Well, stuff like this isn't new; back in the 70s there was a belief among some feminists that one could raise a child in a 'neutral' manner (for some given interpretation of neutrality - note the difference).
ronya on
0
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
edited June 2010
:?
I am inclined to say poor kid.
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
\
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.
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.
There's a difference between
a) the child being identified by the sex s/he is born as (which is not always going to end up right, I realize, as some identify as the opposite gender) and most likely living a normal, healthy life
and
b) hiding your sexuality because people will hate you for it.
The child was not likely in danger of being different when it was born. It was born as a child that would most likely be a pretty normal and healthy human being.
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.
Both have the ability to cause serious harm. The only difference is that one is physical and the other is psychological/developmental. Besides that, there are no differences that would make the comparison invalid.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
Protein Shakes on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The fact that the parents may have the best of intentions for their kid is literally meaningless. Since they can have the best intentions AND be trying to make a political statement at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive possibilities.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring gender identity and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on gender will change.
Zombiemambo on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The fact that the parents may have the best of intentions for their kid is literally meaningless. Since they can have the best intentions AND be trying to make a political statement at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive possibilities.
Their intentions and motivations are unknowable. It is fruitless to discuss them. And yet you are the one who has consistently been arguing against these phantom motives.
Hachface on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
It's unclear how this story broke. But if they were approached by a journalist, and they believed they were doing the right thing, why in the world should they refuse an interview?
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
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.
No, I will never see what you are saying if, after a comparison to the first couples who had interracial children amidst the judgment of society around them, and not knowing how or how well their child would integrate into either culture's society - given that I believe we as a nation are better for those pioneers and fuck the naysayers, and that just because a life is challenging does not make the challenges unworthwhile - your response is "see? and this is even worse!"
sidhaethe on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
Again, this is a red herring. Even if there is a political statement involved here, it is immaterial to the child's well being.
Hold up. The parents aren't telling other people their child's sex. They aren't withholding this information from the child. Read the article again.
I haven't read the article at all, but the LAST time that a thread was made about Pop it became clear that the parents were actually ding this to make a statement to society. They wanted to gain attention by it. Pop was also too oung to be picking out its own clothing at the time, and a big deal was made about dressing it in gender neutral colors, and witholding any gendered toys from it.
That they've progressed to phase two of the experiment does not negate what phase one was.
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
Again, this is a red herring. Even if there is a political statement involved here, it is immaterial to the child's well being.
With regards to the child's well-being, the only solid argument is that, unless you know for a fact that something will not cause harm to your child, you should not do it.
If you want to disagree, then I'm afraid that says a lot more about you than about me.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
It certainly is relevant to the claim that they're using their kid as a political prop, which the opposing side itself considers relevant enough to bring up repeatedly. You still haven't explained how this is immoral experimentation on a child but raising a child free of religious indoctrination is not. You also haven't explained why this:
With regards to the child's well-being, the only solid argument is that, unless you know for a fact that something will not cause harm to your child, you should not do it.
doesn't apply to raising a child with gender roles.
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Indeed, by it's nature, it can't be a political statement. It may be a cultural statement, but until they call political attention to their case, push for laws to raise all kids their way, lobby to political parties to support their cause, I can't call this a political statement.
It's certainly a cultural statement, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, cultural statements are what's parenting is all about. Keep in mind though, that 'Choose any religion you want' or 'Choose any sexuality you want' are also cultural statements.
These are statements I admire. Perhaps 'Choose any gender you want' is not so different in a culture-free environment, and may be the best choice.
However, I do want to implore to Pop's parents that in the current world this isn't an easy path. He/she will have questions some day, and they should be as honest as possible. But if they accept this, I see no reason to interfere.
Grim Squeaker on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
a) the child being identified by the sex s/he is born as (which is not always going to end up right, I realize, as some identify as the opposite gender) and most likely living a normal, healthy life
and
b) hiding your sexuality because people will hate you for it.
The child was not likely in danger of being messed up when it was born. It was not born a homosexual. It was born as a child that would most likely be a pretty normal and healthy human being.
Yeah sure. Whatever.
The point is that the parents actually believe that the traditional way to raise a child is wrong. It's not about homosexuality, it's about their belief that raising Pop along traditional gender lines wouldn't make her/him the best normal and healthy human being.
There are plenty of perfectly normal people who still aren't satisfied by traditional gender roles. My society is pretty laid-back and liberal about these things, but even here boys who do ballet are made fun of. Depression about gender-roles happens in heterosexual teenagers too. It took some time for me to realise that gender roles are shit and that there's no reason I'm not supposed to like this kind of music or that kind of movie or any other number of shit that is divided along gender-lines.
Julius on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
With regards to the child's well-being, the only solid argument is that, unless you know for a fact that something will not cause harm to your child, you should not do it.
This stance makes parenting impossible.
If you want to disagree, then I'm afraid that says a lot more about you than about me.
It says that I have reasonable standards of certainty.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring racial equality and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on race will change.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring equality of homosexuals and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on homosexuality will change.
Somebody has to try it. If you really, genuinely believed something, you'd raise your kids and express that belief to them and hope they expressed it as well.
I want to be clear that I'm not calling you racist or anti-gay. I'm just pointing out that, in the face of uncertainty, these statements could have as easily been made by well-meaning parents in 1890 or 1960.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
It certainly is relevant to the claim that they're using their kid as a political prop, which the opposing side itself considers relevant enough to bring up repeatedly. You still haven't explained how this is immoral experimentation on a child but raising a child free of religious indoctrination is not.
because our society views gender as a standardized binary proposition, but religion is accepted to be multifaceted and nuanced.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring racial equality and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on race will change.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring equality of homosexuals and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on homosexuality will change.
Somebody has to try it. If you really, genuinely believed something, you'd raise your kids and express that belief to them and hope they expressed it as well.
I want to be clear that I'm not calling you racist or anti-gay. I'm just pointing out that, in the face of uncertainty, these statements could have as easily been made by well-meaning parents in 1890 or 1960.
I said this before: the two are different. Hiding homosexuality is actively harmful, and there's no choice in being homosexual or heterosexual. But gender is so difficult for us to define, and it's a pretty safe assumption that if you're child is a boy and you raise it as a boy, he's going to turn out okay (or at least not be damaged as a result). Now these parents have put this kid in jeopardy for no justifiable reason.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
It certainly is relevant to the claim that they're using their kid as a political prop, which the opposing side itself considers relevant enough to bring up repeatedly. You still haven't explained how this is immoral experimentation on a child but raising a child free of religious indoctrination is not. You also haven't explained why this:
With regards to the child's well-being, the only solid argument is that, unless you know for a fact that something will not cause harm to your child, you should not do it.
doesn't apply to raising a child with gender roles.
Or raising a biracial child. Or a black one, or any visible minority, for that matter.
The point is that the parents actually believe that the traditional way to raise a child is wrong. It's not about homosexuality, it's about their belief that raising Pop along traditional gender lines wouldn't make her/him the best normal and healthy human being.
And the problem with their plan is that they COMPLETELY ignored the fact that the rest of society is still raising their kids the old way, meaning that Pop is going to be released in to a society that, absolute best case scenario, is going to undo all of their hard work and socialized Pop with the gender roles that they avoided, and potentially do far worse harm.
Evander on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
Just like all those vegetarians should shut the fuck up about not eating meat. If they don't want to, fine, but why are they getting all up in the media if they really cared for animals?
Why the fuck does it matter if, when approached by a journalist, these people talk about their view on what the correct way to raise a child is?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
It certainly is relevant to the claim that they're using their kid as a political prop, which the opposing side itself considers relevant enough to bring up repeatedly. You still haven't explained how this is immoral experimentation on a child but raising a child free of religious indoctrination is not.
I mostly refused to comment on it because religion is a potentially inflammatory topic and can derail the thread.
It says that I have reasonable standards of certainty.
Hachface, your "reasonable standards" do not require any scientific evidence. You are literally making them up out of thin air. There is nothing reasonable about those standards.
The concept is very simple. Someone comes out with a new product. Before feeding it to your child, or using it on your child, or giving it to your child, you first want to do research to make sure that it will not cause harm. You want to see how it was manufactured. You want to see its ingredients. You want to maybe read studies done with regards to those ingredients, what types of things they can be consumed with and whatnot.
This is what parenting is. Looking after your child and doing the best possible fucking job you can so that no harm comes to them. It is not supposed to be easy, because looking after another human being and making their decisions for them is a huge responsibility.
I am done with this retarded argument since you're so out of touch with what responsible parenting entails. I strongly hope you never have a child if your standards are so lax.
Protein Shakes on
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
It's unclear how this story broke. But if they were approached by a journalist, and they believed they were doing the right thing, why in the world should they refuse an interview?
Errr, I dunno. If the parents weren't advertising this, shopping it around, somehow, I highly doubt a reporter just picked up on the story, though I guess it's possible.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
It certainly is relevant to the claim that they're using their kid as a political prop, which the opposing side itself considers relevant enough to bring up repeatedly. You still haven't explained how this is immoral experimentation on a child but raising a child free of religious indoctrination is not.
because our society views gender as a standardized binary proposition, but religion is accepted to be multifaceted and nuanced.
Whereas if I raised my kid to not be indoctrinated into the majority religion a hundred years ago, it would of course be deeply immoral.
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
Just like all those vegetarians should shut the fuck up about not eating meat. If they don't want to, fine, but why are they getting all up in the media if they really cared for animals?
Why the fuck does it matter if, when approached by a journalist, these people talk about their view on what the correct way to raise a child is?
Are these people experts? Do you think journalists just randomly approach people in the street and ask how they raise their kids?
Pop's parents called the attention to themselves deliberately, because the entire point of the way that they are raising Pop is to make a statment. It is a statement that doesn't actually do anythign, though, because it is being ignored by EVERYONE who disagrees with them, and a fair number of people who DO agree with them (but theink they are going about it the wrong way.)
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring racial equality and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on race will change.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring equality of homosexuals and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on homosexuality will change.
Somebody has to try it. If you really, genuinely believed something, you'd raise your kids and express that belief to them and hope they expressed it as well.
I want to be clear that I'm not calling you racist or anti-gay. I'm just pointing out that, in the face of uncertainty, these statements could have as easily been made by well-meaning parents in 1890 or 1960.
I said this before: the two are different. Hiding homosexuality is actively harmful, and there's no choice in being homosexual or heterosexual. But gender is so difficult for us to define, and it's a pretty safe assumption that if you're child is a boy and you raise it as a boy, he's going to turn out okay (or at least not be damaged as a result). Now these parents have put this kid in jeopardy for no justifiable reason.
Hiding homosexuality wasn't actively harmful in 1960. Homosexuality got you sent to prison and/or chemically castrated. Nor was hiding a view of racial equality in 1890, people weren't exactly fond of the folks who told them to stop being mean to blacks.
My parents raised me not to be a racist and not to be anti-gay. And I grew up in a conservative area (one of the most conservative areas of my country) where racism and anti-gay sentiment was the norm among my peers. I got into lots of arguments and more than one physical fight over my views. I was even teased in school.
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.
I don't think the onus is really on anyone here, aside from some assumption that anyone who wants to try new things in regards to childrearing needs to clear it with society first.
These people don't believe that gender roles are naturally occuring. My parents didn't believe in spanking me or subjecting me to Judeo-Christian religion. Why do we have to clear completely unintrusive shit like this with people like you before we try it? It's not like they're denying their kid medical care for religious reasons or crazy shit like that. They're letting him or her dress him/herself based on the feelings he/she wakes up with. Hell, I remember wanting to wear capes and sombreros in public when I was a kid. I don't remember my folks clearing that with the city council.
The point is that the parents actually believe that the traditional way to raise a child is wrong. It's not about homosexuality, it's about their belief that raising Pop along traditional gender lines wouldn't make her/him the best normal and healthy human being.
And the problem with their plan is that they COMPLETELY ignored the fact that the rest of society is still raising their kids the old way, meaning that Pop is going to be released in to a society that, absolute best case scenario, is going to undo all of their hard work and socialized Pop with the gender roles that they avoided, and potentially do far worse harm.
Well it's Norway, so...
but whatever, saying their beliefs are incorrect or do not have the intended result is one thing. Saying that they're wrong for experimenting on a child is another. painting them as whackos or attention-whores is bullshit.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
It certainly is relevant to the claim that they're using their kid as a political prop, which the opposing side itself considers relevant enough to bring up repeatedly. You still haven't explained how this is immoral experimentation on a child but raising a child free of religious indoctrination is not.
because our society views gender as a standardized binary proposition, but religion is accepted to be multifaceted and nuanced.
Whereas if I raised my kid to not be indoctrinated into the majority religion a hundred years ago, it would of course be deeply immoral.
First of all, I never called anything "deeply immoral", i said what Pop's parents are doing is potentially very harmful to Pop.
If you lived in the past, in a culture where atheists were publically executed, then yes, teaching your child to publically deny the existance fo god would have been equally irresponsible. Teaching your child behind closed doors that their belief is really their own personal choice, and they should follow the evidence they see, not just what they are told to follow, and then informing them to be careful being open about this in public unless they are sure that they are either A) in a safe space, or able to defend themselves from attack (verbal, physical, emotional, etc.) THAT would have been a responsible way to go about it.
Evander on
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
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.
I don't think the onus is really on anyone here, aside from some assumption that anyone who wants to try new things in regards to childrearing needs to clear it with society first.
These people don't believe that gender roles are naturally occuring. My parents didn't believe in spanking me or subjecting me to Judeo-Christian religion. Why do we have to clear completely unintrusive shit like this with people like you before we try it? It's not like they're denying their kid medical care for religious reasons or crazy shit like that. They're letting him or her dress him/herself based on the feelings he/she wakes up with. Hell, I remember wanting to wear capes and sombreros in public when I was a kid. I don't remember my folks clearing that with the city council.
You don't. Here's a question though: Did you parents go to the local paper and tell the journalists there how they were raising you by not spanking you, and not instilling Judeo-Christian religious values in you? Did a reporter every show up randomly at your house and ask your parents how they raised you?
That, to me, is what takes this from "new parenting technique" to "social guinea pig".
It says that I have reasonable standards of certainty.
Hachface, your "reasonable standards" do not require any scientific evidence. You are literally making them up out of thin air. There is nothing reasonable about those standards.
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.
I am done with this retarded argument since you're so out of touch with what responsible parenting entails. I strongly hope you never have a child if your standards are so lax.
Did I ever say I would raise my kids in a gender-free household?
I hope you do abandon this argument because your position is silly for at least three reasons:
1. The parents do have a fair bit of scientific evidence on their side.
2. Absolute certainty is impossible, and parenting is full of tough decisions in which you don't have all the facts.
3. Plenty of children are raised in all kinds of ways that don't have rigorous scientific backing (religious homes, vegetarian homes), but we don't condemn their parents for it.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring racial equality and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on race will change.
I want to stress the point that I get what's going on here and I fully support the idea of further exploring equality of homosexuals and roles and society's view on them. If it changes for the better, I'm absolutely in support of it.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on homosexuality will change.
Somebody has to try it. If you really, genuinely believed something, you'd raise your kids and express that belief to them and hope they expressed it as well.
I want to be clear that I'm not calling you racist or anti-gay. I'm just pointing out that, in the face of uncertainty, these statements could have as easily been made by well-meaning parents in 1890 or 1960.
I said this before: the two are different. Hiding homosexuality is actively harmful, and there's no choice in being homosexual or heterosexual. But gender is so difficult for us to define, and it's a pretty safe assumption that if you're child is a boy and you raise it as a boy, he's going to turn out okay (or at least not be damaged as a result). Now these parents have put this kid in jeopardy for no justifiable reason.
Hiding homosexuality wasn't actively harmful in 1960. Homosexuality got you sent to prison and/or chemically castrated. Nor was hiding a view of racial equality in 1890, people weren't exactly fond of the folks who told them to stop being mean to blacks.
My parents raised me not to be a racist and not to be anti-gay. And I grew up in a conservative area (one of the most conservative areas of my country) where racism and anti-gay sentiment was the norm among my peers. I got into lots of arguments and more than one physical fight over my views. I was even teased in school.
So, my parents raised me wrong, I suppose?
Man, I don't see how you don't get the distinction. I really don't.
1) you were taught not to be racist.
2) you were taught not to be anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual.
good. we should be teaching children that
3) you should not hate anyone for their gender identity.
that's all well and good, and I agree. but the situation is
4) I have a child and I'm going to let it choose what gender it wants to be.
that doesn't teach anyone not to hate that kid, does it? he's walking into a minefield.
Posts
I am inclined to say poor kid.
Also, I agree with Eat It. Eat it, You Nasty Pig's much limed sentiment.
I disagree with the completely unsupported assumption that this is a political statement and not an honest attempt to do best by their child.
Also this post.
Yes it is slightly ad hom. But only because the individual in question is being remarkably silly about all this.
There's a difference between
a) the child being identified by the sex s/he is born as (which is not always going to end up right, I realize, as some identify as the opposite gender) and most likely living a normal, healthy life
and
b) hiding your sexuality because people will hate you for it.
The child was not likely in danger of being different when it was born. It was born as a child that would most likely be a pretty normal and healthy human being.
Both have the ability to cause serious harm. The only difference is that one is physical and the other is psychological/developmental. Besides that, there are no differences that would make the comparison invalid.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Seriously, the fact that the parents have good intentions for their kid HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.
Oh good. Platitudes are exactly what this thread needed.
If you think I'm secretly pro-patriarchy, or whatever, then there's really no point in looking at anything else, is there?
If you're going to call me a liar, then bring some proof.
Then I'd say they shouldn't have put out a press release or whatever (assuming they did!). Or done interviews.
But I don't think it's time for a life to be put at stake in the hopes that views on gender will change.
Their intentions and motivations are unknowable. It is fruitless to discuss them. And yet you are the one who has consistently been arguing against these phantom motives.
It's unclear how this story broke. But if they were approached by a journalist, and they believed they were doing the right thing, why in the world should they refuse an interview?
Exactly. Thank you. Finally someone sees the obvious.
Jesus christ people, putting 2 and 2 together should not be this hard. If they didn't want to make a political statement then they should have politely declined all interview requests, the same way they are politely declining to reveal their child's gender.
No, I will never see what you are saying if, after a comparison to the first couples who had interracial children amidst the judgment of society around them, and not knowing how or how well their child would integrate into either culture's society - given that I believe we as a nation are better for those pioneers and fuck the naysayers, and that just because a life is challenging does not make the challenges unworthwhile - your response is "see? and this is even worse!"
Again, this is a red herring. Even if there is a political statement involved here, it is immaterial to the child's well being.
I haven't read the article at all, but the LAST time that a thread was made about Pop it became clear that the parents were actually ding this to make a statement to society. They wanted to gain attention by it. Pop was also too oung to be picking out its own clothing at the time, and a big deal was made about dressing it in gender neutral colors, and witholding any gendered toys from it.
That they've progressed to phase two of the experiment does not negate what phase one was.
With regards to the child's well-being, the only solid argument is that, unless you know for a fact that something will not cause harm to your child, you should not do it.
If you want to disagree, then I'm afraid that says a lot more about you than about me.
Indeed, by it's nature, it can't be a political statement. It may be a cultural statement, but until they call political attention to their case, push for laws to raise all kids their way, lobby to political parties to support their cause, I can't call this a political statement.
It's certainly a cultural statement, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, cultural statements are what's parenting is all about. Keep in mind though, that 'Choose any religion you want' or 'Choose any sexuality you want' are also cultural statements.
These are statements I admire. Perhaps 'Choose any gender you want' is not so different in a culture-free environment, and may be the best choice.
However, I do want to implore to Pop's parents that in the current world this isn't an easy path. He/she will have questions some day, and they should be as honest as possible. But if they accept this, I see no reason to interfere.
Yeah sure. Whatever.
The point is that the parents actually believe that the traditional way to raise a child is wrong. It's not about homosexuality, it's about their belief that raising Pop along traditional gender lines wouldn't make her/him the best normal and healthy human being.
There are plenty of perfectly normal people who still aren't satisfied by traditional gender roles. My society is pretty laid-back and liberal about these things, but even here boys who do ballet are made fun of. Depression about gender-roles happens in heterosexual teenagers too. It took some time for me to realise that gender roles are shit and that there's no reason I'm not supposed to like this kind of music or that kind of movie or any other number of shit that is divided along gender-lines.
This stance makes parenting impossible.
It says that I have reasonable standards of certainty.
Somebody has to try it. If you really, genuinely believed something, you'd raise your kids and express that belief to them and hope they expressed it as well.
I want to be clear that I'm not calling you racist or anti-gay. I'm just pointing out that, in the face of uncertainty, these statements could have as easily been made by well-meaning parents in 1890 or 1960.
because our society views gender as a standardized binary proposition, but religion is accepted to be multifaceted and nuanced.
I said this before: the two are different. Hiding homosexuality is actively harmful, and there's no choice in being homosexual or heterosexual. But gender is so difficult for us to define, and it's a pretty safe assumption that if you're child is a boy and you raise it as a boy, he's going to turn out okay (or at least not be damaged as a result). Now these parents have put this kid in jeopardy for no justifiable reason.
Or raising a biracial child. Or a black one, or any visible minority, for that matter.
And the problem with their plan is that they COMPLETELY ignored the fact that the rest of society is still raising their kids the old way, meaning that Pop is going to be released in to a society that, absolute best case scenario, is going to undo all of their hard work and socialized Pop with the gender roles that they avoided, and potentially do far worse harm.
Just like all those vegetarians should shut the fuck up about not eating meat. If they don't want to, fine, but why are they getting all up in the media if they really cared for animals?
Why the fuck does it matter if, when approached by a journalist, these people talk about their view on what the correct way to raise a child is?
I mostly refused to comment on it because religion is a potentially inflammatory topic and can derail the thread.
Hachface, your "reasonable standards" do not require any scientific evidence. You are literally making them up out of thin air. There is nothing reasonable about those standards.
The concept is very simple. Someone comes out with a new product. Before feeding it to your child, or using it on your child, or giving it to your child, you first want to do research to make sure that it will not cause harm. You want to see how it was manufactured. You want to see its ingredients. You want to maybe read studies done with regards to those ingredients, what types of things they can be consumed with and whatnot.
This is what parenting is. Looking after your child and doing the best possible fucking job you can so that no harm comes to them. It is not supposed to be easy, because looking after another human being and making their decisions for them is a huge responsibility.
I am done with this retarded argument since you're so out of touch with what responsible parenting entails. I strongly hope you never have a child if your standards are so lax.
Errr, I dunno. If the parents weren't advertising this, shopping it around, somehow, I highly doubt a reporter just picked up on the story, though I guess it's possible.
Whereas if I raised my kid to not be indoctrinated into the majority religion a hundred years ago, it would of course be deeply immoral.
Are these people experts? Do you think journalists just randomly approach people in the street and ask how they raise their kids?
Pop's parents called the attention to themselves deliberately, because the entire point of the way that they are raising Pop is to make a statment. It is a statement that doesn't actually do anythign, though, because it is being ignored by EVERYONE who disagrees with them, and a fair number of people who DO agree with them (but theink they are going about it the wrong way.)
Hiding homosexuality wasn't actively harmful in 1960. Homosexuality got you sent to prison and/or chemically castrated. Nor was hiding a view of racial equality in 1890, people weren't exactly fond of the folks who told them to stop being mean to blacks.
My parents raised me not to be a racist and not to be anti-gay. And I grew up in a conservative area (one of the most conservative areas of my country) where racism and anti-gay sentiment was the norm among my peers. I got into lots of arguments and more than one physical fight over my views. I was even teased in school.
So, my parents raised me wrong, I suppose?
These people don't believe that gender roles are naturally occuring. My parents didn't believe in spanking me or subjecting me to Judeo-Christian religion. Why do we have to clear completely unintrusive shit like this with people like you before we try it? It's not like they're denying their kid medical care for religious reasons or crazy shit like that. They're letting him or her dress him/herself based on the feelings he/she wakes up with. Hell, I remember wanting to wear capes and sombreros in public when I was a kid. I don't remember my folks clearing that with the city council.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well it's Norway, so...
but whatever, saying their beliefs are incorrect or do not have the intended result is one thing. Saying that they're wrong for experimenting on a child is another. painting them as whackos or attention-whores is bullshit.
First of all, I never called anything "deeply immoral", i said what Pop's parents are doing is potentially very harmful to Pop.
If you lived in the past, in a culture where atheists were publically executed, then yes, teaching your child to publically deny the existance fo god would have been equally irresponsible. Teaching your child behind closed doors that their belief is really their own personal choice, and they should follow the evidence they see, not just what they are told to follow, and then informing them to be careful being open about this in public unless they are sure that they are either A) in a safe space, or
You don't. Here's a question though: Did you parents go to the local paper and tell the journalists there how they were raising you by not spanking you, and not instilling Judeo-Christian religious values in you? Did a reporter every show up randomly at your house and ask your parents how they raised you?
That, to me, is what takes this from "new parenting technique" to "social guinea pig".
Do you, like, not read other people's posts?
Did I ever say I would raise my kids in a gender-free household?
I hope you do abandon this argument because your position is silly for at least three reasons:
1. The parents do have a fair bit of scientific evidence on their side.
2. Absolute certainty is impossible, and parenting is full of tough decisions in which you don't have all the facts.
3. Plenty of children are raised in all kinds of ways that don't have rigorous scientific backing (religious homes, vegetarian homes), but we don't condemn their parents for it.
Man, I don't see how you don't get the distinction. I really don't.
1) you were taught not to be racist.
2) you were taught not to be anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual.
good. we should be teaching children that
3) you should not hate anyone for their gender identity.
that's all well and good, and I agree. but the situation is
4) I have a child and I'm going to let it choose what gender it wants to be.
that doesn't teach anyone not to hate that kid, does it? he's walking into a minefield.