Pop's mother is a 24 year old mother of Pop, not a behavioral expert, or gener expert, or whatever.
Just because she says that she thinks what she is doing will make Pop confident doesn't mean it actually will.
Tell me, how do you know that a two and a half year olf is confident in its gender identify?
Stop reading the article as you WANT it to be, and look at it honestly.
So? You're talking out your ass, sorry, theorizing, just as much as everyone else. Stop trying to sound like an authority figure here. You have no idea if this will negatively affect Pop just as we only think it won't.
The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.
Seriously, responsible parenting. Go read some books on it, or something, because this is fucking depressing.
I don't understand why everyone is acting as though not imposing a gender on Pop is some crazy irresponsible "experiment" because it MIGHT harm the child...
When we have evidence that imposing gender roles on children DOES harm many children already. Why is the latter any more responsible?
What alternative would you propose if the child does actually happen to be intersex? We know for a fact that assigning a gender without the child's say can be incredibly harmful to an intersex child who happens to identify with the unassigned gender.
The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.
Are you going to pony up the proof showing Pop is suffering for this at some point?
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
You're trying to lay the burden of proof on me because you cannot find a rational way to disagree with my claim that responsible parenting means you need to make sure no harm will come to your child before deciding on a way to raise them a certain way.
This is what a lot of D&D folks do when they get stuck in debates. They ask for proof and citation no matter how asinine it is.
Like you do all the time?
Besides your claim has been dethroned many times on this page ALONE
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.
1. Yes, and plenty of people raised in a gendered environment turn out fucked up. So the track record for a gendered upraising is spotty at best. Why not try something else?
Every major society has had gender roles, right? Seems like we're doing all right.
Raising the child cis-gendered won't make the world their oyster. They won't be set up for life.
Enforcing a gender role will alter the way they see themselves and will make them feel ashamed about the ways in which they don't conform. Gender roles and their harmful effects are well-documented.
The fact that you think it will not negatively affect the kid is not a good enough reason to proceed with the treatment!!! YOU NEED TO HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL NOT.
Are you going to pony up the proof showing Pop is suffering for this at some point?
Pop is not suffering. Pop is insulated from the world and anyone who could cause them to suffer. Everyone Pop meets more than once just assumes Pop is a girl. This is a pointless experiment, it is either doing nothing (if Pop is a girl) or means nothing if Pop is a boy (since he will be forced to conform as soon as he is at school). if Pop has a transgender identity, then this only conforms to a SPECIFIC sort of identity. Perhaps Pop is a girl, but identifies as a boy and wants to dress as a boy. Perhaps Pop is a girl, identifies as a boy, but wants to dress as a girl. However, Pop won't know any of this until the passive exposure of society shapes Pops personality.
This is like trying to raise Pop to be gay or straight. You can say 'they are letting the child decide' all you want, but children at this age don't make decisions, they read subconscious clues in their parents responses to what they do and act accordingly. As such, Pop will continue to behave as a girl, since Pop is rewarded and praised for such behavior. Until Pop is 8 or 9 at LEAST Pop won't make any decisions about their gender. So why force Pop to behave in an odd way until that point?
I realize this is very difficult for you to understand but a lot of people would argue that raising a child in a highly gender roled enironment is extremely harmful to the child's development.
False dichotomy. No one said the only alternative is to raise Pop in a highly gendered environment. They can easily go the moderate way and do things like give her both boy/girl toys and refuse to ingrain gender-roled behavior in her without going to the extremes that they are going right now.
methinks the shakes protests too much. perhaps this is less THINK OF THE CHILDREN and more OH SHIT THIS WEIRDS ME THE FUCK OUT
Yeah, experimenting on a child weirds me the fuck out.
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
You're trying to lay the burden of proof on me because you cannot find a rational way to disagree with my claim that responsible parenting means you need to make sure no harm will come to your child before deciding on a way to raise them a certain way.
This is what a lot of D&D folks do when they get stuck in debates. They ask for proof and citation no matter how asinine it is.
You're claiming Pop will suffer.
The parents say Pop is doing fine.
But apparently the parents can't be trusted because flibbity floo. Perhaps if you could actually demonstrate flibbity floo you might gain some traction.
Quid on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.
1. Yes, and plenty of people raised in a gendered environment turn out fucked up. So the track record for a gendered upraising is spotty at best. Why not try something else?
Every major society has had gender roles, right? Seems like we're doing all right.
This is terrible reasoning. Just because something works OK (up to a an arbitrary definition of 'OK' -- enormous room for debate there) doesn't mean improvements impossible or undesirable.
Hachface on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
Hey, you're a lot more lucid when you're not drunk Jeep
On a serious note though, I agree. I see way too much "drive a nail in with a sledgehammer" ideas on how to fix gender norms. Hey, I have an idea. Why not, instead of tearing apart the fabric of society to get the changes we want, we just work on basic tolerance instead. I think that will naturally get us where want to go, rather than these extreme ideas about socially engineering a genderless society.
Hey, folks, it's okay to be different. I get kind of creeped out when people get on this tangent where it seems like they want this completely androgynous, faceless society, where everyone wears brown pants and a tan shirt.
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
So, like, a crystal ball?
No, like, scientific research.
Just because we have documented evidence that gender roles can in some situations and for some people be harmful is not enough of a justification to ditch them altogether and raise your kid in some brand new brilliant way you devised using "common sense".
bullying? I imagine if it gets bad enough he/she will simply choose a gender and stick with. THE HORROR
Yeah, the horror of having a gender role forced on you through bullying when your parents spend years trying to avoid forcing gender roles on you.
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
You're trying to lay the burden of proof on me because you cannot find a rational way to disagree with my claim that responsible parenting means you need to make sure no harm will come to your child before deciding on a way to raise them a certain way.
This is what a lot of D&D folks do when they get stuck in debates. They ask for proof and citation no matter how asinine it is.
You're claiming Pop will suffer.
The parents say Pop is doing fine.
But apparently the parents can't be trusted because flibbity floo. Perhaps if you could actually demonstrate flibbity floo you might gain some traction.
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?
Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising
Casual Eddy on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
So, like, a crystal ball?
No, like, scientific research.
Just because we have documented evidence that gender roles can in some situations and for some people be harmful is not enough of a justification to ditch them altogether and raise your kid in some brand new brilliant way you devised using "common sense".
You're just spinning your wheels trying to latch onto any conceivable reason to object to this, because it squicks you out on a gutfeel level, and Lord knows your gut feeling can't possibly be wrong!
Man, I wasn't going to have children, but this thread is showing me it might be time to do my part. If the thought of raising little mulatto atheist children (I know their lives will be hard. Fact.) will send people into conniptions like this, I'm kind of for it.
I realize it's only tangential to the subject, but I would be genuinely curious as to were raising interracial children falls on the board's "do no harm to children" scale. It is a known source of conflict in a child's life. It brings known difficulties. So, interracial parents are bad parents y/n?
Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.
1. Yes, and plenty of people raised in a gendered environment turn out fucked up. So the track record for a gendered upraising is spotty at best. Why not try something else?
Every major society has had gender roles, right? Seems like we're doing all right.
This is terrible reasoning. Just because something works OK (up to a an arbitrary definition of 'OK' -- enormous room for debate there) doesn't mean improvements impossible or undesirable.
Switching to an androgenous society based on a small percentage of the population's views is a pretty drastic change. If we're going to be doing some off-the-wall changes, I'd like to know what I'm getting into first, and if there's any support that it will work/change anything.
RocketSauce on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?
Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising
So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?
Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?
I realize this is very difficult for you to understand but a lot of people would argue that raising a child in a highly gender roled enironment is extremely harmful to the child's development.
False dichotomy. No one said the only alternative is to raise Pop in a highly gendered environment. They can easily go the moderate way and do things like give her both boy/girl toys and refuse to ingrain gender-roled behavior in her without going to the extremes that they are going right now.
methinks the shakes protests too much. perhaps this is less THINK OF THE CHILDREN and more OH SHIT THIS WEIRDS ME THE FUCK OUT
Yeah, experimenting on a child weirds me the fuck out.
I am very sorry that you find this irrational.
I'm still not getting how assigning a child a gender is any less of an experiment than avoiding doing so. One is simply more common than the other.
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
Hey, you're a lot more lucid when you're not drunk Jeep
On a serious note though, I agree. I see way too much "drive a nail in with a sledgehammer" ideas on how to fix gender norms. Hey, I have an idea. Why not, instead of tearing apart the fabric of society to get the changes we want, we just work on basic tolerance instead. I think that will naturally get us where want to go, rather than these extreme ideas about socially engineering a genderless society.
Hey, folks, it's okay to be different. I get kind of creeped out when people get on this tangent where it seems like they want this completely androgynous, faceless society, where everyone wears brown pants and a tan shirt.
I realize this is very difficult for you to understand but a lot of people would argue that raising a child in a highly gender roled enironment is extremely harmful to the child's development.
False dichotomy. No one said the only alternative is to raise Pop in a highly gendered environment. They can easily go the moderate way and do things like give her both boy/girl toys and refuse to ingrain gender-roled behavior in her without going to the extremes that they are going right now.
methinks the shakes protests too much. perhaps this is less THINK OF THE CHILDREN and more OH SHIT THIS WEIRDS ME THE FUCK OUT
Yeah, experimenting on a child weirds me the fuck out.
I am very sorry that you find this irrational.
I'm still not getting how assigning a child a gender is any less of an experiment than avoiding doing so. One is simply more common than the other.
And one actually has research showing that it can be dangerous in some cases!
Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.
1. Yes, and plenty of people raised in a gendered environment turn out fucked up. So the track record for a gendered upraising is spotty at best. Why not try something else?
Every major society has had gender roles, right? Seems like we're doing all right.
This is terrible reasoning. Just because something works OK (up to a an arbitrary definition of 'OK' -- enormous room for debate there) doesn't mean improvements impossible or undesirable.
Switching to an androgenous society based on a small percentage of the population's views is a pretty drastic change. If we're going to be doing some off-the-wall changes, I'd like to know what I'm getting into first, and if there's any support that it will work/change anything.
You are erroneously cross-pollinating a previous argument with the current one. Nowhere in this particular quote tree is anybody proposing a totally androgynous society. I was defending the choice of these parents to raise their child without gender expectations from Muscle Milk's dumb comments.
Man, I wasn't going to have children, but this thread is showing me it might be time to do my part. If the thought of raising little mulatto atheist children (I know their lives will be hard. Fact.) will send people into conniptions like this, I'm kind of for it.
I realize it's only tangential to the subject, but I would be genuinely curious as to were raising interracial children falls on the board's "do no harm to children" scale. It is a known source of conflict in a child's life. It brings known difficulties. So, interracial parents are bad parents y/n?
Bad parents:
interracial parents
gay parents
non-Christian parents
father who stays at home while mother works
transsexual parents
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
So, like, a crystal ball?
No, like, scientific research.
Just because we have documented evidence that gender roles can in some situations and for some people be harmful is not enough of a justification to ditch them altogether and raise your kid in some brand new brilliant way you devised using "common sense".
You're just spinning your wheels trying to latch onto any conceivable reason to object to this, because it squicks you out on a gutfeel level, and Lord knows your gut feeling can't possibly be wrong!
Yeah, I am objecting to it because I love gender roles and find a genderless environment weird. You're totally right.
....or I am objecting to using child-raising methods that have not been proven, using science, to be 100% safe.
In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.
I'm still not getting how assigning a child a gender is any less of an experiment than avoiding doing so. One is simply more common than the other.
Do we need to supply you with the definition of experimentation? Something that has been the social norm in every society throughout the history of our species isn't "an experiment". Even if you start recording data points, it's still just observation.
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
So, like, a crystal ball?
No, like, scientific research.
What kind of scientific research currently within anyone's grasp could make reliable predictions of how a person's upbringing will affect them years later?
Quid... that is the parent's responsibility: they need to have proof that Pop will not suffer at some point before deciding to raise her this way.
So, like, a crystal ball?
No, like, scientific research.
Just because we have documented evidence that gender roles can in some situations and for some people be harmful is not enough of a justification to ditch them altogether and raise your kid in some brand new brilliant way you devised using "common sense".
You're just spinning your wheels trying to latch onto any conceivable reason to object to this, because it squicks you out on a gutfeel level, and Lord knows your gut feeling can't possibly be wrong!
Yeah, I am objecting to it because I love gender roles and find a genderless environment weird. You're totally right.
....or I am objecting to using child-raising methods that have not been proven, using science, to be 100% safe.
In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.
So we use methods that have been proven to NOT be 100% safe?
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?
Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising
So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?
Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?
I never suggested blowing up society. This would be a less radical shift than you shrieking klaxons suggest.
I imagine it as being similar to a post-racial society, which is just as much as a pipe dream as a post gender one, yet we all like to imagine it happening someday. You would simply identify people not as a gender but as a person. Gravity won't turn off, the seas won't be as blood, and cats will not befriend dogs.
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
Hey, you're a lot more lucid when you're not drunk Jeep
On a serious note though, I agree. I see way too much "drive a nail in with a sledgehammer" ideas on how to fix gender norms. Hey, I have an idea. Why not, instead of tearing apart the fabric of society to get the changes we want, we just work on basic tolerance instead. I think that will naturally get us where want to go, rather than these extreme ideas about socially engineering a genderless society.
Hey, folks, it's okay to be different. I get kind of creeped out when people get on this tangent where it seems like they want this completely androgynous, faceless society, where everyone wears brown pants and a tan shirt.
It would be exactly the opposite. People could be as different as they want, wear pink and blue and skirts and pants, regardless of sex. That promotes more difference and more individual identity.
Neither of you have pointed out any problems with a genderless society. You have both said that our society right now couldn't bear the shift.
Well, yeah. We couldn't bear the shift to a completely racially unprejudiced society, either.
But a genderless society, a society where people are not shamed and threatened and coerced into conforming to gender roles, is a good goal. It would remove a great deal of the everyday suffering and oppression from many lives.
I do not believe anyone is obligated to make themselves fit into society. It is utterly their decision about whether to compromise. These parents are attempting to give their child that choice. I don't know if it will work. I don't think it will be harmful.
I realize this is very difficult for you to understand but a lot of people would argue that raising a child in a highly gender roled enironment is extremely harmful to the child's development.
False dichotomy. No one said the only alternative is to raise Pop in a highly gendered environment. They can easily go the moderate way and do things like give her both boy/girl toys and refuse to ingrain gender-roled behavior in her without going to the extremes that they are going right now.
The only extra thing that they do that differs from your example is that they don't tell the rest of the world the childs sex, that is it. The only difference. I would not classify that as an extreme. Why do you need to know the sex of this kid? What harm does you not knowing what sex a 4 year is do to the kid?
And one actually has research showing that it can be dangerous in some cases!
Hint: that one is the "normal" method
Raising your child as if it is transgendered when the child hasn't started to indicate that it may be transgendered is stupid.
Remember what I said about chemotherapy "just in case"
Yeah, it really is that stupid. If you kid starts to reject it's sex, OK you need to reassess. Otherwise, no, you are not harming it by raising it as the proper gender and you can even teach it to be tolerant and that girls can be coal miners when they grow up while you're at it.
When they get to be around 6 years old you can even explain homosexuality in the simplest of terms (most boys like girls but some boys like boys and either is OK).
You can do all that without raising your kid in a non-gendered state it's called decent parenting and people do it all the time.
Plenty of people raise their kids in a gendered environment and their kids turn out fine. So when you suggest that the ones that do not turn out fine don't do so because of gender roles, you're succumbing to Fundamental Attribution Error.
1. Yes, and plenty of people raised in a gendered environment turn out fucked up. So the track record for a gendered upraising is spotty at best. Why not try something else?
Every major society has had gender roles, right? Seems like we're doing all right.
This is terrible reasoning. Just because something works OK (up to a an arbitrary definition of 'OK' -- enormous room for debate there) doesn't mean improvements impossible or undesirable.
While this is kind of off topic (since the topic is about choosing gender, not gender neutral...although if Pop chose that way I guess it's relevant) there's no guarantee or proof that a gender free environment will be any better.
We currently live in a slowly progressive society, men and women are starting to get equal rights and views and gays are slowly getting there too. That said, it will take a long time (if ever) for all the various groups to get purely equal treatment across the board. At that time it won't matter if we have an engendered society or not.
The trick doesn't seem to be 'remove gender roles' but more 'genders need to be seen as equal'.
In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.
Just how much do people have to prove this negative?
It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.
I already follow this for a lot of other things, and I do not think it is unreasonable at all.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?
Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising
So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?
Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?
I never suggested blowing up society. This would be a less radical shift than you shrieking klaxons suggest.
I imagine it as being similar to a post-racial society, which is just as much as a pipe dream as a post gender one, yet we all like to imagine it happening someday. You would simply identify people not as a gender but as a person. Gravity won't turn off, the seas won't be as blood, and cats will not befriend dogs.
I would say most of us born in the past 30 years do identify people as people first, and skin color second, but we aren't asking people to raise all their babies as "grey babies" just in case one day a little black boy decides he wants to be white. While it is being espoused that it's "better" to raise our children as genderless, in case one day your little boy decides he wants to be a little girl.
Maybe not by you, but it's certainly been espoused several times in this thread, as if it's just like the catch all way all of society should raise their kids. I think that's part of what a lot of people are vehemently disagreeing with.
And one actually has research showing that it can be dangerous in some cases!
Hint: that one is the "normal" method
Raising your child as if it is transgendered when the child hasn't started to indicate that it may be transgendered is stupid.
Remember what I said about chemotherapy "just in case"
Yeah, it really is that stupid. If you kid starts to reject it's sex, OK you need to reassess. Otherwise, no, you are not harming it by raising it as the proper gender and you can even teach it to be tolerant and that girls can be coal miners when they grow up while you're at it.
When they get to be around 6 years old you can even explain homosexuality in the simplest of terms (most boys like girls but some boys like boys and either is OK).
You can do all that without raising your kid in a non-gendered state it's called decent parenting and people do it all the time.
This is not about sexuality at all, it is about not enforcing gender stereotypes.
And one actually has research showing that it can be dangerous in some cases!
Hint: that one is the "normal" method
Raising your child as if it is transgendered when the child hasn't started to indicate that it may be transgendered is stupid.
Remember what I said about chemotherapy "just in case"
Yeah, it really is that stupid. If you kid starts to reject it's sex, OK you need to reassess. Otherwise, no, you are not harming it by raising it as the proper gender and you can even teach it to be tolerant and that girls can be coal miners when they grow up while you're at it.
When they get to be around 6 years old you can even explain homosexuality in the simplest of terms (most boys like girls but some boys like boys and either is OK).
You can do all that without raising your kid in a non-gendered state it's called decent parenting and people do it all the time.
Posts
I don't understand why everyone is acting as though not imposing a gender on Pop is some crazy irresponsible "experiment" because it MIGHT harm the child...
When we have evidence that imposing gender roles on children DOES harm many children already. Why is the latter any more responsible?
What alternative would you propose if the child does actually happen to be intersex? We know for a fact that assigning a gender without the child's say can be incredibly harmful to an intersex child who happens to identify with the unassigned gender.
Like you do all the time?
Besides your claim has been dethroned many times on this page ALONE
It's not the society we live in and I do not support a shift in this direction. Really, there doesn't have to be "something wrong" with a genderless society for people to not want to change to one.
Now, I do not consider myself a social conservative by any means, and as people have been so kind to remind me, I am gay. However, I feel that a person should fit into society just as much as I feel society needs to be tolerant. I do not think that we should do away with societal norms or try to completely dismantle the ones we have. So in this sense, yes, I am tacking conservative. While I fully support the notion that either gender feel free to pursue careers and what not without regard to whether that's a "male sport" or a "girly pastime" I do not see the method to getting us there as being a dismantlement of gender in society, nor do I feel it is appropriate or desirable to try and raise children in a non-gendered way just on the off chance that having a proper gender might deter them from a toy or a sport later on.
Every major society has had gender roles, right? Seems like we're doing all right.
Enforcing a gender role will alter the way they see themselves and will make them feel ashamed about the ways in which they don't conform. Gender roles and their harmful effects are well-documented.
Pop is not suffering. Pop is insulated from the world and anyone who could cause them to suffer. Everyone Pop meets more than once just assumes Pop is a girl. This is a pointless experiment, it is either doing nothing (if Pop is a girl) or means nothing if Pop is a boy (since he will be forced to conform as soon as he is at school). if Pop has a transgender identity, then this only conforms to a SPECIFIC sort of identity. Perhaps Pop is a girl, but identifies as a boy and wants to dress as a boy. Perhaps Pop is a girl, identifies as a boy, but wants to dress as a girl. However, Pop won't know any of this until the passive exposure of society shapes Pops personality.
This is like trying to raise Pop to be gay or straight. You can say 'they are letting the child decide' all you want, but children at this age don't make decisions, they read subconscious clues in their parents responses to what they do and act accordingly. As such, Pop will continue to behave as a girl, since Pop is rewarded and praised for such behavior. Until Pop is 8 or 9 at LEAST Pop won't make any decisions about their gender. So why force Pop to behave in an odd way until that point?
False dichotomy. No one said the only alternative is to raise Pop in a highly gendered environment. They can easily go the moderate way and do things like give her both boy/girl toys and refuse to ingrain gender-roled behavior in her without going to the extremes that they are going right now.
Yeah, experimenting on a child weirds me the fuck out.
I am very sorry that you find this irrational.
So, like, a crystal ball?
You're claiming Pop will suffer.
The parents say Pop is doing fine.
But apparently the parents can't be trusted because flibbity floo. Perhaps if you could actually demonstrate flibbity floo you might gain some traction.
This is terrible reasoning. Just because something works OK (up to a an arbitrary definition of 'OK' -- enormous room for debate there) doesn't mean improvements impossible or undesirable.
Hey, you're a lot more lucid when you're not drunk Jeep
On a serious note though, I agree. I see way too much "drive a nail in with a sledgehammer" ideas on how to fix gender norms. Hey, I have an idea. Why not, instead of tearing apart the fabric of society to get the changes we want, we just work on basic tolerance instead. I think that will naturally get us where want to go, rather than these extreme ideas about socially engineering a genderless society.
Hey, folks, it's okay to be different. I get kind of creeped out when people get on this tangent where it seems like they want this completely androgynous, faceless society, where everyone wears brown pants and a tan shirt.
tell us how, specifically, this will harm the child.
bullying? I imagine if it gets bad enough he/she will simply choose a gender and stick with. THE HORROR
identity issues? the parents aren't saying you are neither gender, they're merely allowing the child to present however he or she sees fit. oh no!!
the child will grow up to be a crackwhore/malcontent/seriously fucked up? what makes you say this?
No, like, scientific research.
Just because we have documented evidence that gender roles can in some situations and for some people be harmful is not enough of a justification to ditch them altogether and raise your kid in some brand new brilliant way you devised using "common sense".
Yeah, the horror of having a gender role forced on you through bullying when your parents spend years trying to avoid forcing gender roles on you.
:^:
You do not fit in this society, neither do I. It's not a fun experience, is it?
Your lack of empathy on this matter is surprising
You're just spinning your wheels trying to latch onto any conceivable reason to object to this, because it squicks you out on a gutfeel level, and Lord knows your gut feeling can't possibly be wrong!
I realize it's only tangential to the subject, but I would be genuinely curious as to were raising interracial children falls on the board's "do no harm to children" scale. It is a known source of conflict in a child's life. It brings known difficulties. So, interracial parents are bad parents y/n?
Switching to an androgenous society based on a small percentage of the population's views is a pretty drastic change. If we're going to be doing some off-the-wall changes, I'd like to know what I'm getting into first, and if there's any support that it will work/change anything.
So you're idea about not fitting in to society is "lets blow society up and start over", rather than "hey, lets get some tolerance worked in to society"?
Which one do you think actually has a better shot of succeeding in the relative near term?
I'm still not getting how assigning a child a gender is any less of an experiment than avoiding doing so. One is simply more common than the other.
Yes. This is what is needed.
And one actually has research showing that it can be dangerous in some cases!
Hint: that one is the "normal" method
You are erroneously cross-pollinating a previous argument with the current one. Nowhere in this particular quote tree is anybody proposing a totally androgynous society. I was defending the choice of these parents to raise their child without gender expectations from Muscle Milk's dumb comments.
Bad parents:
interracial parents
gay parents
non-Christian parents
father who stays at home while mother works
transsexual parents
Yeah, I am objecting to it because I love gender roles and find a genderless environment weird. You're totally right.
....or I am objecting to using child-raising methods that have not been proven, using science, to be 100% safe.
In my eyes, "there is no evidence that it will be harmful" is not a sufficient reason to adopt a methodology.
Do we need to supply you with the definition of experimentation? Something that has been the social norm in every society throughout the history of our species isn't "an experiment". Even if you start recording data points, it's still just observation.
So we use methods that have been proven to NOT be 100% safe?
You are ridiculous.
As has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous posters, this is impossible.
What's really funny is that when I pointed this out to you before, you are the one who called me out of teach with reality.
I never suggested blowing up society. This would be a less radical shift than you shrieking klaxons suggest.
I imagine it as being similar to a post-racial society, which is just as much as a pipe dream as a post gender one, yet we all like to imagine it happening someday. You would simply identify people not as a gender but as a person. Gravity won't turn off, the seas won't be as blood, and cats will not befriend dogs.
Just how much do people have to prove this negative?
It would be exactly the opposite. People could be as different as they want, wear pink and blue and skirts and pants, regardless of sex. That promotes more difference and more individual identity.
Neither of you have pointed out any problems with a genderless society. You have both said that our society right now couldn't bear the shift.
Well, yeah. We couldn't bear the shift to a completely racially unprejudiced society, either.
But a genderless society, a society where people are not shamed and threatened and coerced into conforming to gender roles, is a good goal. It would remove a great deal of the everyday suffering and oppression from many lives.
I do not believe anyone is obligated to make themselves fit into society. It is utterly their decision about whether to compromise. These parents are attempting to give their child that choice. I don't know if it will work. I don't think it will be harmful.
The only extra thing that they do that differs from your example is that they don't tell the rest of the world the childs sex, that is it. The only difference. I would not classify that as an extreme. Why do you need to know the sex of this kid? What harm does you not knowing what sex a 4 year is do to the kid?
Raising your child as if it is transgendered when the child hasn't started to indicate that it may be transgendered is stupid.
Remember what I said about chemotherapy "just in case"
Yeah, it really is that stupid. If you kid starts to reject it's sex, OK you need to reassess. Otherwise, no, you are not harming it by raising it as the proper gender and you can even teach it to be tolerant and that girls can be coal miners when they grow up while you're at it.
When they get to be around 6 years old you can even explain homosexuality in the simplest of terms (most boys like girls but some boys like boys and either is OK).
You can do all that without raising your kid in a non-gendered state it's called decent parenting and people do it all the time.
While this is kind of off topic (since the topic is about choosing gender, not gender neutral...although if Pop chose that way I guess it's relevant) there's no guarantee or proof that a gender free environment will be any better.
We currently live in a slowly progressive society, men and women are starting to get equal rights and views and gays are slowly getting there too. That said, it will take a long time (if ever) for all the various groups to get purely equal treatment across the board. At that time it won't matter if we have an engendered society or not.
The trick doesn't seem to be 'remove gender roles' but more 'genders need to be seen as equal'.
It doesn't have to be proven 100% safe, fine. I just want science to have done some experiments and studies to establish precedents and document the possible risks before I adopt the method.
I already follow this for a lot of other things, and I do not think it is unreasonable at all.
I would say most of us born in the past 30 years do identify people as people first, and skin color second, but we aren't asking people to raise all their babies as "grey babies" just in case one day a little black boy decides he wants to be white. While it is being espoused that it's "better" to raise our children as genderless, in case one day your little boy decides he wants to be a little girl.
Maybe not by you, but it's certainly been espoused several times in this thread, as if it's just like the catch all way all of society should raise their kids. I think that's part of what a lot of people are vehemently disagreeing with.
This is not about sexuality at all, it is about not enforcing gender stereotypes.
They are not raising it transgendered