Parents decide to bring up "genderless" child

Console

Buceph wrote: »

Just because someone's perspective starts from a different point doesn't mean they're going to be biased. It's extremely common for people to set aside personal emotive responses to debate something that interests them. Some can't obviously, look at the rugby forums. But equally there are plenty of Munster fans applauding and agreeing that Sean O'Brien (a Leinster player) was deserved in winning ERC Player of the Year.

It happens but not really that often IMO.

Links234

prinz wrote: »

They aren't. However acknowledging the biological sex of a child is not the same thing as imposing a strictly defined gender role upon them. It's that simple. Strictly defined gender roles are no better or worse than a strictly undefined gender role as the parent recognises as per article in above post. They are going to an extreme.

From personal experience, people really treat you differently depending on how they gender you. Me being in the proverbial "awkward inbetween stages", I'll get read as female or male, and it can be absolutely night and day with how people react or treat me depending on what gender they see me as. (I'm female btw.)

The way I look at it, without people knowing the gender of the child, they'll be forced to react to them on a more personal level and not make assumptions about the kid. Lets say you're getting the kid a present when they get older, you don't automatically assume he's a boy, get him a truck or something, or she's a girl, get her a doll. You might wanna take a bit more of an interest and see what the child actually likes or dislikes, rather than making assumptions. I think it would give the kid a very different perspective growing up. I don't see that as a strictly undefined role, but it allows people to be more personable to the child without the baggage of their assumptions based on gender. Woo.

Buceph

strobe wrote: »

What?

Wrong thread? Quote the wrong post? Fingers got away from you?

What?

Anger. Sarcasm. Did I make a relevant point?

Links234

strobe wrote: »

So you accept that you have a bias which you are bringing in to things? That may be tainting your outlook on things then obviously?

I accept that I have a bias, but no more or less than anyone else here.

strobe

Buceph wrote: »

What?

Anger. Sarcasm. Did I make a relevant point?

When?

Joy. Irony. Did I understand what point you were struggling to make?

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

The way I look at it, without people knowing the gender of the child, they'll be forced to react to them on a more personal level and not make assumptions about the kid. Lets say you're getting the kid a present when they get older, you don't automatically assume he's a boy, get him a truck or something, or she's a girl, get her a doll. You might wanna take a bit more of an interest and see what the child actually likes or dislikes, rather than making assumptions. I think it would give the kid a very different perspective growing up. I don't see that as a strictly undefined role, but it allows people to be more personable to the child without the baggage of their assumptions based on gender. Woo.

Firstly all of those things can be done while knowing the biological sex of the kid. You just make people aware of the conditioning. Someone wants to buy your kid a present just say 'he's not into trucks, he's more into High School Musical' or whatever. Plus of course there is always 'gender neutral', in the traditional sense, gifts like arts and crafts, colouring books etc. Secondly anyone buying a gift for a kid should be finding out what he/she likes and dislikes. Thirdly if you get a gift the kid isn't interested in return it, give it away, sell it, keep it maybe some other child might find it interesting. You don't have to make a song and dance about the fact that someone gave your daughter a doll.

The move from strictly enforcing a gender stereotype can be managed without going to the other extreme of strictly enforcing none. That's what this parents are doing going to an extreme position to make their little stand and pull a stunt using their child as a pawn, who is secondary to everything else.

strobe

Links234 wrote: »

I accept that I have a bias, but no more or less than anyone else here.

Yeah. I think that is probably untrue Links. I just thought to raise the possibility, put it to you. Fair enough though.

Personally I think the idea of raising a child 'gender neutral' is a bit silly. How exactly will it work? Does it just mean not dressing their daughter in a pink ballerina costume? Well that is 99% of parents out there. Does it mean going to the press, ringing up every newspaper that can listen to you, telling them you are going to do it and then not letting your son play with an action man or fire truck? Mental. What if the child's grandfather gives the girl (lets presume it is a girl) a pink ballerina costume. What do the parents do to make sure they conform to gender neutrality? Not dress the child in it? Are girls not allowed wear pink ballerina costumes? Are boys not? What if the child picks up an F-16 toy? Is that a boys toy? Will they let the child play with the F-16 whether it is a boy or a girl? So basically act like 99% of parents alive then? Except ring a tv station and tell them how different they are going to be by not letting their boy play with 'boys toys' or girl play with 'girls toys' and dress them in a grey smock and refuse to tell people that are just asking to be civil whether it is a boy or a girl?

They sound like attention seeking scum to me.

PseudoFamous

Links234 wrote: »

I accept that I have a bias, but no more or less than anyone else here.

Unfortunately, I think you may be congratulating the parents on their ideals, rather than looking at the well being of the child, which, in my opinion, is far more important than some silly gender stereotyping nonsense.
I feel you should put yourself in the shoes of the child for a moment, and establish if you would want to be treated as more of a experiment than a person.
Imagine having to make all your life's decisions for yourself as a young child. To build an identity "from scratch" (Though I suspect that the parents are inducing a heterophobia through this, and possibly shaping the child abnormally to what s/he would normally tend to, genderwise) is not a duty which should be imposed on a child. I would no more expect a child to choose a proper education for itself, than a dog to solve a crossword. In giving so much freedom to the children, I feel that they're treating them inhumanely. Would you allow a child to raise itself, on it's own, or would you step in to do what's best for the child?

While you're throwing praise at the parents for such an edgy move, I think you fail to see the fact that this is borderline child abuse. This is turning out to be mental torture for the eldest, Jazz, who is five, and doesn't know what the hell he is. He wants to be seen as a boy, but wears dresses and nail varnish. His viewpoint of the world can only be warped, to see every other boy, except him, dressed "normally", and him with long hair and pink clothes.

Again, you must see this from both sides, and, once again, I feel that the well being of children is far more important than their parents' ideals.

Links234

prinz wrote: »

Firstly all of those things can be done while knowing the biological sex of the kid. You just make people aware of the conditioning. Someone wants to buy your kid a present just say 'he's not into trucks, he's more into High School Musical' or whatever. Plus of course there is always 'gender neutral', in the traditional sense, gifts like arts and crafts, colouring books etc. Secondly anyone buying a gift for a kid should be finding out what he/she likes and dislikes. Thirdly if you get a gift the kid isn't interested in return it, give it away, sell it, keep it maybe some other child might find it interesting. You don't have to make a song and dance about the fact that someone gave your daughter a doll.

The move from strictly enforcing a gender stereotype can be managed without going to the other extreme of strictly enforcing none. That's what this parents are doing going to an extreme position to make their little stand and pull a stunt using their child as a pawn, who is secondary to everything else.

It's not about buying gifts, that's just one example I choose out of an infinite amount. How someone's gender is perceived effects every interaction, and I really can't stress that enough. Even when people will casually say to a child "oh what a big strong boy you are" / "what a pretty young girl you are". It's mind boggling how differently people interact with others based on their gender. Whole relationships I've had with friends have drastically changed when I've told them I'm actually female. I've started noticing that even when people don't openly identify me as female (miss/ladies/etc) that I'll still be spoken to in a completely different tone of voice than if they had thought I was male.

Yes, you can try to make people aware of the conditioning in a lot of ways, but there's going to be so many interactions and such that they're not going to be able to address, and by doing this, the parents are basically circumnavigating all of that, all of the assumptions, the baggage, the conditioning, and making people think first before they interact with the child.

And honestly, I don't know if this'll work out. I'm pretty sure the kid will turn out fine, but obviously I can't be certain. It might have no effect at all, and the kid will just grow up and learn gender queues from their peers and really have an upbringing that's not that different to anyone else's. But I don't see why people are so hysterically assuming that this is wrong, that it's going to damage the child, that it's abusive, when they can't know that either. My point is, lets at least consider the positives.

Because it reminds me of the debate of same sex couples raising children, so many people are just knee-jerk against it, proclaiming all kinds of ridiculous negative outcomes for the children, and never imagining that they might actually be just fine. Why is it so hard to imagine that kids might be alright even if they don't have the same upbringing as you? That's the you in the general sense, not you personally prinz.

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

It's not about buying gifts, that's just one example I choose out of an infinite amount. How someone's gender is perceived effects every interaction, and I really can't stress that enough.

..that's a little thing called life. Your demeanour effects interactions. You abilities/disabilities will affect interactions. Your hair coloir might affect interactions. Would you suggest permanently putting a brown paper bag over the head of a kid with red hair in case it affects interactions with other kids?

Links234 wrote: »

Yes, you can try to make people aware of the conditioning in a lot of ways, but there's going to be so many interactions and such that they're not going to be able to address, and by doing this, the parents are basically circumnavigating all of that, all of the assumptions, the baggage, the conditioning, and making people think first before they interact with the child.

Circumnavigating it by going to the other polar opposite extreme.

Links234 wrote: »

Why is it so hard to imagine that kids might be alright even if they don't have the same upbringing as you? That's the you in the general sense, not you personally prinz..

It isn't that hard to imagine, but you judge the details of each 'upbringing' on what you see and hear and know about it. Judging this particular upbringing, no I don't think those kids are going to be alright and properly adjusted kids. Present another case of some other kid having a different upbringing again, and I might say, yeah I don't see the issue. People aren't jumping on this because it's different, they are jumping on it because it's bat-**** crazy and again the emphasis is not on what's best for the kids, but seems to be all about what the parents want.

Links234 wrote: »

This might be the point where I completely lose people.

Can't follow her line of thought, it's a bit of a rambling talk. Or maybe it's just my intense masculine energy.:pac:

Sir Gallagher

Links234 wrote: »

From personal experience, people really treat you differently depending on how they gender you. Me being in the proverbial "awkward inbetween stages", I'll get read as female or male, and it can be absolutely night and day with how people react or treat me depending on what gender they see me as. (I'm female btw.)

The way I look at it, without people knowing the gender of the child, they'll be forced to react to them on a more personal level and not make assumptions about the kid. Lets say you're getting the kid a present when they get older, you don't automatically assume he's a boy, get him a truck or something, or she's a girl, get her a doll. You might wanna take a bit more of an interest and see what the child actually likes or dislikes, rather than making assumptions. I think it would give the kid a very different perspective growing up. I don't see that as a strictly undefined role, but it allows people to be more personable to the child without the baggage of their assumptions based on gender. Woo.

People have more important things to be doing than sitting down with another persons kid and finding out what its interests are.

"Hey lets not get little Tommy a toy truck in case we socially condition him".

Fcking hell that truly would be the pinnacle of new-age hippyism.

Links234

prinz wrote: »

..and again the emphasis is not on what's best for the kids, but seems to be all about what the parents want.

See, I don't agree...

there was this news article before about this little girl who was bullied for liking Star Wars because it was supposed to be "for boys", and there was this amazing response from readers who encouraged the girl and said there was nothing wrong with liking star wars. it was great, she received loads of personal letters and everything.

but there was another article, very similar, but it was a boy who liked to wear a dress. the response was mixed, with leaning towards the negative. people were saying (like here) that it was child abuse, and there was loads of people saying that the parents only did it to make a spectacle out of their kid and get famous. same basic idea, just the roles were switched, and the response was completely different.

this is I think the parents doing what they think is best for their child

Seachmall

Links234 wrote:

How someone's gender is perceived effects every interaction, and I really can't stress that enough.

The child will develop a gender role anyway and, as mentioned earlier, by not acknowledging that you are forcing the kid to learn it's gender role from it's wider social interactions.

Also as mentioned earlier it would be better the help the kid understand that society has gender roles and that he/she doesn't necessarily need to conform to them instead of pretending like it doesn't have any.

And, once again, as mentioned earlier there is such a tiny insignificant amount that the child will be transgender you run a huge risk of a straight/gay child developing it's gender roles later than it traditionally would have which may not be a good thing.

I see what they parents are trying to do but I think they should get advice from a professional before making such a decision that could have underlying effects on their child.

Kevin Duffy

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

I disagree with the parents in this case and I also disagree with Links, but to suggest that the only people who could agree with this are people who are "unhappy" with their gender is rank nonsense. People are quite capable of appreciating and understanding something without direct experience. Play the ball, not the wo/man.

Morlar wrote: »

Would you say proportionately people who have had 'gender identity issues' /'sex changes' are More likely to express support for this as a parenting method than the rest of society ?

I would not know how to quantify it, but at the same time I am not sure that there is no connection. So I wouldn't describe it as a 'nonsense' connection to make.

I wasn't really addressing the making of the connection or the likelihood of support based on personal experience, I was addressing the point made in the post which said that only someone with Links experience could support the parents decision in this story. I think that is a nonsense position to take, in any argument. It's dismissive of Links' argument, saying "well, you would say that, wouldn't you". I think it was unfair, rude and didn't really address the point of the discussion.

deirdre_dub

polly78 wrote: »

The child IS a gender, it doesn't need to understand that as a newborn. The child may grow up feeling more male than female or vice versa but now at present that child is definitely one or the other (unless it is physically unidentifiable) you cannot deny this.

Of course I don't deny it. What I deny, with evidence, is that the child's gender can be definitively determined by looking between its legs. Yes, it's a 99-point-something-percent accurate test, but it isn't 100%. You cannot deny this.

In the mean time, the child doesn't need to be told "you are X", and no-one else needs to be told what is between the child's legs.

If you would for one second switch off from your own life you would maybe see how skewed your opinion is.

If you were to switch on your empathy for the way not just transgender people suffer, but many others (e.g. women who hit the glass ceiling, men who are denied access to their children), you would see how skewed your opinion is.

deirdre_dub

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

The downside to these people's behaviour will be the look of horror on corporate accountant Joe Stocker's face when, in 30 years time as he is walking with clients through the Toronto business district, he hears someone shout, "Jazz...Jazz....is that you Jazz Witterick-Stocker...it's me Moonbeam Snowdrop...Jazz...we met at the placenta party for your broster Storm....Jazz"

:rolleyes:

In 30 years time, Storm will be displaying clear signs of his/her gender. He will be in a suit and tie, or she will be in a dress. :rolleyes:

deirdre_dub

polly78 wrote: »

Growing up is hard enough, making a child feel like a hermaphrodite when they aren't one is surely making life harder for them and is plain crazy.

How can a child who doesn't yet understand gender feel like a hermaphrodite?

deirdre_dub

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why would anyone subject their child to what could quite possibly be an extremely confusing and troubled childhood just to further their own ideology? They're trying to prevent the child from experiencing an extremely unlikely problem but while doing that they're introducing hundreds of certain problems that they otherwise would not have had.

Like what?!

The child doesn't yet understand gender. When the child gets to an age that they understand gender, they will instinctively know what gender they are, and they will display that gender, and everyone will know what that gender is! What the fsck is the problem?!

deirdre_dub

strobe wrote: »

Do you think there is any possibility you may not be looking at this completely objectively Links?

Do you think there is any possibility that Links (and I) are more qualified to comment on this case?

Do you think there is any possibility that you may not be looking at this with a degree of personal experience that shows that (a) there is no problem here and (b) it is actually a good idea?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

deirdre_dub

Links234 wrote: »

There is no "normal way". Parenting varies differently from culture to culture, and it's changed dramatically through the years. How we raise kids now is completely different to how we raised them even as recently as a century ago by quite a lot.

As one of my friends said - "if correct parenting were crucial to the survival of the species, we would all have been extinct a long time ago".

PseudoFamous

deirdre_dub wrote: »

How can a child who doesn't yet understand gender feel like a hermaphrodite?

Jazz, the eldest, does not feel like a hermaphrodite, but is still extremely confused about what the hell he is. Wants to be a boy, but acts like a girl.

Because Jazz and Kio wear pink and have long hair, they're frequently assumed to be girls, according to Stocker. He said he and Witterick don't correct people--they leave it to the kids to do it if they want to.
But Stocker and Witterick's choices haven't always made life easy for their kids. Though Jazz likes dressing as a girl, he doesn't seem to want to be mistaken for one. He recently asked his mother to let the leaders of a nature center know that he's a boy. And he chose not to attend a conventional school because of the questions about his gender. Asked whether that upsets him, Jazz nodded.

Again, I see imposing these heavy decisions on children as child can only be seen as child abuse, their brains are clearly not developed enough to choose for themselves. You can say literally anything to any child younger than 7, and they'll believe you. This sort of naivety is going to obscure their decision making, and prepare them poorly for life.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Of course I don't deny it. What I deny, with evidence, is that the child's gender can be definitively determined by looking between its legs. Yes, it's a 99-point-something-percent accurate test, but it isn't 100%. You cannot deny this.

If there is a 0.01% chance that your child is allergic to say chocolate (which you can't know fer certain until after there has been a reaction) do you ban them from having chocolate as a kid just in case? How low must a percentage chance go before you can safely assume it's not applicable?

That highlights the extremist and ludicrous nature of their position. Just because something is less than 1% likely doesn't mean you must life to take account of that for crying out loud, what a sad life we'd all live if that was the case. There's a 0.01% chance of your kid developing mental issues - put them in a straightjacket from birth...to be on the safe side.

I'd say there is a more than a less than 1% chance those kids will grow up to resent their given names at at least some stage in their lives. Why didn't they account for that?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

In 30 years time, Storm will be displaying clear signs of his/her gender. He will be in a suit and tie, or she will be in a dress. :rolleyes:

You wouldn't be advocating defined gender roles and dress their would you? By admitting there are signs of a gender than you are admitting the genders adapt, learn and behave differently, then you go on to say that parents shouldn't acknowledge this very basic fact?

deirdre_dub

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FACT : 99.9% of children are one or the other. Unless they are in the minority born with (a) no sex organs or (b) both sex organs they are either MALE or FEMALE

FACT : They can change their sex later in life if they want to

FACT : no true transgender person "wants" to change their gender :mad:

I believe this is the third time I've said this - I do not want to be a woman.

This isn't something I want - it's a discovery about my biological makeup that I've made which necessitates me to take hormones. I don't take hormones to grow breasts - I take hormones because my body needs them just as any woman's body needs them.

I sure as heck do not want to be transgender!!! It is the most damnest difficult thing I've ever had to deal with!!!

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

As one of my friends said - "if correct parenting were crucial to the survival of the species, we would all have been extinct a long time ago".

A lot of parents screw up. The kids usually pay the price, along with others who get caught in the crossfire. That's not a good enough reason to screw up your kid. The more this goes on the more I feel some people look on children as some sort of fashion accessory or plaything tbh. It's sad.

deirdre_dub

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Jazz, the eldest, does not feel like a hermaphrodite, but is still extremely confused about what the hell he is. Wants to be a boy, but acts like a girl.

So Jazz discovered, at a young age, that they are transgender (gender queer comes under the umbrella of transgender). So I guess it is a good thing that Jazz's parents didn't tell anyone what their gender was when they were young!

Again, I see imposing these heavy decisions on children as child can only be seen as child abuse, their brains are clearly not developed enough to choose for themselves. You can say literally anything to any child younger than 7, and they'll believe you. This sort of naivety is going to obscure their decision making, and prepare them poorly for life.

What relevance does this have? No-one - not even transgender people - choose their gender!!!

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Do you think there is any possibility that Links (and I) are more qualified to comment on this case?

With all due respect, not in the slightest. It's like discussing plane crashes with someone who has survived one. Obviously they are likely to be much more wary of getting on a plane again, then someone who was never in a crash., even though the chances of either of them being involved in a plane crash again is minute.

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

If there is a 0.01% chance that your child is allergic to say chocolate (which you can't know fer certain until after there has been a reaction) do you ban them from having chocolate as a kid just in case? How low must a percentage chance go before you can safely assume it's not applicable?

Children are routinely not allowed to eat certain foods before a certain age! Do you rush into giving children such foods before they are able to take them?

You wouldn't be advocating defined gender roles and dress their would you? By admitting there are signs of a gender than you are admitting the genders adapt, learn and behave differently, then you go on to say that parents shouldn't acknowledge this very basic fact?

I'm advcoating that there is one person and one person only who knows what Storm's gender is, and what that gender means in terms of behaviour - and that person is Storm.

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

With all due respect, not in the slightest.

So a professional footballer doesn't make a good football commentator? :rolleyes:

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

A lot of parents screw up. The kids usually pay the price, along with others who get caught in the crossfire. That's not a good enough reason to screw up your kid. The more this goes on the more I feel some people look on children as some sort of fashion accessory or plaything tbh. It's sad.

Once again, how is it "screwing up" the kid to not tell it what gender it is before it understand gender, and not telling anyone else what is between the child's legs. Eventually, the kid will understand gender, instinctively know what gender it is, display that gender, and everyone will know what Storm's gender is!

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So a professional footballer doesn't make a good football commentator? :rolleyes:

Being good at football in no way qualifies you to commentate. You need to be analytical, entertaining, argumentative but fair, likable etc.

Sure, it's an additional bonus, along with the celebrity status you have as being a professional player, but it doesn't solely qualify you. There are plenty of commentators who aren't particularly good themselves at the sport.

Your personal experiences are yours but that doesn't make you make you particularly qualified in this field nor does it make you anymore qualified than us on a completely different style of upbringing which none of us had.

It brings a different perspective to the discussion, it doesn't bring a qualification.

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

With all due respect, not in the slightest. It's like discussing plane crashes with someone who has survived one.

First of all, my gender isn't a plane crash.

Second, I really don't understand what the issue is with understanding plane crashes by talking to someone who was in one! :rolleyes: Someone who was in a plane crash is likely to have researched the subject and thought about the subject far far far more than you or I.

deirdre_dub

Seachmall wrote: »

Sure, it's an additional bonus

So myself and Links have an "additional bonus" when it comes to talking about this stuff - thank you!

Is this not old news? Didn't a swedish couple do this already or am I imagining things?

Unsinnig

Can't wait for the next celeb / uber ghey fashion trend "Adopting Genderless AIDS orphans from Cambodia/Africa/Random****closet"

"The Sun" is going to have a field day

PseudoFamous

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So Jazz discovered, at a young age, that they are transgender (gender queer comes under the umbrella of transgender). So I guess it is a good thing that Jazz's parents didn't tell anyone what their gender was when they were young!

Jazz and Rio, the two eldest, both had their genders released. IMO, the third is more than likely a boy.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

What relevance does this have? No-one - not even transgender people - choose their gender!!!

I never said that they did, I said that "imposing these heavy decisions on children as child can only be seen as child abuse". While the "these" may have seemed a bit vague, I meant decisions for their education, clothes, and probably eating habits. They have to choose these things for themselves, do not know what's right or wrong, and are forced to make their own gender identities when so young. When you were 5, did you know want to learn maths, eat vegetables, or wear "normal" clothes? Probably not, and allowing these children to exclude things tied to their development will not help them in any way. The role of a parent is to aid the development of a child, not impede it will their own crazy agendas.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So myself and Links have an "additional bonus" when it comes to talking about this stuff - thank you!

Read the edit, it brings a different perspective. Don't be smug, you're opinions aren't more valid then ours.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

First of all, my gender isn't a plane crash.

Second, I really don't understand what the issue is with understanding plane crashes by talking to someone who was in one! :rolleyes: Someone who was in a plane crash is likely to have researched the subject and thought about the subject far far far more than you or I.

And that research will give them further insight which will be interesting in a discussion. Are you qualified in child psychology? Do you, through research, know of any benefits or negatives this upbringing could have?

No? Then all you have is an opinion, same as everyone here.

Be claiming you're somehow more qualified you're showing how subjective you actually are being. I fear you just like it because it's against the flow and are rationalizing any arguments to fit that opinion.

deirdre_dub

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I never said that they did, I said that "imposing these heavy decisions on children as child can only be seen as child abuse". While the "these" may have seemed a bit vague, I meant decisions for their education, clothes, and probably eating habits. They have to choose these things for themselves, do not know what's right or wrong, and are forced to make their own gender identities when so young. When you were 5, did you know want to learn maths, eat vegetables, or wear "normal" clothes?

Eh

At the age of 5, every kid is taught maths. And, in any case, what does gender have to do with an interest in maths?!

As for clothes - by that age, Storm will have been exposed to enough gender cues from the rest of society to know what his/her preferences are.

The role of a parent is to aid the development of a child

... and to support the child's identity as it emerges, and not imposing a largely artificial identity on the child before it is able to understand the implications of that identity is a really really really good idea and a sign of good parenting.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Children are routinely not allowed to eat certain foods before a certain age! Do you rush into giving children such foods before they are able to take them?

Apples and oranges. I see you can't actually respond to the question asked. I thought as much. Can't give a straightforward answer no, SHOULD PARENTS REFUSE TO GIVE THEIR SOLIDS EATING TODDLER CHOCOLATE BECAUSE THERE IS A LESS THAN 1% CHANCE THAT THE CHILD COULD POSSIBLY BE ALLERGIC TO IT?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

First of all, my gender isn't a plane crash..

Objective as always. Clearly no subjectivity going on lol.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Second, I really don't understand what the issue is with understanding plane crashes by talking to someone who was in one! :rolleyes: Someone who was in a plane crash is likely to have researched the subject and thought about the subject far far far more than you or I.

Simple, because they are far more likely to have a skewed view of the probabilities through lack of independence from the subject matter than someone who was never in a plane crash. That skewed view would obviously seriously impair any attempt for them to make a truly objective comment on the matter.

bluewolf wrote: »

Is this not old news? Didn't a swedish couple do this already or am I imagining things?

Yes there was a Swedish couple with a kid called Pop or something along that line IIRC. It seems the choice of name goes hand in hand with other nonsense.

deirdre_dub

Seachmall wrote: »

And that research will give them further insight which will be interesting in a discussion. Are you qualified in child psychology?

Are you?

Do you, through research, know of any benefits or negatives this upbringing could have?

Yes - I know that there are benefits, and I cannot see any negatives, as I've been saying all along.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

... and to support the child's identity as it emerges, and not imposing a largely artificial identity on the child before it is able to understand the implications of that identity is a really really really good idea and a sign of good parenting.

You're failing to grasp that children develop gender roles on their own through observation. My parents never imposed "male toys" on me but as I, like any other child, began developing a sense of identity I did naturally lean towards "male toys". They didn't consciously influence me, I observed them and others and developed my own role.

You give a new born a barbie and a truck and it will play with both. You give a 5 year old those toys and it will have a preference. This is how the majory of parents raise their kids and this I think is what you're arguing in favor of.

They are not doing anything revolutionary. They want to be individuals (which is why I assume they're doing this and naming their kids with non-traditional names) and to achieve this they've pulled this cheap stung in the hopes they'd be noticed.

Are you?

No, but I'm not claiming I have some extra experience on the subject as you are. You have a different perspective, that is all.

Yes - I know that there are benefits, and I cannot see any negatives, as I've been saying all along.

Great, care to present your research for us all?

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

Apples and oranges. I see you can't actually respond to the question asked. I thought as much. Can't give a straightforward answer no, SHOULD PARENTS REFUSE TO GIVE THEIR SOLIDS EATING TODDLER CHOCOLATE BECAUSE THERE IS A LESS THAN 1% CHANCE THAT THE CHILD COULD POSSIBLY BE ALLERGIC TO IT?

:rolleyes:

I FSCKING THOUGHT I HAD ADDRESSED YOUR QUESTION - OBVIOUSLY YOU DISAGREE - NOW TREAT ME WITH A BIT OF RESPECT.

See - two can do that. I have a caps-lock key on my keyboard too. :rolleyes:

The difference between the chocolate example and the gender example is that with the latter, it can take a much longer time for the reaction to be known, and hence the suffering can last a lot longer.

Objective as always. Clearly no subjectivity going on lol.

Eh?

Simple, because they are far more likely to have a skewed view of the probabilities through lack of independence from the subject matter than someone who was never in a plane crash. That skewed view would obviously seriously impair any attempt for them to make a truly objective comment on the matter.

I think that every plane crash victim is well aware of the statistic that flying is the safest form of travel. Plane crash victims aren't stupid.

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Plane crash victims aren't stupid.

But they are subjective. Facts or counter-arguments don't matter when you're emotional about a subject or believe so strongly that you're not willing to take a step back and analyze the situation as objectively as possible.

prinz

deirdre_dub wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I FSCKING THOUGHT I HAD ADDRESSED YOUR QUESTION - OBVIOUSLY YOU DISAGREE - NOW TREAT ME WITH A BIT OF RESPECT..

You FSKING didn't.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The difference between the chocolate example and the gender example is that with the latter, it can take a much longer time for the reaction to be known, and hence the suffering can last a lot longer...

There's the possibility your child could die of an allergic reaction.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I think that every plane crash victim is well aware of the statistic that flying is the safest form of travel. Plane crash victims aren't stupid.

Aye caramba.

http://preapism.com/wp-content/uploads/people-blinders.jpg

PseudoFamous

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Eh

At the age of 5, every kid is taught maths. And, in any case, what does gender have to do with an interest in maths?!

As for clothes - by that age, Storm will have been exposed to enough gender cues from the rest of society to know what his/her preferences are.

Read up on the story before claiming to be an expert. These children are "unschooled". Apparently, this involves learning only what they want to learn, so they will more than likely forego subjects like maths, for something trivial instead.
Once again, I am not exclusively talking about gender, and the entire development of the children as a whole. I could not give a toss if Storm decided (when capable of rationally making decisions) to want to be a man from Monday to Wednesday, a woman from Friday to Sunday, and a vacuum cleaner on Thursdays. These children will not understand the world, and I guarantee, if this method of parenting (or lack of parenting, as it may be) continues on them, when immersed in normal society, they will not be able to cope.

polly78

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Of course I don't deny it. What I deny, with evidence, is that the child's gender can be definitively determined by looking between its legs. Yes, it's a 99-point-something-percent accurate test, but it isn't 100%. You cannot deny this.

In the mean time, the child doesn't need to be told "you are X", and no-one else needs to be told what is between the child's legs.
If you were to switch on your empathy for the way not just transgender people suffer, but many others (e.g. women who hit the glass ceiling, men who are denied access to their children), you would see how skewed your opinion is.

I do empathise with you.
It is because of the torment you've gone through that you can't look at this objectively.

Ok lets pretend that Storm has been born in the wrong body, how is this upbringing gonna make his/her life any easier, surely he/she will still go through all that you did. His/her hormones and physical appearance arent going to change depending on whether he/she is playing with toy soldiers or dolls.

Why not allow the child to be openly a girl or a boy and play with or wear whatever they like.

Mother nature is surely to blame for gender confusion, not child rearing methods.

I don't see any benefit here at all.

Seachmall

I'm gonna break down my position as clearly as possible.

Ultimately I don't think what they're doing will change a damn thing regardless of how the child will turn out however if there are benefits/drawbacks of what they're doing this is how I see them.

(And I'm gonna use "normal" to refer to non-gender confused.)

Benefits
Normal - None
Transgender - May be more willing to be open about it.

Drawbacks
Normal - Kid may develop gender role later than other kids causing him/her confusion/problems
Transgender - None

Now lets look at the numbers,
Assume there is a 5% chance of this kid being transgender (in realty it's probably far less) and a 95% chance of this kid being normal.

They have a 5% chance of benefiting their kid with a 95% chance of causing it gender role development issues.

Remember, I don't think these things will apply and that the parents are just being stupid but if the benefits/drawbacks do apply then they are far more likely to have a negative impact on their child.

Now, also consider that you, Deirdre, have turned out perfectly fine despite going through a traditional upbringing and you're ultimately taking a big risk with the child's gender-role development for little benefit (assuming these benefits/drawbacks apply).

JohnMarston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

... and to support the child's identity as it emerges, and not imposing a largely artificial identity on the child before it is able to understand the implications of that identity is a really really really good idea and a sign of good parenting.

I was imposed with a 'male identity' before i could understand what that meant, and i turned out fine. Do i feel it was irresponsible, abusive or negligent of my parents to do that? No

Links234

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm gonna break down my position as clearly as possible.

Ultimately I don't think what they're doing will change a damn thing regardless of how the child will turn out however if there are benefits/drawbacks of what they're doing this is how I see them.

(And I'm gonna use "normal" to refer to non-gender confused.)

Benefits
Normal - None
Transgender - May be more willing to be open about it.

Drawbacks
Normal - Kid may develop gender role later than other kids causing him/her confusion/problems
Transgender - None

Now lets look at the numbers,
Assume there is a 5% chance of this kid being transgender (in realty it's probably far less) and a 95% chance of this kid being normal.

They have a 5% chance of benefiting their kid with a 95% chance of causing it gender role development issues.

Remember, I don't think these things will apply and that the parents are just being stupid but if the benefits/drawbacks do apply then they are far more likely to have a negative impact on their child.

Now, also consider that you, Deirdre, have turned out perfectly fine despite going through a traditional upbringing and you're ultimately taking a big risk with the child's gender-role development for little benefit (assuming these benefits/drawbacks apply).

it seems like you're presuming that the parents are doing this in case their child is gender non-conforming, and that's not it at all. as I see it, any child, cisgender or transgender can benefit from an upbringing will less strictly imposed gender roles.

Kevin Duffy

polly78 wrote: »

I do empathise with you.
It is because of the torment you've gone through that you can't look at this objectively.

That's an awfully big assumption to make about anyone's motivation. Perhaps Links, or anyone who's made the same journey, is better placed to be objective precisely because of their experience.

Reading your arguments, you've taken one position consistently and maintained it. You have every right to do so, but your posts aren't suggestive of any greater level of objectivity.