I wouldn't suddenly believe the sky was purple.
Why did you get upset? I dunno, same reason everyone gets upset when they feel rejected. Not letting you play football wasn't right, and was very stupid.
What about the evidence that children who grow up "normally" have strong pre conceived notions about gender, and that transgendered people raised in families that followed the 'gender status quo' can and frequently do, end up with psychological damage?
hell even cisgendered people raised in the "normal way" can still be damaged by it.
And there are MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence to support both these things.
So then we have evidence that the "normal way" is damaging, and thus we form the hypothesis that raising a child in a forced gender neutral environment would be less damaging and then carry it out.
Except that is not what happened here, and this is just some parents raising their kid in the way they see best.
You're right, I am, but I am also not arguing that doing such isn't an experiment. Everything we do as a parent that isn't 100% proven is a working experiment. Unfortunately, most of us won't know what the result is for 18 years.
A penis is real, but the idea that everyone with a penis must behave a certain way? Not so much. Likewise, the existence of intelligent, complex animals is pretty solid, but the idea that it was created by God? Not so much.
Indeed. For this reason arguing against the parents' decision because "It's an experiment!" is unsound. We need some specific reasons this is a problem.
Agreed, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm arguing, that without total social isolation, the parents cannot possibly keep Pop from eventually being exposed to gender roles at school, or in play groups.
And her argument is that if the parents (and many of us!) are right, it won't matter if pop is exposed to these gender roles
This.
What Pop's sex is is hidden from everyone else, not from Pop. They could easily give her sex-ed without mentioning gender roles. In fact, if it's anything like here Pop couldn't get any gender-roles from sex-ed. Drawing of naked people and a description of what sex is tells you nothing about how people are supposed to act.
I already explained why it is a bad practice. We do not know the potential risks. It is the equivalent of feeding an untested pill to your child because you believe the pill will make them smarter.
The same thing, of course, being true of every other action and decision ever made by anyone in the universe. Or, if not, why not?
Exactly. By your logic, Gnome, I should believe in God because I was exposed to the (majority opinion) that God exists when I went to school, and informed that this view makes sense because the universe exists. Teachers pushed this on me as well as peers. But I never fell for it because my parents made a point of letting me discover religion for myself.
Go back a page, I already said parenting is one giant experiment. I'm not arguing that "it's an experiment" is a good reason to dislike it, I'm arguing that it most certain is an experiment.
There are sixteen children. One child has not been exposed to gender roles and doesn't care about how it dresses with regards to what is "gender appropriate" and what toys it plays with similarly. Fifteen other children have been exposed and do care. These children all form a peer group.
So when the child (say it's a boy) puts on a dress and plays with a doll, it will likely be exposed to the other children saying "that's not what boys should do".
Now, do you think that the child will not value their opinion (or, if it gets to that, will be capable of shouldering them ostracising it for not conforming to their gender roles)?
This really is just the "It's an experiment!" objection, rephrased.
Every human endeavor involves unanticipated consequences. Do you have an actual reason to believe that raising a child in this way is more harmful than raising him or her according to conventional gender prescriptions, or are you simply allowing your attachment to the status quo overwhelm you with baseless fears?
In which case it's just a distracting semantic tangent.
Well, I'm actually little worried. During years 0-3, children don't have critical factor at all, and the subconscious mind drains in new ideas like a sponge. Almost everything will be recorded, for better and worse. When Pop gets to adulthood, all these learnt rules will be still running on the background. Pop might have consciously decided to be man, but subconscious mind uses all its learnt rules. This can lead into seriously confused identity.
If this is true, then it is trivially true -- that is, it has no impact on the ethics of this behavior either way. If you define 'experiment' in such a way that any course of action is an experiment, then it means that conducting an experiment is a morally neutral act.
It is a wonderful idea in the realm of academics.
Unfortunately, this entire experiment is likely to cause difficulties for Pop later on out in society, because like as not, the rest of society will still be gendered, even if Pop isn't.
THAT is why I see this as a bad idea.
I fail to see how a fluid identity in early childhood can lead to a broken identity in adulthood. In fact, it seems logical to me that the opposite would be the case: a strictly gendered childhood has great potential for causing psychological conflict later in life.
Late to the party.
Is gender a social construct that we control, or one that's intrinsic to being human? Specifically, is it human nature to do these things or is it something a Western Society picked up?
It's pretty common in most species for things with dangly bits to do what things with dangly bits do, and things with holes do what things with holes do. With some groups that don't fit into either of those roles.
The problem occurs when those endeavors are undertaken on other people who do not have the capacity to object.
Please do not mistake my objections to this particular methodology as my attachment to the status quo.
I have many reasons to believe that raising a child this way is more harmful. The primary among them is, how will the child's peers treat him/her when they are not able to categorize him/her as a boy or a girl? Like Feral says, the ability to identify people as male or female is most likely an evolved trait. So, down the line, you're looking at quite a few potential problems in the child's social development.