Parents decide to bring up "genderless" child

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nothing, that's my point.
Not necessarily as you well know. You know what it means to be transgender/transexual I assume??

So it is going by the tiniest of percentage chances then. Great way to raise a kid I must say. There's a 1% chance your child might want to change their name when they get older, in that case they shoudn't give their kid any name, why did they?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well then she could change her name when she's old enough.

Or he/she could change what gender role she wants to fulfill when he/she is old enough.

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

Oh, and another, people are going on about the child being bullied. This is the same kinda thing that comes up with the question of same sex couples adopting is posed... oh no! the kid will be bullied! that's not really on the ball, it's a bit more paranoia of something different.the sky isn't gonna fall people

..and the usual answer is people shouldn't give in to bullies. Which is precisely what this couple seem to be doing...

Seachmall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How is letting the child decide warping it?

It's not warping it but not referring to the child as "he" or "she" is completely moot.

If it's a male and it feels like a female it makes absolutely no difference what you call it, the process is the same.

Simply not referring to the child by a gender doesn't change a single thing. If the child does turn to out to feel like the opposite sex (which there is a tiny chance of) it's still going to have to put up with the same sh*t any other person in that situation would. If it doesn't and is like the vast majority of people (whether that be straight or gay just not transgender) I don't see it benefiting the kid in the least, if anything it'll raise issues for them.

The world will still acknowledge it's gender even if the parents don't, and the parents treating it as if it doesn't have a gender could confuse the child more than it should be.

sensibleken

philologos wrote: »

You're conflating sex (biology) and gender (identity).

no she isnt

deirdre_dub

Dean09 wrote: »

@Deirdredub-
To be perfectly honest, and I don't want to offend you but I think your talking out of your arse.

And how could I possibly be offended at a statement like that? :rolleyes: :mad:

These parents are setting their child up for a life of torment and bullying just to satisfy their hippy egos.

Your fears around the child being bullied are based on two assumptions.

First, you are assuming that the child is incapable of figuring out, and then asserting, their gender. I can assure you, even as a transgender person, that that fear is ungrounded.

Second, you are assuming stupidity and/or malice on the part of the parents. Do you really think that the parents don't understand the consequences of being transgendered?! I'll bet that the parents are hoping and praying that the gender their child asserts is in accordance with what is between the child's legs. But they have taken the sensible decision that, in case it turns out differently, that they should allow some time for the child to independently assert his/her gender. Which, as I've said, will happen - wild horses can't prevent it from happening!!!

Yes the bully shouldn't be doing what they are doing but its gonna happen and as a parent its your job to protect the kid. Its like saying "I send my son to school in a tutu and high-heels and a stick on tail and he gets bullied, but its not my fault, the bully is to blame". Total bollocks.

Erm - I think the point is that the parent's aren't going to send their kid to school in a tutu, but rather ask the kid what they want to be sent to school in! :rolleyes:

Your contradicting yourself all the time. You're defending this purely because of the situation you're in. You'd be the very first person to say that nobody chooses to be gay or to have gender issues and they're born that way-So by that reasoning this kid will turn out whatever way it's destined to turn out regardless of what their hippy parents do. So why should they just put the child up for public ridicule??

The child will only experience ridicule if it turns out that they are, in fact, transgendered.

deirdre_dub

philologos wrote: »

AudreyHepburn: but their sex is something very significant to who they are. I could imagine warping something as significant as this will impede child development.

So why should they risk warping it by asserting their child's gender before the child him/herself has asserted it?

deirdre_dub

philologos wrote: »

You're conflating sex (biology) and gender (identity).

No I'm not - you are!

A child's identity doesn't necessarily equate with what is between their legs. And that is the whole point of what the parents are doing.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Erm - I think the point is that the parent's aren't going to send their kid to school in a tutu, but rather ask the kid what they want to be sent to school in!

..and well all know what a great parenting system that is.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So why should they risk warping it by asserting their child's gender before the child him/herself has asserted it?

Statistics for one. Their chance of "warping" a non-transgender child by doing this is vastly more likely than them "warping" a transgender child by following tradition (as in recognising it's gender).

deirdre_dub

philologos wrote: »

This is about forcing someone not to know what sex they were born

What?!

You think this child is incapable of learning about biology?!

deirdre_dub

Seachmall wrote: »

Statistics for one. Their chance of "warping" a non-transgender child by doing this is vastly more likely than them "warping" a transgender child by following tradition (as in recognising it's gender).

How does not telling everyone else what is between this kid's legs (something that the kid him/herself can find out very easliy) end up "warping" them?!

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

..and well all know what a great parenting system that is.

Indeed! No doubt the kid will take a number of things into account - how they feel about themselves, the colour of the tutu, the likely reaction of the people in the school . . .

There is an assumption of stupidity on the part of the parents/child being expressed here that is simply astonishing!

Links234

what if bringing kids up this way became the norm?

steddyeddy

philologos wrote: »

You're conflating sex (biology) and gender (identity).

Actually gender within biology is determined by physical features as well as social implications.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

How does not telling everyone else what is between this kid's legs (something that the kid him/herself can find out very easliy) end up "warping" them?!

I put warping in quotes because it's the word you used in the quote and I disagree with that word, I know you were just quoting someone else (and you probably disagree with word too I'd imagine) but for the sake of consistency I used it.

Confusion would be a better word.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Indeed! No doubt the kid will take a number of things into account - how they feel about themselves, the colour of the tutu, the likely reaction of the people in the school . . .

I think you are pulling my leg here tbh. No one can be that idiotic that they would argue that every decision should be left up to a small child to make for themselves. You know a child has to be guided and taught responsibility right? That they don't have the capacities to automatically know what's right and wrong, what's good for them and what isn't?

Say the kid wants to eat ice cream and McDonalds every day for every meal. You think the parents should go along with that?

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

So it is going by the tiniest of percentage chances then. Great way to raise a kid I must say. There's a 1% chance your child might want to change their name when they get older, in that case they shoudn't give their kid any name, why did they?



Or he/she could change what gender role she wants to fulfill when he/she is old enough.

And who are we to tell them when they are old enough?

If my hypothetical three year old daughter comes to me and says 'Mammy I want to wear trousers not dresses' or 'Mammy I want to play with trucks not dollies' what right have I to say ' you have to play with dollies and wear dresses, you are not big enough for trucks or trousers'.

The child will know what he or she wants or who he or she is from a very young age.

You will enough hear gay men and women say they knew for as long as they could remember what they were or at least that they were different in some way from others of their gender (using that term with caution btw).

Duggy747

Doesn't this kid have to be legally known as a male or female which will just stamp out this silly idealology?

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If my hypothetical three year old daughter comes to me and says 'Mammy I want to wear trousers not dresses' or 'Mammy I want to play with trucks not dollies' what right have I to say ' you have to play with dollies and wear dresses, you are not big enough for trucks or trousers'.

Eh who has said you should say that? It isn't even relevant to the point it is supposed to be a response to.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The child will know what he or she wants or who he or she is from a very young age.

You are contradicting yourself here. If the child will know who he or she is from a very young age, where is the harm in just telling people he is a boy or she is a girl. If he/she will know at such a young age that the label doesn't fit and can seek to change that or act according to the other?

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

what if bringing kids up this way became the norm?

What if literally cooking your child in a mircrowave became the norm? That's been done by parents..

sensibleken

prinz wrote: »

What if literally cooking your child in a mircrowave became the norm? That's been done by parents..

yes, thats the same

Seachmall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If my hypothetical three year old daughter comes to me and says 'Mammy I want to wear trousers not dresses' or 'Mammy I want to play with trucks not dollies' what right have I to say ' you have to play with dollies and wear dresses, you are not big enough for trucks or trousers'.

The child will know what he or she wants or who he or she is from a very young age.

A child wants whatever is fun. Nobody is saying you've to force blue clothes and trucks on boys and pink clothes and dolls and girls.

prinz

sensibleken wrote: »

yes, thats the same

Ridiculous reply to a ridiculous question tbh. What if it became the norm.... oh well then my attitude towards it now would completely change..

philologos

deirdre_dub wrote: »

What?!

You think this child is incapable of learning about biology?!

I never said that. You're introducing a lot of confusion where there is none necessary which could have impacts on childhood development.

It's fine if people decide to change their identity and appearance later in life, but to suggest that we should all be raised in a way where something as important is kept from is simply absurd.

Although I've suggested I'm the one who could be nuts, but I don't think so!

goat2

El Weirdo wrote: »

The fact that they named the child Storm is worse if you ask me.

that will leave one big storm in his/her head, big identity crises down the road,

deirdre_dub

Seachmall wrote: »

I put warping in quotes because it's the word you used in the quote and I disagree with that word, I know you were just quoting someone else (and you probably disagree with word too I'd imagine) but for the sake of consistency I used it.

Confusion would be a better word.

How does not telling everyone else what is between the kids legs (something that the kid themself can find out very easily) end up confusing them?!

sensibleken

philologos wrote: »

I never said that. You're introducing a lot of confusion where there is none necessary which could have impacts on childhood development.

It's fine if people decide to change their identity and appearance later in life, but to suggest that we should all be raised in a way where something as important is kept from is simply absurd.

Although I've suggested I'm the one who could be nuts, but I don't think so!

the fact you keep saying 'decide to change their identity' seems to me that you dont understand that transgenderism is a physical condition whereby the brain is physically a different gender than the rest of the body. It is not like an idea that can be changed.

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

I think you are pulling my leg here tbh. No one can be that idiotic that they would argue that every decision should be left up to a small child to make for themselves. You know a child has to be guided and taught responsibility right? That they don't have the capacities to automatically know what's right and wrong, what's good for them and what isn't?

Say the kid wants to eat ice cream and McDonalds every day for every meal. You think the parents should go along with that?

Again, you are assuming a level of stupidity and/or malice on the part of the parents that there is simply no evidence for.

What you also seem to be saying is that parents should decide how a child may behave in terms of gender, and not allow anything that strays outside that.

deirdre_dub

philologos wrote: »

I never said that. You're introducing a lot of confusion where there is none necessary which could have impacts on childhood development.

Again, how is it confusing to the child not to tell everyone else what is between the child's legs - something the child sees every time it is naked?

It's fine if people decide to change their identity and appearance later in life

How many times am I going to have to tell you that transgender people don't decide their gender! :mad:

but to suggest that we should all be raised in a way where something as important is kept from is simply absurd.

And how many times am I going to have to say that this cannot happen - there is no way a child can keep their gender from the world for an extended period of time. This is the battle cry of transgender people - I tried for a very very long time to keep my gender from the world, and I simply couldn't.

Morlar

Transgender people or whatever they prefer to be called are not what this thread is about. It's about parents raising a child in a way that is abnormal.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

How does not telling everyone else what is between the kids legs (something that the kid themself can find out very easily) end up confusing them?!

How far is the ploy going to go? Are they going to make the child not tell people? Is the little kid going to be lassooed into their little game of playing dumb if other kids ask? Is the kid going to be freaked out if a stranger asks a simple question? What is the kid going to answer?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Again, you are assuming a level of stupidity and/or malice on the part of the parents that there is simply no evidence for..

There is plenty of evidence for it. They are putting themselves before their kid IMO.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

What you also seem to be saying is that parents should decide how a child may behave in terms of gender, and not allow anything that strays outside that.

No, I'm not saying anything remotely like that. Being open and upfront about the kids physical gender is not the same as deciding how that kid has to behave/what toys the kid can play with etc. Like I have said already my parents never hid the fact that I was a boy as a kid, but neither did they dictate what toys I played with (which was mostly traditional girls toys) or what activities I engaged in. In fact they encouraged me to engage in activities which were and are considered more 'girly' if that's what I wanted. They taught me how to be both secure in myself, and not to care what people thought because I was a lad who liked to learn more 'feminine' skills.

These parents are doing the polar opposite by telling the kid that the way to get accepted is to hide your true self.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

How does not telling everyone else what is between the kids legs (something that the kid themself can find out very easily) end up confusing them?!

Ya, maybe it won't.

Here,
The kid is obviously going to be aware of it's biological gender.
The kid will learn it's gender role from observing parents, siblings, friends, watching TV etc.

Not referring to the kid as male/female will not change either of those facts.

If the kid is confused about it's gender role it is going to go through the same BS every kid in that situation has gone through.

All the parents have achieved is an international "WTF?!" directed at them and their kid. I'm guessing this won't go down well for the kid in terms of bullies, throw on the bullying a gender-confused kid must fear and you have a drastically increased likelihood of suicide for that kid.

Even if the kid isn't gender-confused the (at least initial) bullying it'll receive is pretty sh*t.

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

How far is the ploy going to go? Are they going to make the child not tell people? Is the little kid going to be lassooed into their little game of playing dumb if other kids ask?

Is that a serious question?! Do you seriously believe that these parents are malicious? :mad:

The whole point of waiting for a child to tell you what gender they are is allowing the child the freedom to express their gender!

There is plenty of evidence for it.

No, there isn't. There is plenty of evidence that you don't understand where they are coming from and what they are trying to achieve.

Being open and upfron about the kids gender is not the same as deciding how that kid has to behave/what toys the kid can play with etc.

In too many parts of the world, it is exactly the same.

Like I have said already my parents never hid the fact that I was a boy as a kid, but neither did they dictate what toys I played with (which was mostly traditional girls toys) or what activities I engaged in. In fact they encouraged me to engage in activities which were and are considered more 'girly'. They taught me how to be both secure in myself, and not to care what people thought because I was a lad who liked to learn more 'feminine' skills.

And did that not "confuse" you?! No - it didn't - you had an inner sense of who and what you are. So it is with this kid. And that inner identity is going to come out - as I said, wild horses can't stop it.

These parents are doing the polar opposite by telling the kid that the way to get accepted is to hide your true self.

Nope - they are saying that before you can get acceptance, you have to know who you are. You cannot get accepted if you don't know what it is that you are looking to be accepted. Trust me - I know what I'm talking about here - I couldn't possibly have been accepted until I understood myself and understood what it was that I needed people to accept.

Rocket19

Ok, I don't want to bore people senseless with my waffling, but here's my take on this.

I think this particular article is misleading - no surprise it comes from some anonymous writer for yahoo. Anyway, I read another article about this yesterday. Can't remember what source it was, but it was far more intelligent and seemingly more accurate.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that the person who wrote this article is confusing the terms "gender" and "sex". I apologise if this has been pointed out already but these are NOT the same thing.
While sex is (obviously) biologically determined, gender is not. Gender is culturally constucted. It is a purely social construct of biological difference.
(While I understand that some differences in behaviours/'likes'/activities ARE as a result of sexual/biological/hormonal difference, to a massive extent, the concepts of gender that we 'know' in society are LEARNED.)

A message of gender is drilled into us from a VERY early age. This is not only down to the media/advertising, but it is deeply ingrained into our psyche.
When you walk into a toy shop, the "girl's section", you'll notice, is awash with glitter, pink and purple. Most of the toys centre on domestic life (babies/cooking/'housekeeping) and beauty.
The boy's section centres more on cars, planes, adventure, things you build - 'boy's stuff'.
There appears to be no medium. While some toys are 'ungendered' (arts&crafts, etc), most succum to very, very defined gender roles.

While some might say this is harmless, is it really?
Do you really think your little girls were born loving pink and dreaming about being a princess? Do you think its a coincidence that little boys love 'action' and 'adventure' so much more than little girls?
Why do you think there's so few women working in IT/engineering? That the majority of people working in teaching/nursing, etc, are women? It could be said that these gender messages are clearly making their mark and even defining the paths of our lives.

As for the Canadian couple, they're probably a bit strange. I fear people misunderstand their stance on this issue though and their reasons for raising their children in such a way.
The article says "Storm will be raised as neither a boy nor girl and will choose a sex when he or she grows up". This is NOT a direct quote from the parents, but rather a stupid statement from the person writing the article. These parents are NOT going to get their child to eventually "choose" a sex. Wtf? As I already said, sex is biologically determined.
Rather, it seems to me that these parents intend to prohibit their children from solely identifying with being a gendered "boy" or "girl". They won't be saying "you are a boy,so you must cut your hair" or "you're a girl, so lets try on this pretty dress". People do this subconsiously and its seems to me the parents are trying to break away from this phenomenon that we seem to accept without question.
They are eliminating the influences of gender roles on the child by not speicfying a sex and treating the child not as "he" or "she", but as merely a person.
The kid makes their own choices, so if the boy wants short hair, he'll have it - not because "its what a boy should have", but rather because its what he wants. In this sense, the child is more 'true' to itself and more secure its own personal identity

As for whether agree with it? I don't know. The concept, yes, but it seems a little extreme. I'd worry about how the kids would fit into the "real world".
While it seems the parents are trying to raise their kids in a way which rejects gender roles/norms, the consequence of this is that their children are somewhat removed from society and all the positive aspects that comes with it. The fact that the kids are home-schooled (as a result of bullying) is probably a testament to this.
When they do finally enter the "real world", I can see them suffering some confusion concerning their gender identities according to 'our' social norms, ones which they will presumably have limited experience of.
It seems to me that the parents are living in their own 'perfect world'. Just because they raise their kids genderless, doesn't mean they will be living in a genderless world, so to speak.
The only way I can see this 'working' is if their kids literally spend their whole lives in this bubble.
I can see how they might see it as starting a "revolution", but is it right to use their kids to advocate this?

I do agree however, that people should be trying to separate their kids from these norms. People talk about the destructive powers of religion and state, but they ignore the subliminal messages of gender roles and the impact this may have on their kids.
I think its something that has to change, and may well do in the distant future, but as for these kids? The 'rules' won't change in their lifetimes, but in some sense, their parents have the right idea.
Foward thinking? Possibly. A bit wacky? Probably. But to equate their parenting methods as "child abuse" is laughable.

OctavarIan

Kathy and David feel strongly about releasing their children from the constraints that society poses on males and females and want them to make their own decisions about how they act and look.

I wonder if they realised that the child will still be exposed to society's gender influence. If they're abstaining from instilling any of their own values in the child then the only influence the child's gender identity has will be whatever is reflected in society at the time. In effect they're magnifying the very effects they're trying to suppress.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Is that a serious question?! Do you seriously believe that these parents are malicious? :mad:.

Are you going to respond to what I actually asked? Why did you drop stupidity by the way?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The whole point of waiting for a child to tell you what gender they are is allowing the child the freedom to express their gender!.

Yet I was always aware of my gender and I always had the freedom to express it in whatever way I saw fit. Being open about the gender does not remove the child's freedom to express themselves.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

No there isn't.

Just look at the kids names ffs. I mean the kid could never grow up resenting that could they...

deirdre_dub wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence that you don't understand where they are coming from and what they are trying to achieve..

Nail on the head. Where they are coming from? What they are trying to achieve. The kid should get priority.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

In too many parts of the world, it is exactly the same...

..and what this stunt is the only way to combat that?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

And did that not "confuse" you?! No - it didn't - you had an inner sense of who and what you are. So it is with this kid. And that inner identity is going to come out - as I said, wild horses can't stop it....

That kid is going to be confused if they make the kid lie about themselves to cover up it's actual identity. Like I said the inner identity can always come out, even if people know you are a boy, or a girl. Getting the strenght not to give a damn about social expectations doesn't come from trying to fool society but from being open and honest about yourself.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Nope - they are saying that before you can get acceptance, you have to know who you are. You cannot get accepted if you don't know what it is that you are looking to be accepted. Trust me - I know what I'm talking about here - I couldn't possibly have been accepted until I understood myself and understood what it was that I needed people to accept.

...and the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people know who they are. Who they are is the gender they are born with/in.

Wrighty82

That kid is going to be a serious handful when (s)he becomes a teenager. The parents haven't thought of that I'm figuring. Teens get pissed off over the simplest things, talk about giving ammo for teen-angst hatred!

prinz

Rocket19 wrote: »

Ok, I don't want to bore people senseless with my waffling, but here's my take on this..

All of the things you have said in this post make a lot of sense, but none of it depends on hiding the child's sex from others. You can tell your son that it's alright to have long hair, or play with dolls or like pink. You can be open with your daughter that she can dress more like a boy or play with boys toys and that they shouldn't follow set patterns just because. No argument with any of that whatsoever. These parents are taking it a step further to a place that makes no sense whatsoever.

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

Are you going to respond to what I actually asked? Why did you drop stupidity by the way?



Yet I was always aware of my gender and I always had the freedom to express it in whatever way I saw fit. Being open about the gender does not remove the child's freedom to express themselves.



Just look at the kids names ffs. I mean the kid could never grow up resenting that could they...



Nail on the head. Where they are coming from? What they are trying to achieve. The kid should get priority.



..and what this stunt is the only way to combat that?



That kid is going to be confused if they make the kid lie about themselves to cover up it's actual identity. Like I said the inner identity can always come out, even if people know you are a boy, or a girl. Getting the strenght not to give a damn about social expectations doesn't come from trying to fool society but from being open and honest about yourself.



...and the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people know who they are. Who they are is the gender they are born with/in.

Not directed at Prinz specifically.

I think this is the key issue/problem people are having with this ie assuming that if a baby is born physically male then emotionally, mentally he will be male but as we all know that is not always the case. Most of the time yes but not always.

There is little to be gained from pretending being born a boy automatically means you are into toy cars or trousers or blue or being a girl means you love frills, pink, dolls etc.

I am a woman, was born that way and am happy that way. But if you never met me and were to look at my book and DVD collection you might have a hard time deciding which I am. I love crime novels, am hugely into war history (in fact my Masters thesis was based in that) and love action and adventure movies. But in other ways I am a typical girly girl. I love clothes, make-up, jewellery etc.

Not as extreme as transgender obviously you get my point.

AudreyHepburn

Morlar wrote: »

Transgender people or whatever they prefer to be called are not what this thread is about. It's about parents raising a child in a way that is abnormal.

And what exactly gives any of us the right to determine what is and is not normal.

Just because it is not how you personally would do things does not make it abnormal.

Teclo

Such a crime of child abuse is inevitable considering the cowardice modern society shows when confronted by those who are obsessed with 'gender/sexuality issues'.

thebigbiffo

had a heated argument with brianthebard on this subject last year. i dont buy the thinking that gender is a social construct - in the same way i think that if you're gay your born that way. i'm convinced that boys by nature behave a certain way and girls theirs. yeah fair enough you'll dress a baby girl in pink and buy her dolls and the like while you'll dress a boy in blue and buy him aeroplanes - but that does not define the differences in personality evident at a very early age in boys and girls.

Seachmall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There is little to be gained from pretending being born a boy automatically means you are into toy cars or trousers or blue or being a girl means you love frills, pink, dolls etc.

And there is little to be gained by pretending what you refer to a child as will have any impact on how comfortable they will feel if they find themselves outside of gender-roles.

They will form gender-roles regardless of what you call them. Pulling a stunt like this does nothing but give ammo to close-minded bullies.

Morlar

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And what exactly gives any of us the right to determine what is and is not normal.

Just because it is not how you personally would do things does not make it abnormal.

I am not interested in a semantic argument on this issue, for all practical intents and purposes this is clearly an abnormal way to raise a child.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think this is the key issue/problem people are having with this ie assuming that if a baby is born physically male then emotionally, mentally he will be male but as we all know that is not always the case. Most of the time yes but not always.There is little to be gained from pretending being born a boy automatically means you are into toy cars or trousers or blue or being a girl means you love frills, pink, dolls etc. I am a woman, was born that way and am happy that way. But if you never met me and were to look at my book and DVD collection you might have a hard time deciding which I am. I love crime novels, am hugely into war history (in fact my Masters thesis was based in that) and love action and adventure movies. But in other ways I am a typical girly girl. I love clothes, make-up, jewellery etc..

That's wonderful. None of it has anything to do with trying to 'hide' the kids biological sex though. You can be open about the sex of your child and then go on to explore traditional gender roles. People are not against these parents because they think girls should only be pink princesses and boys should only be Bob the Builders. They are against it because it's a meaningless stunt that only has any merit as some sort of ploy for the parents to feel better about themselves. It has nothing to do with letting (and helping) the kid find their own place on the gender spectrum.

AudreyHepburn

Morlar wrote: »

I am not interested in a semantic argument on this issue, for all practical intents and purposes this is clearly an abnormal way to raise a child.

It depends on your definition of normal. This certainly is a different and unusal way of raising a child but I would never presume to have to the authority to say it's abnormal.

Perhaps some posters just need to open their minds a little more.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It depends on your definition of normal. This certainly is a different and unusal way of raising a child but I would never presume to have to the authority to say it's abnormal.
Perhaps some posters just need to open their minds a little more.

Great for you, welcome to the world of subjectivism and moral relativism. I hope you don't vote, or complain about criminals.

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

That's wonderful. None of it has anything to do with trying to 'hide' the kids biological sex though. You can be open about the sex of your child and then go on to explore traditional gender roles. People are not against these parents because they think girls should only be pink princesses and boys should only be Bob the Builders. They are against it because it's a meaningless stunt that only has any merit as some sort of ploy for the parents to feel better about themselves. It has nothing to do with letting (and helping) the kid find their own place on the gender spectrum.

It has everything to do with it. People seem to be demanding the child be one or the other rather than allowing him or her decide.

I see nothing to suggest the parents doing it for themselves. They don't want their child to be forced to be something he/she isn't just because society deems they should act or be a certain based on what sex they are.

Morlar

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Perhaps some posters just need to open their minds a little more.

Perhaps transgender-advocacy types ought to consider the best interests of the child rather than the pursuit of their agenda.

Seachmall

Morlar wrote:

I am not interested in a semantic argument on this issue

AudreyHepburn wrote:

It depends on your definition of normal

:pac: