As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Pop the mysterious child

13468924

Posts

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    ronya I am unclear why you salmon'd me. I chose my words very carefully for the very reason you limed.

    Because the X and Y chromosomes don't create consistent physiological characteristics :P

    Apologies if this is what you meant, but your post seemed to imply that they do. And, well, they don't (which leave us with no absolute biological basis of gender, which is one reason why societies throw their hands up in the air and just go with whatever the individual self-identifies as).

    There isn't any implication about consistency in what I wrote.

    Sorry for being a pill about this, but I tried really hard to be accurate and in my humble opinion I succeeded. :P

    Hachface on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I don't like the idea of using a living thing to make a point.

    Welcome to parenting.

    If that is your idea of parenting, do everybody a favor and please don't ever become a parent.

    If I have a child, I intend to make a point that throwing all of your food on the floor instead of eating it isn't acceptable.

    If I have a child, I intend to make a point that after playing with your toys there is a time of cleaning up.

    If I have a child, I intend to make a point that punching other kids isn't an acceptable method of having an argument.

    Parenting is all about instilling 'points' onto your children. If parents didn't that all children would be feral monsters (and despite some rumblings from old people, we're not at that stage yet). Just because a certain 'point' is less socially acceptable doesn't mean it's bad. Perhaps the socially acceptable point is bad.

    It's certainly going to make Pop's life more complicated at a certain point, but I've seen no reason that the parents aren't up to it. Until the child shows real behavioral problems, I see no reason to let parents do as they please.

    I don't think you get what "making a point" means in this context.

    Again you are making totally baseless assumptions about the parents' motives. Stop that.

    Hachface on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Maybe they are doing it because they think it will make Pop happier, rather than seeking to make a point to third-party onlookers?

    I don't have enough faith in the general populace to believe Pop will be better off. Like I said, people are dogmatic, and downright cruel when anyone doesn't conveniently fit into their extremely limited views of what's acceptable.

    However, Pop does live in one of the better places for this situation. I still don't think it's worth potentially ruining a life just to see what happens, though.

    Also:
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.

    But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?

    In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?

    I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?

    I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.

    I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?

    OK. So just to be clear: If you'd lived 50 years ago but with your same moral convictions, you would have raised your child to believe that homosexuality is wrong, whatever your personal convictions, because that's what society popularly felt?

    Alternatively: would you have raised your child, 100 years ago, to be a racist even if you felt differently, because society didn't like the idea of whites treating blacks equally?

    Ego on
    Erik
  • templewulftemplewulf The Team Chump USARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think our constructs about gender are entirely socially contrived, but a lot of conformant / divergent behaviors may be naturally caused anyway. Allowing the child to do their own thing is ideally the best way to go.

    Having said that, I don't know of a way to protect children from the harmful effects of gender imposition while simultaneously giving them the tools to navigate a society in which it exists. Kinda like teaching kids to avoid rattlesnakes, except that you are automatically poisoned every time someone says "rattlesnake".

    templewulf on
    Twitch.tv/FiercePunchStudios | PSN | Steam | Discord | SFV CFN: templewulf
  • Grim SqueakerGrim Squeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I don't think you get what "making a point" means in this context.

    I do, I just acknowledge the many different 'points' you can make, how some are better are worse or better than others, how some are more socially or culturally acceptable than others, and how these two things don't always agree woth one another.

    Grim Squeaker on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.

    But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?

    In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?

    I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?

    I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.

    I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?

    OK. So just to be clear: If you'd lived 50 years ago but with your same moral convictions, you would have raised your child to believe that homosexuality is wrong, whatever your personal convictions, because that's what society popularly felt?

    Alternatively: would you have raised your child, 100 years ago, to be a racist even if you felt differently, because society didn't like the idea of whites treating blacks equally?

    You are on much, much more solid ground when dealing with either of those situations. This is little more than an experiment. It's fucked up.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    You know, if you actually asked the child his desired gender, I don't think he'd answer "hermaphrodite" or, as they say in Sweden, "futa."

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Grim SqueakerGrim Squeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    Grim Squeaker on
  • Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    You know, if you actually asked the child his desired gender, I don't think he'd answer "hermaphrodite" or, as they say in Sweden, "futa."

    It's entirely possible it would answer "vampire bat" or "Buzz Lightyear."

    Cedar Brown on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    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.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    There are two very important things to keep in mind here:

    1) We don't know if gender roles are learned or inherent or whatever. Gender itself is getting very blurry.

    2) It's a child. If an independent adult tried it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a child who is dependent on parents.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Protein Shakes on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.

    But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?

    In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?

    I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?

    I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.

    I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?

    OK. So just to be clear: If you'd lived 50 years ago but with your same moral convictions, you would have raised your child to believe that homosexuality is wrong, whatever your personal convictions, because that's what society popularly felt?

    Alternatively: would you have raised your child, 100 years ago, to be a racist even if you felt differently, because society didn't like the idea of whites treating blacks equally?

    You are on much, much more solid ground when dealing with either of those situations. This is little more than an experiment. It's fucked up.

    Are you kidding me? We're on solid ground for racism and sexual preference because at some point people were willing to challenge societies views on racism and 'sexual deviance'.

    Do you really think fundamentalist christians don't view parents raising kids to think homosexuality is fine as being some kind of fucked up experiment?

    Do you really think racists 100 years ago didn't think parents raising their kids to think races are all equal was some kind of fucked up experiment?

    Raising kids according to the views of their parents, be those views extremely liberal or extremely conservative, might do that kid no favours in fitting in. But calling parents raising their kids according to the parents own convictions experimenters is just fucking stupid.

    Did your parents ever teach you something that went against socities majority opinion? OMG YOUR PARENTS MUST GO TO PRISON FOR CHILD EXPERIMENTATION.

    The experiment argument is ten kinds of stupid.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Parents who raise their child free of religious indoctrination do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-religion environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Aroused Bull on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.

    But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?

    In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?

    I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?

    I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.

    I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?

    OK. So just to be clear: If you'd lived 50 years ago but with your same moral convictions, you would have raised your child to believe that homosexuality is wrong, whatever your personal convictions, because that's what society popularly felt?

    Alternatively: would you have raised your child, 100 years ago, to be a racist even if you felt differently, because society didn't like the idea of whites treating blacks equally?

    You are on much, much more solid ground when dealing with either of those situations. This is little more than an experiment. It's fucked up.

    Are you kidding me? We're on solid ground for racism and sexual preference because at some point people were willing to challenge societies views on racism and 'sexual deviance'

    Do you really think fundamentalist christians don't view parents raising kids to think homosexuality is fine as being some kind of fucked up experiment?

    Do you really think racists 100 years ago didn't think parents raising their kids to think races are all equal was some kind of fucked up experiment?

    Raising kids according to the views of their parents, be those views extremely liberal or extremely conservative, might do that kid no favours in fitting in. But calling parents raising their kids according to the parents own convictions experimenters is just fucking stupid.

    Did your parents ever teach you something that went against socities majority opinion? OMG YOUR PARENTS MUST GO TO PRISON FOR CHILD EXPERIMENTATION.

    The experiment argument is ten kinds of stupid.

    It's gender identity, not some fucking silly political agenda or clearly immoral opinions. You may view gender as being as trivial as deciding whether or not you're gonna be a democrat or a republican, but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    So when you raise a child, everything you do will be based on scientific evidence?

    I hope you appreciate the herculean task you have set for yourself.

    Also, again, stop making stupid assumptions. You have no idea how thoughtfully they have considered this choice, so saying the idea popped into their head "out of the blue" is baseless.

    Hachface on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Parents who raise their child free of religious indoctrination do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-religion environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Apples and bananas, dude.
    So when you raise a child, everything you do will be based on scientific evidence?

    Yes.
    I hope you appreciate the herculean task you have set for yourself.

    I am totally fine with that, because I believe that raising a child is a very serious responsibility. Unlike some people it seems.

    Protein Shakes on
  • Grim SqueakerGrim Squeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    There are two very important things to keep in mind here:

    1) We don't know if gender roles are learned or inherent or whatever. Gender itself is getting very blurry.

    2) It's a child. If an independent adult tried it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a child who is dependent on parents.

    1) If that's the case, applying the least amount of pressure should amount to the optimal result.

    2) Until I see evidence that this is actually harming the child (and no, requiring some deep talks at some time is no harm as such because every child needs them sometimes), I see no difference between raising the child as a vegetarian, atheist, muslim, christian or whatever.

    Grim Squeaker on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Parents who raise their child free of religious indoctrination do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-religion environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Apples and bananas, dude.

    Special pleading, dude.

    Hachface on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.

    But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?

    In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?

    I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?

    I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.

    I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?

    OK. So just to be clear: If you'd lived 50 years ago but with your same moral convictions, you would have raised your child to believe that homosexuality is wrong, whatever your personal convictions, because that's what society popularly felt?

    Alternatively: would you have raised your child, 100 years ago, to be a racist even if you felt differently, because society didn't like the idea of whites treating blacks equally?

    You are on much, much more solid ground when dealing with either of those situations. This is little more than an experiment. It's fucked up.

    Are you kidding me? We're on solid ground for racism and sexual preference because at some point people were willing to challenge societies views on racism and 'sexual deviance'

    Do you really think fundamentalist christians don't view parents raising kids to think homosexuality is fine as being some kind of fucked up experiment?

    Do you really think racists 100 years ago didn't think parents raising their kids to think races are all equal was some kind of fucked up experiment?

    Raising kids according to the views of their parents, be those views extremely liberal or extremely conservative, might do that kid no favours in fitting in. But calling parents raising their kids according to the parents own convictions experimenters is just fucking stupid.

    Did your parents ever teach you something that went against socities majority opinion? OMG YOUR PARENTS MUST GO TO PRISON FOR CHILD EXPERIMENTATION.

    The experiment argument is ten kinds of stupid.

    It's gender identity, not some fucking silly political agenda or clearly immoral opinions. You may view gender as being as trivial as deciding whether or not you're gonna be a democrat or a republican, but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

    Why don't you get this? Racism and anti-homosexuality are only clearly immoral because society has progressed to the point where we can look back on things like Turing's conviction for homosexuality and say 'yep, that is fucked up.' And that progression took people taking active stances against society's ass-backwardness.

    100 years ago society didn't think racism was immoral (some still don't.) 50 years ago society didn't think anti-homosexual sentiment was immoral (many still don't.) So would you raise your kid, 100 years ago, to be a racist? Would your raise your kid, 50 years ago, to be anti-gay? You, with the morality you have today. Well?

    I ask again: if it turns out his parents are right, and gender identity isn't defined by sexuality, would you want to raise your kids to think it's okay to play with dolls/cars/girls/boys, or raise your kids to bully the ones who do?

    Ego on
    Erik
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    There are two very important things to keep in mind here:

    1) We don't know if gender roles are learned or inherent or whatever. Gender itself is getting very blurry.

    2) It's a child. If an independent adult tried it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a child who is dependent on parents.

    1) If that's the case, applying the least amount of pressure should amount to the optimal result.

    2) Until I see evidence that this is actually harming the child (and no, requiring some deep talks at some time is no harm as such because every child needs them sometimes), I see no difference between raising the child as a vegetarian, atheist, muslim, christian or whatever.

    Those are all viewpoints that can be changed pretty easily at any point in time.

    Meanwhile, there is a very publicized case where a man shot himself in public because of gender identity.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Parents who raise their child free of religious indoctrination do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-religion environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    Apples and bananas, dude.

    I require convincing.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Grim SqueakerGrim Squeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial.

    Then again, there is no scientific evidence that raising a child in a no-gender environment is harmful.

    Grim Squeaker on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial.

    Then again, there is no scientific evidence that raising a child in a no-gender environment is harmful.

    And, crucially, you can't know that raising your child according to gender roles is not harmful.

    Aroused Bull on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    There are two very important things to keep in mind here:

    1) We don't know if gender roles are learned or inherent or whatever. Gender itself is getting very blurry.

    2) It's a child. If an independent adult tried it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a child who is dependent on parents.

    1) If that's the case, applying the least amount of pressure should amount to the optimal result.

    2) Until I see evidence that this is actually harming the child (and no, requiring some deep talks at some time is no harm as such because every child needs them sometimes), I see no difference between raising the child as a vegetarian, atheist, muslim, christian or whatever.

    Those are all viewpoints that can be changed pretty easily at any point in time.

    Meanwhile, there is a very publicized case where a man shot himself in public because of gender identity.

    The one who's parents and psychiatrists tried to force a gender identity on him despite his own opinions, due to the state of his genitalia?

    ...

    I don't think you're making the argument that you think you're making.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Also, again, stop making stupid assumptions. You have no idea how thoughtfully they have considered this choice,

    There is nothing stupid about the assumption. How much thought can you put into something if there is literally zero information (i.e. scientific evidence and precedent) available for it? Not much.
    I require convincing.

    Really? Jesus. You seriously do not understand that gender identity is a much more critical part of self-development than religious identity? As Feral has said, our brains may very well be hardwired to recognize and categorize people according to their gender. This has serious implications for this kid's social development and the treatment by his/her peers.

    I... I feel like I am pointing out the obvious. I don't know.

    @Hachface: either you are playing devil's advocate or this conversation is truly hopeless because of how out of touch with reality you are.

    Protein Shakes on
  • Grim SqueakerGrim Squeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2010

    Those are all viewpoints that can be changed pretty easily at any point in time.

    Meanwhile, there is a very publicized case where a man shot himself in public because of gender identity.

    I'm sure that religious issues have killled far more people than those who are conflicted themselves, and yet we still allow parents to teach about religion.

    Grim Squeaker on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Shakes, do you have any research backing you whatsoever?

    Or is this just distrustful rage at the status quo being flaunted?

    I'm honestly curious.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    There are two very important things to keep in mind here:

    1) We don't know if gender roles are learned or inherent or whatever. Gender itself is getting very blurry.

    2) It's a child. If an independent adult tried it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a child who is dependent on parents.

    1) If that's the case, applying the least amount of pressure should amount to the optimal result.

    2) Until I see evidence that this is actually harming the child (and no, requiring some deep talks at some time is no harm as such because every child needs them sometimes), I see no difference between raising the child as a vegetarian, atheist, muslim, christian or whatever.

    Those are all viewpoints that can be changed pretty easily at any point in time.

    Meanwhile, there is a very publicized case where a man shot himself in public because of gender identity.

    The one who's parents and psychiatrists tried to force a gender identity on him despite his own opinions, due to the state of his genitalia?

    ...

    I don't think you're making the argument that you think you're making.

    First of all, I was referring to the psychological and physical abuse he suffered from. Do you honestly think Pop is gonna get away clean?

    Second of all, I'm also making a point of the weight that comes with gender identity that isn't quite so severe when it comes to what kind of foods you eat or who you vote for on election day.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Also, again, stop making stupid assumptions. You have no idea how thoughtfully they have considered this choice,

    There is nothing stupid about the assumption. How much thought can you put into something if there is literally zero information (i.e. scientific evidence and precedent) available for it? Not much.

    This is laughable.

    1. There is scientific basis for what these parents are doing. See: the existence of intersexed children, the existence of gender dysmorphia. Just for a start.

    2. The scientific method is not the be-all end-all of correct human reasoning.
    @Hachface: either you are playing devil's advocate or this conversation is truly hopeless because of how out of touch with reality you are.

    I think this conversation is hopeless because of your prejudices and inability to think clearly.

    Hachface on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    I think it's height of silly goosery to use your kid as a prop in some kind of political statement

    It's amazing how many things we can apply this to. Raising a kid vegetarian, raising him a meateater, raising him an atheist, raising him a Christian, spanking him, not spanking him, homeschooling him, sending him to a public school, sending him to a private school...

    If I believe [x] is bad, then shielding my child from [x] logically follows. I may also make a political statement about [x]. These two things are not mutually incompatible.

    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial. They have either convinced themselves that it will, out of the blue, or they are doing it to make a political statement and are fully aware that whatever benefits they are hoping the kid will receive from being raised that way are completely imaginary.

    There's plenty of evidence that gender role conflict, or failure to uphold deeply-ingrained gender roles, are sources of stress and depression. Children coming from more egalitarian households tend to report lower rates of depression than children coming from more traditionally gendered households.

    I can't really say that there's strong evidence that gender roles are categorically harmful regardless of their strength or nature, but there is evidence that very strong or strict or otherwise unachievable gender roles certainly are. So does that mean that very strong gender roles inflict a particularly potent type of harm, whereas weaker gender roles inflict the same harm but milder in degree, thereby implying that the imposition of any gender roles is more harmful than the imposition of none? I'll be honest, I'll admit that I don't think there's quite enough evidence to make that claim. Not everything that's harmful in large amounts is necessarily proportionally harmful in small amounts. However, it's not totally beyond the realm of reason. We know that this thing, this system of gender, causes a lot of stress and angst and unhappiness in various different areas of life... so it shouldn't be that shocking that somebody wants to shield their children from it.

    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.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial.

    Then again, there is no scientific evidence that raising a child in a no-gender environment is harmful.

    What? This is nonsense. Before taking a drug, do you say "well, there isn't any evidence that this will harm me, so what the hell". Or do you use your common sense and try to find out if it has gone through clinical trials and experiments before taking it?

    Protein Shakes on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    It's gender identity, not some fucking silly political agenda or clearly immoral opinions. You may view gender as being as trivial as deciding whether or not you're gonna be a democrat or a republican, but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

    What? Racial integration and religious affiliation are big fucking deals to people, and were even moreso 50 years ago. My fiance had abuse heaped on him growing up atheist in the freaking 1980's in southern California. Interracial pairings are still taboo to some today because "think of the children!" and it's only BECAUSE of people who insisted on falling in love and reproducing generations ago that we can look at multiracial folks and say "oh. well, turns out it's no biggie." and we STILL have people saying "what culture will little Bobby identify with? He'll be so confused, arglebargle!"

    And you know what? If the parents don't support the child and adequately educate and prepare them for the world around them, it IS a problem for some kids. That doesn't make it an unworthwhile endeavor. So if Pop's parents aren't at the very least setting Pop aside and giving the "now, you may encounter some silly geese in your life" speech, then we can talk about how badly they are preparing Pop for life.

    My concern is more about how well Pop's parents think they can really shield Pop from the all-pervasiveness of gender socialization. I get that they can choose their friends, but little black girls start choosing the white doll over the black one by age three even when their entire families are black. How the parents can keep Pop from watching any media ever (because messages will seep in) will be interesting.

    sidhaethe on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Is 'differing from established cultural norms' the same as 'experimenting'?

    There are two very important things to keep in mind here:

    1) We don't know if gender roles are learned or inherent or whatever. Gender itself is getting very blurry.

    2) It's a child. If an independent adult tried it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a child who is dependent on parents.

    1) If that's the case, applying the least amount of pressure should amount to the optimal result.

    2) Until I see evidence that this is actually harming the child (and no, requiring some deep talks at some time is no harm as such because every child needs them sometimes), I see no difference between raising the child as a vegetarian, atheist, muslim, christian or whatever.

    Those are all viewpoints that can be changed pretty easily at any point in time.

    Meanwhile, there is a very publicized case where a man shot himself in public because of gender identity.

    The one who's parents and psychiatrists tried to force a gender identity on him despite his own opinions, due to the state of his genitalia?

    ...

    I don't think you're making the argument that you think you're making.

    First of all, I was referring to the psychological and physical abuse he suffered from. Do you honestly think Pop is gonna get away clean?

    Second of all, I'm also making a point of the weight that comes with gender identity that isn't quite so severe when it comes to what kind of foods you eat or who you vote for on election day.

    I'm not the veg/meat comparison guy, I'm the racism/sexuality comparison guy. I'm also Canadian, and just so you know: we have neither democrats or republicans.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Really? Jesus. You seriously do not understand that gender identity is a much more critical part of self-development than religious identity? As Feral has said, our brains may very well be hardwired to recognize and categorize people according to their gender. This has serious implications for this kid's social development and the treatment by his/her peers.

    I... I feel like I am pointing out the obvious. I don't know.

    Gender identity may well be more important than religious identity, but that's not actually relevant to the statement I was addressing. A difference of degree is not a difference of kind.

    Aroused Bull on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Shakes, do you have any research backing you whatsoever?

    Or is this just distrustful rage at the status quo being flaunted?

    I'm honestly curious.

    The onus is not on me to prove anything. I am not the one performing first-time experiments on my child.

    Also, please do not take my stance against experimenting on one's child as me defending the status quo. I dislike gender roles as much as anyone else. I just do not think this is a good way to battle them.

    Protein Shakes on
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    A lot of people have pointed out an intense worry that Pop will disregard his or her own gender when deciding what behaviour is 'appropriate', and that other children, raised into gender stereotypes, will tease him or her horribly for it.

    But... for Pop to disregard gender like that, would imply that gender is just a social construct... at which point: would you really want to raise your kids to think that only following societies view of gender is right? Is that any different than raising them to think that they need to follow societies views on sexual preferences? On racial stereotypes?

    In short, if his parents are right about gender as a social construct, would you really rather raise your children to be bullies than to be right?

    I'm not sure what question you're asking. If they're right, would the people here change their minds?

    I think the more important thing to be worrying about is, regardless of whether they are right or not, people don't give a shit. People are dogmatic, and Pop, should Pop be truly gender neutral all of Pop's life, will probably end up being really messed up as an adult due to abuse.

    I find the whole thing fucked up. Even if you say, "Okay, Pop's parents are right, Pop can choose to be whatever Pop wants to be. Pop doesn't need to be a boy or a girl." There are so many social ramifications that being right comes at a much greater cost. The question to me is, do these parents care more about making a point using a living, breathing, thinking human being, or raising one that is going to be happy?

    I get this concern. I understand it and it's not strange to have it. But in essence what you're saying is that you'd rather have your kid just fit in than be what they are. The parralel to homosexuality is easy to draw. Obviously you don't want your kid to be miserable because he/she is shunned by part of society, but does that justify enforcing roles on them?


    This case is certainly going into an extreme territory about gender roles and their nature, sure. But I really can't claim what the parents are doing is wrong. I wouldn't do the same, but that's because I think I care more about my kid fitting in and being happy with their role than whether he/she can be whatever they want. It's bravery on the parent's side because I don't think they believe there won't be a part of society that condemns this. They just seem to feel very strongly that kids should be left alone and not be forced (however subtle) into a role. It's not an experiment, it's not making a point, it's a genuine belief that this is the best way to raise their child.

    Julius on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    It's gender identity, not some fucking silly political agenda or clearly immoral opinions. You may view gender as being as trivial as deciding whether or not you're gonna be a democrat or a republican, but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

    What? Racial integration and religious affiliation are big fucking deals to people, and were even moreso 50 years ago. My fiance had abuse heaped on him growing up atheist in the freaking 1980's in southern California. Interracial pairings are still taboo to some today because "think of the children!" and it's only BECAUSE of people who insisted on falling in love and reproducing generations ago that we can look at multiracial folks and say "oh. well, turns out it's no biggie." and we STILL have people saying "what culture will little Bobby identify with? He'll be so confused, arglebargle!"

    And you know what? If the parents don't support the child and adequately educate and prepare them for the world around them, it IS a problem for some kids. That doesn't make it an unworthwhile endeavor. So if Pop's parents aren't at the very least setting Pop aside and giving the "now, you may encounter some silly geese in your life" speech, then we can talk about how badly they are preparing Pop for life.

    My concern is more about how well Pop's parents think they can really shield Pop from the all-pervasiveness of gender socialization. I get that they can choose their friends, but little black girls start choosing the white doll over the black one by age three even when their entire families are black. How the parents can keep Pop from watching any media ever (because messages will seep in) will be interesting.

    Now take all of that, and add it on top of the fact that we don't know what the fuck will happen to Pop.

    See what I'm saying? Maybe we should find out a little more about how gender identity works before we decide to throw a kid into it with his entire life at stake.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Grim SqueakerGrim Squeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The difference is that, in this case, the parents do not have any scientific evidence that raising the kid in a no-gender environment is actually going to be beneficial.

    Then again, there is no scientific evidence that raising a child in a no-gender environment is harmful.

    What? This is nonsense. Before taking a drug, do you say "well, there isn't any evidence that this will harm me, so what the hell". Or do you use your common sense and try to find out if it has gone through clinical trials and experiments before taking it?

    If you see no difference between physical drugs and cultural upbringing I guess you don't understand it at all, common sense be damned.

    Grim Squeaker on
Sign In or Register to comment.