Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.
This is the interesting part. The child psychologist proposes that children stick with their own sex, but a common feminist assertion is that they only do so because the Patriarchy has asserted their sex upon them, so they already identify with them.
So (ignoring sample size for a moment) if the child does go to their own group, that's a blow for the old "Patriarchy enforces gender identity" argument, whereas if they mingle or go to the opposite group, that's a blow for "gender identity is inherent and unaffected by social factors".
So yeah, that'll be fun to never read about because no newspaper is going to follow this more than once.
I don't think a single child is a large enough sample size to do any damage to either argument.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?
Unless I'm yet again not understanding D&D terms, it sounds like an argument from authority.
"I'm a parent. You should listen to me when we discuss parenting." But we don't know anything about your parenting. I mean, your little girl could be shanking people at daycare.
Agreed, and I'd like to point out I never said that. My comment was simply one of data. I'd like to see what parents, and non-parents, think about the issue. That doesn't make either group right.
I guess my overall point is this: I used to be pretty idealistic about a lot of shit, parenting included. Then I had a kid, and the experience of actually raising a small human drastically, and irrevocably, changed how I perceive a lot of things about the experience of parenting. Doesn't make my experience right or wrong, but it most certainly changed how I thought about stuff.
Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.
This is the interesting part. The child psychologist proposes that children stick with their own sex, but a common feminist assertion is that they only do so because the Patriarchy has asserted their sex upon them, so they already identify with them.
So (ignoring sample size for a moment) if the child does go to their own group, that's a blow for the old "Patriarchy enforces gender identity" argument, whereas if they mingle or go to the opposite group, that's a blow for "gender identity is inherent and unaffected by social factors".
So yeah, that'll be fun to never read about because no newspaper is going to follow this more than once.
I don't think a single child is a large enough sample size to do any damage to either argument.
Unless that child's name is David Reimer.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I do wonder if it's kind of a mind-fuck to eventually realize that your parents are telling other grown ups that whether your a boy or a girl is of no concern. Would the child then worry that there must be something wrong with them, or why else would mom and dad not just answer the question? Obviously, the parents can explain to the kid that they're using it as an experiment to see how social norms affect one's gender, but will the kid understand?
I hope that doesn't sound like concern trolling. If they want to do this, then it is their child and their within their rights. I don't think they're doing in irreparable harm to the kid. I'm just wondering how this will affect the kid in ways other than "oh good, you weren't told by The Man how you should act based on your having or lacking a penis."
Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.
This is the interesting part. The child psychologist proposes that children stick with their own sex, but a common feminist assertion is that they only do so because the Patriarchy has asserted their sex upon them, so they already identify with them.
So (ignoring sample size for a moment) if the child does go to their own group, that's a blow for the old "Patriarchy enforces gender identity" argument, whereas if they mingle or go to the opposite group, that's a blow for "gender identity is inherent and unaffected by social factors".
So yeah, that'll be fun to never read about because no newspaper is going to follow this more than once.
I doubt psychologists are going to let this one slip away, similar to previous "parent-run experiments". These sort of things are invaluable to scientists because they are absurdly unethical to perform as part of an actual experiment but a parent has free reign to mess with the variables of their child's environment as much as they want.
Winky on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I do wonder if it's kind of a mind-fuck to eventually realize that your parents are telling other grown ups that whether your a boy or a girl is of no concern. Would the child then worry that there must be something wrong with them, or why else would mom and dad not just answer the question? Obviously, the parents can explain to the kid that they're using it as an experiment to see how social norms affect one's gender, but will the kid understand?
I hope that doesn't sound like concern trolling. If they want to do this, then it is their child and their within their rights. I don't think they're doing in irreparable harm to the kid. I'm just wondering how this will affect the kid in ways other than "oh good, you weren't told by The Man how you should act based on your having or lacking a penis."
This is another important point. I wholly disagree with this little experiment, my gut feeling is it will do more harm long term than good.....and guess what, that doesn't matter a lick. It's not my kid, and they aren't directly putting their child in harms way (this isn't the Michael Jackson baby hanging incident here). They have the right to raise their child however they want, provided no direct harm or negligence is going on.
So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?
Unless I'm yet again not understanding D&D terms, it sounds like an argument from authority.
"I'm a parent. You should listen to me when we discuss parenting." But we don't know anything about your parenting. I mean, your little girl could be shanking people at daycare.
Agreed, and I'd like to point out I never said that. My comment was simply one of data. I'd like to see what parents, and non-parents, think about the issue. That doesn't make either group right.
I guess my overall point is this: I used to be pretty idealistic about a lot of shit, parenting included. Then I had a kid, and the experience of actually raising a small human drastically, and irrevocably, changed how I perceive a lot of things about the experience of parenting. Doesn't make my experience right or wrong, but it most certainly changed how I thought about stuff.
I understand what you're saying, Gnome. There's no replacement for doing the real thing. I get that. It just came off, to me, as though you wanted to separate the opinions based on whether they're a parent in an attempt to invalidate the opinion of those without kids because they haven't had the experience of raising a kid yet. I see now that that's really not what you're going for, just more "lets see who thinks what, that might be interesting."
Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.
This is the interesting part. The child psychologist proposes that children stick with their own sex, but a common feminist assertion is that they only do so because the Patriarchy has asserted their sex upon them, so they already identify with them.
So (ignoring sample size for a moment) if the child does go to their own group, that's a blow for the old "Patriarchy enforces gender identity" argument, whereas if they mingle or go to the opposite group, that's a blow for "gender identity is inherent and unaffected by social factors".
So yeah, that'll be fun to never read about because no newspaper is going to follow this more than once.
I don't think a single child is a large enough sample size to do any damage to either argument.
Unless that child's name is David Reimer.
Oh man, poor David.
The thing with him, though, was that he wasn't raised in a gender-neutral way and allowed to choose his own path: he was forced to be a girl, and I think he was probably under a lot more pressure than most girls, because his parents were told that it was *very* important that Brenda never find out that she was really a boy. Had he been raised in a more casual manner, it's possible he wouldn't have been quite as depressed as he ended up being. And had he been a different person, it's possible he would have happily identified as female.
So although Reimer's case very heavily implies that gender identity is inherent, we need more samples to be sure.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I don't think a single child is a large enough sample size to do any damage to either argument.
Indeed; sample size prevents actual SCIENCE! here. But if more parents were to do it, and the results were recorded, and we also recorded prevalence of grouping with normally Patriarched children, we could have ourselves a cool cohort study with which to make beautiful SCIENCE! together.
Bethryn on
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
So you're saying that having actually done something doesn't have a valid effect on how you perceive something?
Unless I'm yet again not understanding D&D terms, it sounds like an argument from authority.
"I'm a parent. You should listen to me when we discuss parenting." But we don't know anything about your parenting. I mean, your little girl could be shanking people at daycare.
Agreed, and I'd like to point out I never said that. My comment was simply one of data. I'd like to see what parents, and non-parents, think about the issue. That doesn't make either group right.
I guess my overall point is this: I used to be pretty idealistic about a lot of shit, parenting included. Then I had a kid, and the experience of actually raising a small human drastically, and irrevocably, changed how I perceive a lot of things about the experience of parenting. Doesn't make my experience right or wrong, but it most certainly changed how I thought about stuff.
I understand what you're saying, Gnome. There's no replacement for doing the real thing. I get that. It just came off, to me, as though you wanted to separate the opinions based on whether they're a parent in an attempt to invalidate the opinion of those without kids because they haven't had the experience of raising a kid yet. I see now that that's really not what you're going for, just more "lets see who thinks what, that might be interesting."
Yah, I'm going for interesting, not a "right/wrong" thing. I think that's why Arch reacted that way...I worded it very wrong, and made it look like a position of authority question. That wasn't my intent.
I am mostly curious about how they are going to solve the problem of public bathrooms.
My guess is that it will explode in their faces because no one will allow Pop to use either the boys restroom or the girls restroom, and I will laugh.
You have the heart of an angel.
I am sorry that I have no sympathy for a couple of retarded parents who are willing to use their child as a guinea pig. So yes, deep down inside I want their "experiment" to come to an end sooner rather than later.
I am mostly curious about how they are going to solve the problem of public bathrooms.
My guess is that it will explode in their faces because no one will allow Pop to use either the boys restroom or the girls restroom, and I will laugh.
You have the heart of an angel.
I am sorry that I have no sympathy for a couple of retarded parents who are willing to use their child as a guinea pig. So yes, deep down inside I want their "experiment" to come to an end sooner rather than later.
Oooookayyy well that was insightful and showed a deep understanding and concern for the current state of gender theory and the issues that surround it.
I am mostly curious about how they are going to solve the problem of public bathrooms.
My guess is that it will explode in their faces because no one will allow Pop to use either the boys restroom or the girls restroom, and I will laugh.
You have the heart of an angel.
I am sorry that I have no sympathy for a couple of retarded parents who are willing to use their child as a guinea pig. So yes, deep down inside I want their "experiment" to come to an end sooner rather than later.
Oooookayyy well that was insightful and showed a deep understanding and concern for the current state of gender theory and the issues that surround it.
I've never heard of an experiment like this before.
This is exactly why I think it's wrong. We have no idea how this will affect the child, at all, because it is completely unprecedented. What if he/she ends up horribly confused and becomes depressed/suicidal? That's just one horrible possibility out of many.
Also, who is to say that Pop will not be mocked by his/her peers for being genderless?
The parents are effectively using their kid as a guinea pig.
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
Man, I just can't bring myself to feel enraged about this as an example of parents raising their kids in a manner which may lead to screwing them up.
Some parents lock their children in closets and never let them leave.
Yah, and some parents have kids with their kids after locking them in closets. There are fucked up people in the world, doesn't preclude you from disagreeing with what these parents are doing (if you actually disagree of course, if you don't, okay then).
Also I don't really like calling this an experiment, nor do I like calling this kid a guinea pig.
But I can't really back those up, they just rub me weirdly.
Well, I would be surprised if they didn't, since you agree with the choice. Makes perfect logical sense to me that you wouldn't like it called an experiment, or the child called a guinea pig.
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
These two statements are incompatible, unless I misinterpret what you mean by "fuck gender roles"
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
You are making unwarranted assumptions about these parents' motives. I find it likely they believe this will lead to their child being healthier psychologically.
Whether it will or will not do this is debatable, but you have no evidence to make assertions about the motivation behind this.
Hachface on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
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.
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
miscellaneousinsanitygrass grows, birds fly, sun shines,and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered Userregular
But it seems to me that all the parents are doing is just preventing the child from exploring a part of their identity entirely.
Allowing the child access to the clothes and toys of both genders is preventing them from exploring a part of their identity?
Is today backwards day?
Okay, I didn't get my thoughts across very well. What my impression of this is, yes, providing equal availability of toys and clothes is well and good, but they are only accessories. At the same time, by keeping their gender secret and referring to it by name only, the parents seem to be shutting the child off from developing their identity. In effect the message they're getting across is that all gender is bad and should be kept secret, when they should embrace the child for how they are. Instead of teaching the child that despite being a boy it's okay to have tea parties and despite being a girl it's okay to like dinosaurs, the parents are trying to cover up the issue.
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.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
These two statements are incompatible, unless I misinterpret what you mean by "fuck gender roles"
Yes, I know they are incompatible. Hence the "but also".
I'd rather subscribe to gender roles and raise my kid like everyone else, than perform never-before-performed socio-developmental experiments on my child just to see what happens.
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.
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
These two statements are incompatible, unless I misinterpret what you mean by "fuck gender roles"
Wasn't that boy taught to be a girl and therefore acted like it up to wearing 'girl' clothing and styling his hair longer?
I can't view links at work.
I mean, kids won't question it if they see something they understand and constantly. "Oh hey, she wears girly stuff every day, therefore she's a girl." which makes me think the question never came up.
I think questions will be raised by friends when Pop looks like a boy some days and a girl others.
I disagree with Feral all the TIME; the man hasn't even seen Jurassic Park for god's sake!
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
These two statements are incompatible, unless I misinterpret what you mean by "fuck gender roles"
Yes, I know they are incompatible. Hence the "but also".
I'd rather subscribe to gender roles and raise my kid like everyone else, than perform never-before-performed socio-developmental experiments on my child just to see what happens.
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.
Oh no someone who thinks that the gender status quo is A-ok is freaking out at attempts to defy it!
Also I don't really like calling this an experiment, nor do I like calling this kid a guinea pig.
But I can't really back those up, they just rub me weirdly.
See, I feel like the word "experiment" works perfectly here. The parents have a hypothesis, and they're testing it by doing what they're doing. They don't know what the outcome will be, they do not know what the side-effects might be, but they're going to find out. Honestly, this experiment bothers me. I wish the best for this kid, and if things work out I hope we're all enlightened by how things turn out. I hope there are no negatives even to be taken away from this. It worries me though, especially for the reasons I mentioned on the last page which basically boils down to "how's this going to affect the kid's mental state." Will the kid worry that something is wrong with itself because mom and dad won't just come out and tell the neighbor that this is their baby boy or baby girl? Will there be other side-effects? How will other children treat Pop? Should we worry about how other kids will treat Pop, and should that affect how the parents raise the child? It's a big mess in my brain, and I see the plusses (I think) but I'm also worried that there are a lot of negatives that I don't see or that we're not seeing yet.
Switched to using "Pop" because I felt like I was treating the poor kid too much like a thing and not a person.
[ed] I think I would feel more comfortable if this were some sort of a monitored experiment with some sort of data being gathered. I'd feel better if there were a man with a white lab-coat behind the parents at all times going "hmmmm, mmhmmm, I see," and scribbling furiously on graph paper.
iTunesIsEvil 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.
When I was small, my parents decided that they didn't want my brothers and I to have weapons in the house, as they thought too much violence was bad for kids, and hey, it was the 80s. I don't remember the age (I heard this as a story, not from personal recollection), although I'm pretty sure it predates my memories anyway - but my mom came into the kitchen and was horrified to see that we had chewed our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches into the shapes of guns and were cheerfully "shooting" each other.
Take that, post-pseudo-hippie parenting!
My point is, parents have a vast influence on the development of their child, but there are other influences, too, and they get proportionally much stronger the older the child is. Much as my parents were unable to keep us from thinking guns were as cool as your average six-year-old does, I think Pop's will only be able to do so much - s/he will grow up in a world divided by sex and will have to participate in it sooner or later. I mean, even without leaving the house Pop sees one version of what an adult human male and an adult human female act like, which honestly will shape his/her development and intrinsic attitudes more than being given a blue diaper will.
In the end, as long as this doesn't become a media shitshow, I can see Pop growing up to be a perfectly normal, probably more open-minded person for all this, although I can admit my unfounded optimism in this case.
Polity on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
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."
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.
If that's the case, Pop might break down after he/she makes friends then. If he/she knows "I'm a boy" or "I'm a girl" then the boys/girls start saying "Well, boys don't wear dresses." or "Girls don't play with trucks."
I don't know really, maybe the length of time before kids start saying this stuff will be enough to have an impact.
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."
This is not the first time you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of anything at all related to the current state of gender studies Protein Shakes, and it would behoove you very much to learn a bit more about it before continuing this discussion, or discussions of its kind.
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.
Lieberkuhn on
While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
Posts
I don't think I've ever seen it. At least, not from any of the regulars.
It is an extremely common strawman, though.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You have the heart of an angel.
I don't think a single child is a large enough sample size to do any damage to either argument.
Agreed, and I'd like to point out I never said that. My comment was simply one of data. I'd like to see what parents, and non-parents, think about the issue. That doesn't make either group right.
I guess my overall point is this: I used to be pretty idealistic about a lot of shit, parenting included. Then I had a kid, and the experience of actually raising a small human drastically, and irrevocably, changed how I perceive a lot of things about the experience of parenting. Doesn't make my experience right or wrong, but it most certainly changed how I thought about stuff.
Unless that child's name is David Reimer.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I hope that doesn't sound like concern trolling. If they want to do this, then it is their child and their within their rights. I don't think they're doing in irreparable harm to the kid. I'm just wondering how this will affect the kid in ways other than "oh good, you weren't told by The Man how you should act based on your having or lacking a penis."
I doubt psychologists are going to let this one slip away, similar to previous "parent-run experiments". These sort of things are invaluable to scientists because they are absurdly unethical to perform as part of an actual experiment but a parent has free reign to mess with the variables of their child's environment as much as they want.
This is another important point. I wholly disagree with this little experiment, my gut feeling is it will do more harm long term than good.....and guess what, that doesn't matter a lick. It's not my kid, and they aren't directly putting their child in harms way (this isn't the Michael Jackson baby hanging incident here). They have the right to raise their child however they want, provided no direct harm or negligence is going on.
Oh man, poor David.
The thing with him, though, was that he wasn't raised in a gender-neutral way and allowed to choose his own path: he was forced to be a girl, and I think he was probably under a lot more pressure than most girls, because his parents were told that it was *very* important that Brenda never find out that she was really a boy. Had he been raised in a more casual manner, it's possible he wouldn't have been quite as depressed as he ended up being. And had he been a different person, it's possible he would have happily identified as female.
So although Reimer's case very heavily implies that gender identity is inherent, we need more samples to be sure.
Yah, I'm going for interesting, not a "right/wrong" thing. I think that's why Arch reacted that way...I worded it very wrong, and made it look like a position of authority question. That wasn't my intent.
I am sorry that I have no sympathy for a couple of retarded parents who are willing to use their child as a guinea pig. So yes, deep down inside I want their "experiment" to come to an end sooner rather than later.
Oooookayyy well that was insightful and showed a deep understanding and concern for the current state of gender theory and the issues that surround it.
You dare disagree with Feral?
Some parents lock their children in closets and never let them leave.
But admitting that there are valid concerns here is not the same as condoning your stance that these parents are "retarded" and wishing ill will on this 'experiment.'
Yah, and some parents have kids with their kids after locking them in closets. There are fucked up people in the world, doesn't preclude you from disagreeing with what these parents are doing (if you actually disagree of course, if you don't, okay then).
But I can't really back those up, they just rub me weirdly.
"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.
Well, I would be surprised if they didn't, since you agree with the choice. Makes perfect logical sense to me that you wouldn't like it called an experiment, or the child called a guinea pig.
I wish ill on the experiment because I want Pop to return to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible.
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.
Yeah, it is destined to fail as soon as the kid starts interacting with other kids.
But are they though?
I posted a video earlier of a six year old who is a "boy" (meaning physiologically) but has gendered herself as a girl.
At age six.
These two statements are incompatible, unless I misinterpret what you mean by "fuck gender roles"
You are making unwarranted assumptions about these parents' motives. I find it likely they believe this will lead to their child being healthier psychologically.
Whether it will or will not do this is debatable, but you have no evidence to make assertions about the motivation behind this.
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.
Okay, I didn't get my thoughts across very well. What my impression of this is, yes, providing equal availability of toys and clothes is well and good, but they are only accessories. At the same time, by keeping their gender secret and referring to it by name only, the parents seem to be shutting the child off from developing their identity. In effect the message they're getting across is that all gender is bad and should be kept secret, when they should embrace the child for how they are. Instead of teaching the child that despite being a boy it's okay to have tea parties and despite being a girl it's okay to like dinosaurs, the parents are trying to cover up the issue.
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.
Yes, I know they are incompatible. Hence the "but also".
I'd rather subscribe to gender roles and raise my kid like everyone else, than perform never-before-performed socio-developmental experiments on my child just to see what happens.
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.
Wasn't that boy taught to be a girl and therefore acted like it up to wearing 'girl' clothing and styling his hair longer?
I can't view links at work.
I mean, kids won't question it if they see something they understand and constantly. "Oh hey, she wears girly stuff every day, therefore she's a girl." which makes me think the question never came up.
I think questions will be raised by friends when Pop looks like a boy some days and a girl others.
Oh no someone who thinks that the gender status quo is A-ok is freaking out at attempts to defy it!
[ed] I think I would feel more comfortable if this were some sort of a monitored experiment with some sort of data being gathered. I'd feel better if there were a man with a white lab-coat behind the parents at all times going "hmmmm, mmhmmm, I see," and scribbling furiously on graph paper.
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.
When I was small, my parents decided that they didn't want my brothers and I to have weapons in the house, as they thought too much violence was bad for kids, and hey, it was the 80s. I don't remember the age (I heard this as a story, not from personal recollection), although I'm pretty sure it predates my memories anyway - but my mom came into the kitchen and was horrified to see that we had chewed our peanut butter and jelly sandwiches into the shapes of guns and were cheerfully "shooting" each other.
Take that, post-pseudo-hippie parenting!
My point is, parents have a vast influence on the development of their child, but there are other influences, too, and they get proportionally much stronger the older the child is. Much as my parents were unable to keep us from thinking guns were as cool as your average six-year-old does, I think Pop's will only be able to do so much - s/he will grow up in a world divided by sex and will have to participate in it sooner or later. I mean, even without leaving the house Pop sees one version of what an adult human male and an adult human female act like, which honestly will shape his/her development and intrinsic attitudes more than being given a blue diaper will.
In the end, as long as this doesn't become a media shitshow, I can see Pop growing up to be a perfectly normal, probably more open-minded person for all this, although I can admit my unfounded optimism in this case.
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."
If that's the case, Pop might break down after he/she makes friends then. If he/she knows "I'm a boy" or "I'm a girl" then the boys/girls start saying "Well, boys don't wear dresses." or "Girls don't play with trucks."
I don't know really, maybe the length of time before kids start saying this stuff will be enough to have an impact.
This is not the first time you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of anything at all related to the current state of gender studies Protein Shakes, and it would behoove you very much to learn a bit more about it before continuing this discussion, or discussions of its kind.
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.