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

Pop the mysterious child

11819212324

Posts

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.

    Either way, you are still wrong because the word transgender in no way applies to this situation.

    It absolutely does. The kid is going to have a gender eventually anyway. It's either going to match his or her genitals or not. If not, the kid is transgendered.

    And until that point they are not raising it transgendered, they are raising it agenderedly (which is a cumbersome word I am not sure fits). So again, you are wrong here.

    Arch on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Blackjack wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.
    But raising the child as if he/she were transgendered is still not what these parents are doing. Raising a child as if he/she were transgendered would involve using opposite-gendered pronouns, not no gendered pronouns, for a start.

    OK you're right and I need to restate myself. What they seem to be doing is raising the child as if the possibility of it being transgendered is much more significant than it is, and also as if raising it as the wrong gender up until the point where the child starts to reject that gender is deeply harmful (which by the way, it is not). The damage to a transgendered psyche doesn't occur because they were dressed up in lace and pink up until the point where they let the parents know that they want to wear pants and play with tonka trunks, it comes after that point when the witless parents ignore these cues and proceed as if everything is OK, or even worse, increase efforts to make the wrong gender take.

    Regina Fong on
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    If you completely eliminated people's racial biases we would have a society where race was unimportant beyond some degree of aesthetic recognition. Whether someone is black, white, asian, or whatever, it won't matter to how they're treated.

    The same is not true of gender. Even in a world where there are no gender biases whatsoever with regard to what people 'should' do or 'can' do, you're never going to reach a point where everyone treats everyone else the same. For 90% of society, one gender is composed of potential sexual partners and the other gender is not. So for 90% of people, half of everyone they meet is someone they might potentially be interested in having a romantic or physical relationship with. Completely disregarding matters of gender role, the classification into "someone I would pursue romantically", "someone I will not pursue romantically" and "someone I do not consider a viable target of romance", by itself, will change how they treat those people.

    Not if, as has been theorized, everyone is a little bit bisexual.

    To take a slightly different tack, when I meet a woman for the first time, I almost always do not treat or even consider her as a potential sexual or romantic partner. So there's that.

    Yes, you do, you just don't do it consciously. It's in the typical male biological and hormonal make up to be sizing up potential mates all the time. Just because you didn't go "DUDE, I WOULD SO BANG THAT HOTTIE" in your mind the first time you met a chick, doesn't mean you're sub-conscious didn't make a possible mate evaluation based on what you find attractive, general genetic strength, etc.

    Because mating is the primary biological reason we are attracted to those of the opposite sex (provided we aren't homosexual, of course), is why men and women will always have sub-conscious bias in the their behavior towards each other, even in a 100% genderless society.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • KaeKae Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I've heard of Pop before. I found it a really fascinating story then and now. It reminded me of a science fiction novel, Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time", which tells of a society where biological sex exists but is completely irrelevant. No-one identifies as male or female; they're categories that have no social meaning at all. In order to achieve that, though, women had to give up childbearing, since it was such an obvious marker of difference. All reproduction took place artificially.

    Anyway, tangent aside, I admire the parents for trying to bring up Pop without the constraints of gender, as they can be very limiting and confining. However, I'm not sure if obscuring hir sex is the best way to go about it. It seems, to me, an inadequate way to prepare children for a world in which they will inevitably face those gender stereotypes. It's much better to acknowledge them and show them to be problematic and help children realize that they can be whatever they wish.

    Kae on
    LOTRO: Main: Merewin, Filthy Alt: Melilotte

    PSN: GetMediaeval
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    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.

    If you completely eliminated people's racial biases we would have a society where race was unimportant beyond some degree of aesthetic recognition. Whether someone is black, white, asian, or whatever, it won't matter to how they're treated.

    The same is not true of gender. Even in a world where there are no gender biases whatsoever with regard to what people 'should' do or 'can' do, you're never going to reach a point where everyone treats everyone else the same. For 90% of society, one gender is composed of potential sexual partners and the other gender is not. So for 90% of people, half of everyone they meet is someone they might potentially be interested in having a romantic or physical relationship with. Completely disregarding matters of gender role, the classification into "someone I would pursue romantically", "someone I will not pursue romantically" and "someone I do not consider a viable target of romance", by itself, will change how they treat those people.

    So when you pursue a woman you assume they're not a lesbian and you're correct 100% of the time? That's very convenient, how are you able to manage that?

    No, and I'm not really sure why that is important.

    I'm a heterosexual male. I try to treat everyone equally, but I know very well that no matter how hard I try, I automatically treat women whom I consider desirable differently. Even if I have no intention of pursuing them as a romantic partner or I know that they are in no way interested in me, I'm still going to give them a greater degree of deference and consideration than I will give to someone whom I either have no opinion on (a male) or someone I consider undesirable (a woman I find physically or personality-aly unattractive), barring effort on my part. It's not hard to exert that effort to treat women I'm not attracted to as "one of the guys", but it is both difficult and, in my opinion, unnecessary for me to police myself into treating attractive women less well.

    Maybe it's just personal experience bias, but I was under the impression that this was generally true of pretty much everyone.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of gender baggage that isn't HUR HUR DUDE IN A WIFEBEATER WOMAN IN THE KITCHEN. Surely you all of people would be aware of this?

    I think you will find that you and I strongly disagree on how much of that "gender baggage" is a negative thing.

    And there we will find that you may actually be objectively wrong here.

    You keep saying this to a lot of people, as if it's fact. So...where's the facts? Studies? Anything that proves that for the large majority of society the way we raise children is actively harmful and negative?

    I'm not being factious here, I want to see these studies. You've said several times that it can be shown as "objective fact" that gender norms are harmful, not just in the outlier cases, but in the otherwise normal cases.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    The trick doesn't seem to be 'remove gender roles' but more 'genders need to be seen as equal'.
    Given the nature of contemporary gender roles, the latter is either functionally impossible, or identical to the former.

    Removing the groups does not solve the problem though because then some other group arises and gets ostracized for whatever reason. (and ostracizes back)

    Teaching acceptance (which our society slowly is working on with each passing generation) is the best way to solve the root problem.

    Maybe I wasn't clear. The point is that you either have gender roles that aren't so hot, e.g. "women should want to raise children," "women prefer to talk about their feelings," "men prefer to solve problems," and "men should provide for their families", or you don't. And the only way to attain real equality is by abandoning those roles.

    Grid System on
  • SparvySparvy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Blackjack wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.
    But raising the child as if he/she were transgendered is still not what these parents are doing. Raising a child as if he/she were transgendered would involve using opposite-gendered pronouns, not no gendered pronouns, for a start.

    OK you're right and I need to restate myself. What they seem to be doing is raising the child as if the possibility of it being transgendered is much more significant than it is, and also as if raising it as the wrong gender up until the point where the child starts to reject that gender is deeply harmful (which by the way, it is not). The damage to a transgendered psyche doesn't occur because they were dressed up in lace and pink up until the point where they let the parents know that they want to wear pants and play with tonka trunks, it comes after that point when the witless parents ignore these cues and proceed as if everything is OK, or even worse, increase efforts to make the wrong gender take.
    Ah, I see, you have completely misunderstood the situation. Let me explain, they are not raising this child like this on the off chance that Pop will end up transgendered. They are raising the child this way because they think that gender is a bullshit construct and they don't want society to treat their child in a special way or expect the child to act a special way because of it gender. It has nothing to do with cross dressing or sexuality. It is about stereotypes and prejudices against sex even when it comes to small children.

    Sparvy on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    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.

    Actually, I've been completely up front about the assumptions I'm making. I'm not denying that, nor am I calling myself an expert.

    Everyone else who is insisting "it's not an assumption to just take the mother as being completely honest" are the ones who need to admit that they honestly have equally no idea, in reality

    Evander on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    My parents raised me in a gendered environment and I turned out totally fine.
    Yes, I am joking. You may laugh. :P

    Protein Shakes on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    Evander on
  • SipexSipex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    The trick doesn't seem to be 'remove gender roles' but more 'genders need to be seen as equal'.
    Given the nature of contemporary gender roles, the latter is either functionally impossible, or identical to the former.

    Removing the groups does not solve the problem though because then some other group arises and gets ostracized for whatever reason. (and ostracizes back)

    Teaching acceptance (which our society slowly is working on with each passing generation) is the best way to solve the root problem.

    Maybe I wasn't clear. The point is that you either have gender roles that aren't so hot, e.g. "women should want to raise children," "women prefer to talk about their feelings," "men prefer to solve problems," and "men should provide for their families", or you don't. And the only way to attain real equality is by abandoning those roles.

    Ohhhhh.

    Yeah, totally agreed there.

    Sipex on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Isn't letting Pop wear and dress and do what he or she wants pretty much the opposite of forcing Pop to do anything?

    It's not like Pop's parents are saying 'ok tuesday is dress day, wednesday is suspenders day, thursday is skirt day, friday is football/hockey day!'

    edit: for pronouns

    Ego on
    Erik
  • SipexSipex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Sparvy wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    you repeatedly have said that you dislike these people raising a "transgendered child" which they are not doing. I am not the only one who called this out.

    Yeah, you guys are the ones attacking the straw man here.

    You seem to be confused when I said "raising the kid as if it were transgendered" and keep attacking me as if I'd said they are raising it to be transgendered.
    But raising the child as if he/she were transgendered is still not what these parents are doing. Raising a child as if he/she were transgendered would involve using opposite-gendered pronouns, not no gendered pronouns, for a start.

    OK you're right and I need to restate myself. What they seem to be doing is raising the child as if the possibility of it being transgendered is much more significant than it is, and also as if raising it as the wrong gender up until the point where the child starts to reject that gender is deeply harmful (which by the way, it is not). The damage to a transgendered psyche doesn't occur because they were dressed up in lace and pink up until the point where they let the parents know that they want to wear pants and play with tonka trunks, it comes after that point when the witless parents ignore these cues and proceed as if everything is OK, or even worse, increase efforts to make the wrong gender take.
    Ah, I see, you have completely misunderstood the situation. Let me explain, they are not raising this child like this on the off chance that Pop will end up transgendered. They are raising the child this way because they think that gender is a bullshit construct and they don't want society to treat their child in a special way or expect the child to act a special way because of it gender. It has nothing to do with cross dressing or sexuality. It is about stereotypes and prejudices against sex even when it comes to small children.

    To be fair this is true, it was the forum argument (debate) which brought up the transgendered point.

    Sipex on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    To take a slightly different tack, when I meet a woman for the first time, I almost always do not treat or even consider her as a potential sexual or romantic partner. So there's that.

    Yes, you do, you just don't do it consciously. It's in the typical male biological and hormonal make up to be sizing up potential mates all the time. Just because you didn't go "DUDE, I WOULD SO BANG THAT HOTTIE" in your mind the first time you met a chick, doesn't mean you're sub-conscious didn't make a possible mate evaluation based on what you find attractive, general genetic strength, etc.

    Because mating is the primary biological reason we are attracted to those of the opposite sex (provided we aren't homosexual, of course), is why men and women will always have sub-conscious bias in the their behavior towards each other, even in a 100% genderless society.

    Fascinating that you should have such insights into the inner workings of my mind.

    Or, if you'd prefer, if my conscious experience and outward presentation are functionally identical when meeting a man or a woman most of the time, who gives a shit what's going on in my subconscious?

    Grid System on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Why does this particular case of parenting irk you above all else? The most probable result of this is Pop will simply choose a gender that matches his or her sex given that gender roles are so deeply ingrained in our society and media. Remember that the parents aren't proclaiming that gender doesn't exist, they're just avoiding steering him or her towards a particular gender.

    I honestly don't see how they expect this to work out, or why anyone is worried about it.

    The whole non-gendered thing will last precisely as long as Pop can't talk. Three minutes into playing with other children Pop is going to come ask one of Pop's parents whether Pop is a boy or a girl. Barring the case where Pop is male but just loves dresses or Pop having a significantly different psyche than any young child I've ever met, Pop will be dressing and acting like every other little boy or girl that Pop knows in order to fit in because 3 year old Pop will not understand the social impact of denying gender roles and boundaries.

    Also, writing without pronouns is weird and awkward for me.

    My only real concern with Pops parents raising Pop as a girl, is that when this does inevitably happen they will say something like "How inconsiderate of your friend to ask! Lets take you to meet children who are less judgmental"

    If that happens then they will be immediately denying Pop the right to make an informed decision, and instead denying him information in an attempt to guide Pop into making the decision they approve of. It's more stupid with no possible benefits than anything else. It's like Pops parents saying they are raising Pop to be neither conservative nor liberal when he is 6 months old. Pop won't make any decisions about this for years.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    Having the child is forcing it on the child. That's why people are opposed to interracial couples! Nobody "just happens" to have a black parent and a white parent - somebody had to take some action at some point, and it is at that point that the parents are held responsible.

    The only difference I see here is that one decision is being made on the child-rearing, and one on the decision to have the child. But if one thinks that raising a child in a culture wholly opposed to them is harmful, then deciding to have a child in such a culture must necessarily be seen as just as irresponsible as deciding to raise the child in such a way that they would face similar difficulties.

    sidhaethe on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    fail

    Arch, you want to talk about the "damage" inflicted on kids by being raised in a gendered fashion. The only possible damage comes from either a really old fashioned approach in which you are teaching girls to stay in the kitchen and boys to expect dinner and open-hand slap their wives if it's not right or from continuing to enforce a gender on a child who is rejecting it due to a being trans.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of gender baggage that isn't HUR HUR DUDE IN A WIFEBEATER WOMAN IN THE KITCHEN. Surely you all of people would be aware of this?

    I think you will find that you and I strongly disagree on how much of that "gender baggage" is a negative thing.

    And there we will find that you may actually be objectively wrong here.
    You keep saying this to a lot of people, as if it's fact. So...where's the facts? Studies? Anything that proves that for the large majority of society the way we raise children is actively harmful and negative?

    I'm not being factious here, I want to see these studies. You've said several times that it can be shown as "objective fact" that gender norms are harmful, not just in the outlier cases, but in the otherwise normal cases.

    Here is one that should be interesting to jeepguy
    Traditional psychoanalytic theory addresses masculine identity development, that is, how boys become men, through disidentification. This according to Greenson (1968) is a two-pronged process whereby (a) a boy must renounce emotional ties to his primary caregiver (traditionally held as his mother), and (b) he must counteridentify with his father or male role model. These developmental tasks have been held as necessary steps toward emotional autonomy, psychological separation, and most important here, securing the development of the masculine self.

    This paper argues that the developmental task of disidentification needs to be expanded and reinterpreted beyond its original conception. Issues of changing gender roles and the rejection of the traditional gender identity model make its original definition somewhat limited. To that end it is suggested that the process of disidentification goes beyond that of childhood into adulthood. It is further suggested that men are left with emotional residual from this process that leaves their masculine self weakened and in need of bolstering through psychological defenses.

    Here is another one that people mentioned (trans-gendered boys have a harder problem than women)

    I have more coming, give me a bit

    Arch on
  • SparvySparvy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.
    No, this analogy is bullshit, pure bullshit.

    They are not telling Pop that Pop can choose between being a man or woman (they might do that too but it is another matter), they are telling society not to treat their child based on its gender. Instead treating Pop as a person, sort of like we should treat black people as persons, since we realized treating them differently was wrong.

    Sparvy on
  • rational vashrational vash Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Isn't letting Pop wear and dress and do what he wants pretty much the opposite of forcing Pop to do anything?

    It's not like Pop's parents are saying 'ok tuesday is dress day, wednesday is suspenders day, thursday is skirt day, friday is football/hockey day!'

    Yup. They're not actually forcing the child to do anything, they're giving it more choice than most children have.

    But some people think that's a bad thing, because they don't know how gender roles work.

    rational vash on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    Isn't letting Pop wear and dress and do what he wants pretty much the opposite of forcing Pop to do anything?

    It's not like Pop's parents are saying 'ok tuesday is dress day, wednesday is suspenders day, thursday is skirt day, friday is football/hockey day!'

    Children do not just do what they want. Children behave in a manner which gathers them attention, preferably positive attention, from their parents. Pops parent reward behavior which agrees with their child raising ideas, and this will be play with both trucks and dolls, and wearing dresses and jeans. This means Pop is being rewarded for behaving like a little girl, since this is how many little girls behave. As such, Pop will behave like a little girl.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • squeefishsqueefish Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    I think that having the freedom to choose one of the most essential elements of one's identity is a positive form of difference.

    What if you had atheist parents in a community where most kids happened to be Christian? Would you say that it's bad of the parents to tell their child she can choose her religious beliefs whenever she wants to, rather than being hypocrites and going to church with her every Sunday so she'll fit in?

    squeefish on
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This would be like in Georgia circa 50's if genetic engineering was possible, a white couple having the pigment of their kids skin changed prior to birth to be darker. Sure the kid isn't African-American, and even if he was shouldn't affect the way he is treated. But why in the world would you go out of the way to make life harder on your kid as a social experiment.

    No, it would be as if they let the kid choose their skin pigmentation.

    The parents aren't forcing jack shit on the kid. They are letting the kid choose whenever the kid wants to. Can you grasp this?

    The kid chooses, the parents support. The horror.

    That's not what happens. You seem to think that people adopt gender roles through genetics. Some you do. But its mostly based on observation and pressure. By not helping their kid fit into their gender roles prior to assimilation in school most of their future adoption of said roles will be handled by pressure.

    They are forcing something on their kid. Ambiguity. Queerness. Whether straight or gay, this person is is going to be perceived as weird. Just as in Georgia circa 50's, this is yet another hurdle for people to cross in their perception of others. But instead of going forward assuming the child is normal and supporting them when that isn't the case, your instilling that abnormality, just to see if they will become normal, and if they are not well no one should discriminate against them anyways. Its backwards and dangerous to do with a kid, just so you can point a finger later and say it should have worked but society is fucked up.

    It reminds me of a scene from The Family Stone. She was horribly insensitive when she said it, she had a point. Growing up is hard. Kids commit suicide, take to drugs, runaway, for shit that seems small. Why the fuck introduce more trouble to your kids socially during their most impressionable years to pretend they are making choices themselves.

    Topweasel on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    Having the child is forcing it on the child. That's why people are opposed to interracial couples! Nobody "just happens" to have a black parent and a white parent - somebody had to take some action at some point, and it is at that point that the parents are held responsible.

    The only difference I see here is that one decision is being made on the child-rearing, and one on the decision to have the child. But if one thinks that raising a child in a culture wholly opposed to them is harmful, then deciding to have a child in such a culture must necessarily be seen as just as irresponsible as deciding to raise the child in such a way that they would face similar difficulties.

    There is a difference between what a child is and how a child is raised. People are upset with the two scenarios for DIFFERENT reasons.

    No one in this thread is saying that non-standard gender identities are bad (althoguh a couple may be questioning if they exist, but that's a seperate thing), what they are saying is that it is better to raise the child to be aware fo what the world expects, and protected against it, rather than raising them not even knowing that this is a thing in the world.



    The analog would be to raise a biracial child (let's call him Barry) without ever really teaching him about race. You just send Barry out in to the world one day to discover that people don't like him, and he has no idea why. Yes, you presented a very positive post-racial upbringing for Barry, but you failed to prepared him for the realities fo the world he lives in.



    I see Pop's tory as being the same thing, along gender lines.

    Evander on
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    To take a slightly different tack, when I meet a woman for the first time, I almost always do not treat or even consider her as a potential sexual or romantic partner. So there's that.

    Yes, you do, you just don't do it consciously. It's in the typical male biological and hormonal make up to be sizing up potential mates all the time. Just because you didn't go "DUDE, I WOULD SO BANG THAT HOTTIE" in your mind the first time you met a chick, doesn't mean you're sub-conscious didn't make a possible mate evaluation based on what you find attractive, general genetic strength, etc.

    Because mating is the primary biological reason we are attracted to those of the opposite sex (provided we aren't homosexual, of course), is why men and women will always have sub-conscious bias in the their behavior towards each other, even in a 100% genderless society.

    Fascinating that you should have such insights into the inner workings of my mind.

    Or, if you'd prefer, if my conscious experience and outward presentation are functionally identical when meeting a man or a woman most of the time, who gives a shit what's going on in my subconscious?

    Seriously? You're just being obtuse. You're sub-conscious has an effect on how you consciously approach the world. I don't know shit about the workings of your conscious mind, but there's been a shit ton of actual scientific research done on the male and female sub-conscious minds, that proves we have sub-conscious bias towards those we find an effective mate, at the biological level.

    If you honestly think your sub-conscious doesn't communicate with, and guide, your conscious, you seriously need to read up on some of the subject matter being discussed here.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I am curious as to what gender baggage you think is positive or even just neutral, jeeps.

    That's really the crux of it: the parents don't want that baggage to weigh down their child.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • rational vashrational vash Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This would be like in Georgia circa 50's if genetic engineering was possible, a white couple having the pigment of their kids skin changed prior to birth to be darker. Sure the kid isn't African-American, and even if he was shouldn't affect the way he is treated. But why in the world would you go out of the way to make life harder on your kid as a social experiment.

    No, it would be as if they let the kid choose their skin pigmentation.

    The parents aren't forcing jack shit on the kid. They are letting the kid choose whenever the kid wants to. Can you grasp this?

    The kid chooses, the parents support. The horror.

    That's not what happens. You seem to think that people adopt gender roles through genetics. Some you do. But its mostly based on observation and pressure. By not helping their kid fit into their gender roles prior to assimilation in school most of their future adoption of said roles will be handled by pressure.

    They are forcing something on their kid. Ambiguity. Queerness. Whether straight or gay, this person is is going to be perceived as weird. Just as in Georgia circa 50's, this is yet another hurdle for people to cross in their perception of others. But instead of going forward assuming the child is normal and supporting them when that isn't the case, your instilling that abnormality, just to see if they will become normal, and if they are not well no one should discriminate against them anyways. Its backwards and dangerous to do with a kid, just so you can point a finger later and say it should have worked but society is fucked up.

    It reminds me of a scene from The Family Stone. She was horribly insensitive when she said it, she had a point. Growing up is hard. Kids commit suicide, take to drugs, runaway, for shit that seems small. Why the fuck introduce more trouble to your kids socially during their most impressionable years to pretend they are making choices themselves.
    They're forcing the freedom to choose on their kid. Which isn't really forcing at all.

    rational vash on
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    What would be wrong with a genderless society anyways? Ie a society where gender roles are not assigned to anyone.
    bridget.jpg

    You'd be all like "man, that chick is pretty hot" and then you'd go home and get to the good part and OH GOD SHE IS A HE ARGH FML.

    Bethryn on
    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Gnometank, if you look closely at that "shit ton" of research you'll find that a lot of it is poorly carried out and simply a gesture to reinforce socially conservative ideology. Research that confirms long-standing ideological positions in favour of existing power structures is always suspect.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    A further question:

    If they let Pop pick Pop's own clothing, how do they avoid the inevitable "I want to wear a skirt, a t-shirt, galoshes, a cape, and a tiara"? Young children generally get their clothes picked out for them by their parents not because their parents are attempting to enforce gender roles (well, not only because of that), but because little kids aren't capable of dressing themselves in a manner that won't get them made fun of by their peers or ejected from their classes because their manner of dress is considered a distraction.

    Edit:
    For clarity, if they just let Pop pick "boy clothes" or "girl clothes" and then the parents select appropriate choices, how is this not just as gender-baggage-enforcing?

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank What the what? Portland, OregonRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Gnometank, if you look closely at that "shit ton" of research you'll find that a lot of it is poorly carried out and simply a gesture to reinforce socially conservative ideology. Research that confirms long-standing ideological positions in favour of existing power structures is always suspect.

    *face palm* Okay, so this is basically a debate that has no end for you. Because, btw, I can say the same thing about nearly every piece of sociology I've read lately. It's a lot poorly carried out and simple gesture research to reinforce peoples need to say society is bad.

    You just don't get to discount biology and hormones and the drive to mate because it suits your grand social ideal.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Tank if you look I provided links ( a few) that show that traditional gender roles can be harmful

    edit: and I have chased down a few more I THINK

    Arch on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    A further question:

    If they let Pop pick Pop's own clothing, how do they avoid the inevitable "I want to wear a skirt, a t-shirt, galoshes, a cape, and a tiara"? Young children generally get their clothes picked out for them by their parents not because their parents are attempting to enforce gender roles (well, not only because of that), but because little kids aren't capable of dressing themselves in a manner that won't get them made fun of by their peers or ejected from their classes because their manner of dress is considered a distraction.

    Edit:
    For clarity, if they just let Pop pick "boy clothes" or "girl clothes" and then the parents select appropriate choices, how is this not just as gender-baggage-enforcing?

    They clearly don't let Pop pick Pops clothes. If Pop came down every day playing with Trucks and wearing Jeans and a t-shirt, then they would be displeased. Pop would pick up on this and dress in other ways.

    And yes, they also clearly don't just let Pop wear tiaras or fireman suits 24/7. Hell, most children if given free choice would spend 6 months wearing the same clothes they wore to their birthday party, since that is when they got tonnes of attention and free stuff.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Gnometank, if you look closely at that "shit ton" of research you'll find that a lot of it is poorly carried out and simply a gesture to reinforce socially conservative ideology. Research that confirms long-standing ideological positions in favour of existing power structures is always suspect.

    Oh wow. This research that supports my arguments is good and research goes the other way is suspect.

    Sadface.

    Regina Fong on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    Having the child is forcing it on the child. That's why people are opposed to interracial couples! Nobody "just happens" to have a black parent and a white parent - somebody had to take some action at some point, and it is at that point that the parents are held responsible.

    The only difference I see here is that one decision is being made on the child-rearing, and one on the decision to have the child. But if one thinks that raising a child in a culture wholly opposed to them is harmful, then deciding to have a child in such a culture must necessarily be seen as just as irresponsible as deciding to raise the child in such a way that they would face similar difficulties.

    There is a difference between what a child is and how a child is raised. People are upset with the two scenarios for DIFFERENT reasons.

    No one in this thread is saying that non-standard gender identities are bad (althoguh a couple may be questioning if they exist, but that's a seperate thing), what they are saying is that it is better to raise the child to be aware fo what the world expects, and protected against it, rather than raising them not even knowing that this is a thing in the world.



    The analog would be to raise a biracial child (let's call him Barry) without ever really teaching him about race. You just send Barry out in to the world one day to discover that people don't like him, and he has no idea why. Yes, you presented a very positive post-racial upbringing for Barry, but you failed to prepared him for the realities fo the world he lives in.



    I see Pop's tory as being the same thing, along gender lines.

    From the articles being discussed, Pop's parents have said that Pop knows that boys and girls have different bits and pieces. Therefore, all that is being left for Pop to choose is how to behave, not whether or not Pop is a (biological) boy or girl.

    This would be similar, in my mind, not to keeping the fact that "races" "exist" (per US categorizations) from young Barry, but rather to letting Barry know that black people exist and white people exist, and Barry is a little bit of both. Therefore Barry is free to decide at a later date whether he wants to identify as black, or white, or both, or neither, because he's not being told he's a little black boy by everyone just because his skin is darker.

    sidhaethe on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    A further question:

    If they let Pop pick Pop's own clothing, how do they avoid the inevitable "I want to wear a skirt, a t-shirt, galoshes, a cape, and a tiara"? Young children generally get their clothes picked out for them by their parents not because their parents are attempting to enforce gender roles (well, not only because of that), but because little kids aren't capable of dressing themselves in a manner that won't get them made fun of by their peers or ejected from their classes because their manner of dress is considered a distraction.

    Edit:
    For clarity, if they just let Pop pick "boy clothes" or "girl clothes" and then the parents select appropriate choices, how is this not just as gender-baggage-enforcing?

    They clearly don't let Pop pick Pops clothes. If Pop came down every day playing with Trucks and wearing Jeans and a t-shirt, then they would be displeased. Pop would pick up on this and dress in other ways.

    And yes, they also clearly don't just let Pop wear tiaras or fireman suits 24/7. Hell, most children if given free choice would spend 6 months wearing the same clothes they wore to their birthday party, since that is when they got tonnes of attention and free stuff.

    Where do they say that?

    Arch on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    A further question:

    If they let Pop pick Pop's own clothing, how do they avoid the inevitable "I want to wear a skirt, a t-shirt, galoshes, a cape, and a tiara"? Young children generally get their clothes picked out for them by their parents not because their parents are attempting to enforce gender roles (well, not only because of that), but because little kids aren't capable of dressing themselves in a manner that won't get them made fun of by their peers or ejected from their classes because their manner of dress is considered a distraction.

    Edit:
    For clarity, if they just let Pop pick "boy clothes" or "girl clothes" and then the parents select appropriate choices, how is this not just as gender-baggage-enforcing?

    They clearly don't let Pop pick Pops clothes. If Pop came down every day playing with Trucks and wearing Jeans and a t-shirt, then they would be displeased. Pop would pick up on this and dress in other ways.

    And yes, they also clearly don't just let Pop wear tiaras or fireman suits 24/7. Hell, most children if given free choice would spend 6 months wearing the same clothes they wore to their birthday party, since that is when they got tonnes of attention and free stuff.

    Also, it's a well known fact that when given the choice all 2 year olds would rather be naked running around flapping everywhere because that's the most comfortable thing.

    Regina Fong on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    Having the child is forcing it on the child. That's why people are opposed to interracial couples! Nobody "just happens" to have a black parent and a white parent - somebody had to take some action at some point, and it is at that point that the parents are held responsible.

    The only difference I see here is that one decision is being made on the child-rearing, and one on the decision to have the child. But if one thinks that raising a child in a culture wholly opposed to them is harmful, then deciding to have a child in such a culture must necessarily be seen as just as irresponsible as deciding to raise the child in such a way that they would face similar difficulties.

    There is a difference between what a child is and how a child is raised. People are upset with the two scenarios for DIFFERENT reasons.

    No one in this thread is saying that non-standard gender identities are bad (althoguh a couple may be questioning if they exist, but that's a seperate thing), what they are saying is that it is better to raise the child to be aware fo what the world expects, and protected against it, rather than raising them not even knowing that this is a thing in the world.



    The analog would be to raise a biracial child (let's call him Barry) without ever really teaching him about race. You just send Barry out in to the world one day to discover that people don't like him, and he has no idea why. Yes, you presented a very positive post-racial upbringing for Barry, but you failed to prepared him for the realities fo the world he lives in.



    I see Pop's tory as being the same thing, along gender lines.

    From the articles being discussed, Pop's parents have said that Pop knows that boys and girls have different bits and pieces. Therefore, all that is being left for Pop to choose is how to behave, not whether or not Pop is a (biological) boy or girl.

    This would be similar, in my mind, not to keeping the fact that "races" "exist" (per US categorizations) from young Barry, but rather to letting Barry know that black people exist and white people exist, and Barry is a little bit of both. Therefore Barry is free to decide at a later date whether he wants to identify as black, or white, or both, or neither, because he's not being told he's a little black boy by everyone just because his skin is darker.

    Yes

    Arch on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    It's just the way the world is right now.

    This is precisely why I am supportive of Pop's parents. Because the observation of the "way the world was" 50 years ago was fucking unacceptable, and we are immensely better off for the horrible people who experimented with their children, putting blacks into white schools and making crazy mixed-race babies and teaching their children that there was no reason to believe in a deity.

    Civil rights didn't come about because Rosa Parks had a baby that she insisted to people was allowed to sit up fron on the bus. She went and sat upfront on the bus herself.



    If you want to change gender roles in our society, then you need to organize full grown men to go out wearing dresses in public, not to have a couple of twenty something kids use their baby as a social experiment.

    I'm not talking about civil rights. I'm comparing the travesty of raising a child with no expected gender roles to a number of other "experiments" conducted on children in the 60s, including mixing black and white DNA, and integrating black children into white schools - none of which we went into knowing their respective outcomes prior to taking the leap.

    I apologize for only comparing Pop's situation to one I can relate to, but the criticisms are markedly similar - interracial couples are still lambasted for their selfishness daring to raise a child of two such different cultures and forcing them to live in two worlds, or choose one and abandon the other, etc. etc.

    If we were in the business of avoiding doing things like this because the child's life might be ruined, we wouldn't be where we are today.

    The difference is that interracial couple don't choose to raise the child as multiracial. That is just what the child is.

    Pop's parents are making a concious choice and a concious effort to force Pop to be different. It is one thing to allowed differences to develop and even nurture them when they do, but to force it on a child is nothing at all like raising a child who just happens to have a black parent and a white parent.

    Having the child is forcing it on the child. That's why people are opposed to interracial couples! Nobody "just happens" to have a black parent and a white parent - somebody had to take some action at some point, and it is at that point that the parents are held responsible.

    The only difference I see here is that one decision is being made on the child-rearing, and one on the decision to have the child. But if one thinks that raising a child in a culture wholly opposed to them is harmful, then deciding to have a child in such a culture must necessarily be seen as just as irresponsible as deciding to raise the child in such a way that they would face similar difficulties.

    There is a difference between what a child is and how a child is raised. People are upset with the two scenarios for DIFFERENT reasons.

    No one in this thread is saying that non-standard gender identities are bad (althoguh a couple may be questioning if they exist, but that's a seperate thing), what they are saying is that it is better to raise the child to be aware fo what the world expects, and protected against it, rather than raising them not even knowing that this is a thing in the world.



    The analog would be to raise a biracial child (let's call him Barry) without ever really teaching him about race. You just send Barry out in to the world one day to discover that people don't like him, and he has no idea why. Yes, you presented a very positive post-racial upbringing for Barry, but you failed to prepared him for the realities fo the world he lives in.



    I see Pop's tory as being the same thing, along gender lines.

    From the articles being discussed, Pop's parents have said that Pop knows that boys and girls have different bits and pieces. Therefore, all that is being left for Pop to choose is how to behave, not whether or not Pop is a (biological) boy or girl.

    This would be similar, in my mind, not to keeping the fact that "races" "exist" (per US categorizations) from young Barry, but rather to letting Barry know that black people exist and white people exist, and Barry is a little bit of both. Therefore Barry is free to decide at a later date whether he wants to identify as black, or white, or both, or neither, because he's not being told he's a little black boy by everyone just because his skin is darker.

    No, because Barry is bi-racial. He can never be white, or black. Barry is what Barry is. Barry is a person, just as good or bad as any other, but Barry is what Barry is. Blonde people who dye their hair Brown are still Blondes, and their hair color is still totally unimportant in how you treat them.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This would be like in Georgia circa 50's if genetic engineering was possible, a white couple having the pigment of their kids skin changed prior to birth to be darker. Sure the kid isn't African-American, and even if he was shouldn't affect the way he is treated. But why in the world would you go out of the way to make life harder on your kid as a social experiment.

    No, it would be as if they let the kid choose their skin pigmentation.

    The parents aren't forcing jack shit on the kid. They are letting the kid choose whenever the kid wants to. Can you grasp this?

    The kid chooses, the parents support. The horror.

    That's not what happens. You seem to think that people adopt gender roles through genetics. Some you do. But its mostly based on observation and pressure. By not helping their kid fit into their gender roles prior to assimilation in school most of their future adoption of said roles will be handled by pressure.

    They are forcing something on their kid. Ambiguity. Queerness. Whether straight or gay, this person is is going to be perceived as weird. Just as in Georgia circa 50's, this is yet another hurdle for people to cross in their perception of others. But instead of going forward assuming the child is normal and supporting them when that isn't the case, your instilling that abnormality, just to see if they will become normal, and if they are not well no one should discriminate against them anyways. Its backwards and dangerous to do with a kid, just so you can point a finger later and say it should have worked but society is fucked up.

    It reminds me of a scene from The Family Stone. She was horribly insensitive when she said it, she had a point. Growing up is hard. Kids commit suicide, take to drugs, runaway, for shit that seems small. Why the fuck introduce more trouble to your kids socially during their most impressionable years to pretend they are making choices themselves.
    They're forcing the freedom to choose on their kid. Which isn't really forcing at all.

    Your wrong they are forcing him to live a confused childhood where they struggle more then most to fit in, probably hiding some of the things they do enjoy (like what we would consider cross-dressing) to avoid ridicule. Things that might end up haunting them all their life, where they might not had experience and grown to enjoy it had they not had experience with it as kid.

    People have to suffer through this all of the time. So why pretty much guarantee that this will be exactly what their kid goes through.

    Topweasel on
Sign In or Register to comment.