Parents decide to bring up "genderless" child

Seachmall

Links234 wrote: »

less strictly imposed gender roles.

Gender roles are not imposed strictly or otherwise, they are observed and learnt.

If you are correct as to why the parents made the decision to do this they are fighting a non-existent battle.

polly78

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

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.

I tried to be objective in my last post.

It may be a big assumption but was based on Deirdres posts. I feel this subject is too close to the bone for a transgender to be unbiased given the amount of suffering it has brought them.

I'm sustaining my opinion because it hasn't changed so why would I veer from it?

AudreyHepburn

polly78 wrote: »

I tried to be objective in my last post.

It may be a big assumption but was based on Deirdres posts. I feel this subject is too close to the bone for a transgender to be unbiased given the amount of suffering it has brought them.

I'm sustaining my opinion because it hasn't changed so why would I veer from it?

I think you'll find that, owing to her experiences, Deirdre probably has a much better understanding of the issues raised here than any of the rest of us.

Should a person who has lost a child be told not to post in a breavement forum because it is too close to the bone?

Should some-one with a serious illness be told to stay out of a forum about Cancer for that reason?

philologos

JohnMarston wrote: »

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

I wasn't imposed with one in so much as I wasn't imposed with the fact that I was human. I was simply informed of what I was.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you'll find that, owing to her experiences, Deirdre probably has a much better understanding of the issues raised here than any of the rest of us.Should a person who has lost a child be told not to post in a breavement forum because it is too close to the bone?Should some-one with a serious illness be told to stay out of a forum about Cancer for that reason?

The rest of us were born with with a biological sex and a gender too. The vast, vast majority of us turned out exactly the gender as we biologically are. That being said it is 99.+% likely Storm will turn out to be the same gender as biological sex, so there really is no point treating the kid differently to account for the 0.001% chance Storm might not. Deirdre thinks it should be that way, that is nota better understanding of the issue in any sense.

polly78

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you'll find that, owing to her experiences, Deirdre probably has a much better understanding of the issues raised here than any of the rest of us.

Should a person who has lost a child be told not to post in a breavement forum because it is too close to the bone?

Should some-one with a serious illness be told to stay out of a forum about Cancer for that reason?

These are all out of context.

Deirdre and Links would be perfectly suited to post on transgender issues but in my opinion not on interfering with a newborns gender.

Kevin Duffy

polly78 wrote: »

I tried to be objective in my last post.

It may be a big assumption but was based on Deirdres posts. I feel this subject is too close to the bone for a transgender to be unbiased given the amount of suffering it has brought them.

I'm sustaining my opinion because it hasn't changed so why would I veer from it?

Given the number of posts you've had in this thread "I tried to be objective in my last post." doesn't indicate that you were, in fact, objective all along.

My point about maintaining your position is that you came to the discussion with an opinion and have stuck to it no matter what was said, frequently addressing the poster rather than the post. This suggests to me you had a closed mind and were not objective, which is something you accused other posters of.

Kevin Duffy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you'll find that, owing to her experiences, Deirdre probably has a much better understanding of the issues raised here than any of the rest of us.

Should a person who has lost a child be told not to post in a breavement forum because it is too close to the bone?

Should some-one with a serious illness be told to stay out of a forum about Cancer for that reason?

polly78 wrote: »

These are all out of context.

Deirdre and Links would be perfectly suited to post on transgender issues but in my opinion not on interfering with a newborns gender.

They're far from out of context, they are examples of what you suggested posters could not be objective about - subjects close to them.

On what you suggest DD and Links would and would not be qualified to post on; you were suggesting they should not post on this thread 'cos they couldn't be objective as it was too close to their own experience, now you're suggesting they would be better posting on things they have experienced. Make up your mind, but first, open it.

Seachmall

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Should a person who has lost a child be told not to post in a breavement forum because it is too close to the bone?

Should some-one with a serious illness be told to stay out of a forum about Cancer for that reason?

Of course not however we cannot definitively conclude on how these things will affect the child be they good, bad or indifferent. That would be up to a qualified professional.

As a result we should accept all possibilities and, of course, voice our opinions on the matter. To dismiss any negative affects these things could have on the child, as Deirdre is doing, is not objective. She is entitled to argue her opinion as which she feels would be the most likely outcome but she is not addressing any drawbacks this upbringing could have, she is simply ignoring them which I, and others, assume she is doing from a subjective stance.

AudreyHepburn

polly78 wrote: »

These are all out of context.

Deirdre and Links would be perfectly suited to post on transgender issues but in my opinion not on interfering with a newborns gender.

You know well they are within context.

I'm sorry but you are terribly arrogant to assume you or anyone else are better qualified than Links or Deirdre based on them being transexual/transgender.

As I think you know they have more experience of the difficulties associate with gender and the limits society puts it than you or I or anyone else.

Besides which anyone may post on any topic they wish.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

She is entitled to argue her opinion as which she feels would be the most likely outcome but she is not addressing any drawbacks this upbringing could have, she is simply ignoring them which I, and others, assume she is doing from a subjective stance.

+1. I can see the positives in the theory of what the parents propose (not to the extent of what they are doing) and actually support people not giving in to set preconceived gender appropriate 'boxes' when it comes to toys, music, hobbies etc. They are going way too far IMO.

It's just that in this case in practice the probable negatives, outweight the possible positives. Unfortunately some posters can only see the positive outcomes, I can only assume deliberately.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are terribly arrogant to assume you or anyone else are better qualified than Links or Deirdre based on them being transexual/transgender..

Actually the original arrogance on this issue came from certain posters claiming that they were better qualified based on their own personal circumstances.

Links234

prinz wrote: »

Unfortunately some posters can only see the positive outcomes, I can only assume deliberately.

Now now, that's not true. What I'm doing is entertaining the possibility of positive outcomes, and that's very different from only seeing positive outcomes.

prinz wrote: »

Actually the original arrogance on this issue came from certain posters claiming that they were better qualified based on their own personal circumstances.

I don't think that's true either. What I've said was that I have a different perspective.

I do however resent the implication that my perspective is not valid on this topic.

richymcdermott

El Weirdo wrote: »

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

Sounds to me that they are big fans of xmen

polly78

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

They're far from out of context, they are examples of what you suggested posters could not be objective about - subjects close to them.

On what you suggest DD and Links would and would not be qualified to post on; you were suggesting they should not post on this thread 'cos they couldn't be objective as it was too close to their own experience, now you're suggesting they would be better posting on things they have experienced. Make up your mind, but first, open it.

I meant that they are mixing up adult gender issues with baby gender issues. These are two completely different things. And I never suggested to anyone that they shouldn't post.

prinz

Links234 wrote: »

Now now, that's not true. What I'm doing is entertaining the possibility of positive outcomes, and that's very different from only seeing positive outcomes..

In relation to Deirdre she has repeatedly made clear that she sees no negative side to the thing whatsoever. That's an extremely black and white stance to take on the issue and I don't see any other reason for it than Deidre's circumstances.

I don't think anyone is only seeing the negative. I haven't seen a poster yet make a concrete statement that any attempt to blur the lines of the gender roles is completely negative.

Links234 wrote: »

I don't think that's true either. What I've said was that I have a different perspective. I do however resent the implication that my perspective is not valid on this topic.

In that case, I should have phrased it better, it wasn't aimed at you...and your perspective is perfectly valid. It's just not the right one.

deirdre_dub

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.)

The correct term is "cisgender". And I'm not confused about my gender in the slightest, thank you very much!

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

Actually, no, the benefits for the child if the child is transgender is that the child won't have to go through the consequences of saying to the world "acutally, I'm not X, I'm Y" that I have to go through.

Drawbacks
Cisgender - Kid may develop gender role later than other kids causing him/her confusion/problems

The only way the kid can develop such a role is if the kid is transgender, hence your drawback doesn't make sense.

The kid is going to be subject to an awful lot of gender cues from everywhere. In a toy shop, the kid is going to be exposed to aisles for girls toys and for boys toys. In the shops, the kid is going to be exposed to girls clothes and to boys clothes. And the kid is going to make friends with both girls and boys.

Now, what do you think a kid in such a situation, who feels innately male, is going to do? Naturally, he is going to want to do what is male friends do, and he is going to want to play with boys toys, and wear boys clothes. If the kid has a penis, yet starts wearing what he has observed are girls clothes, and play with what he has observed are girls toys, then we can pretty safely assume the kid is transgender ftw.

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).

So you believe that it's "fine" that I've lost the best years of my life to this stuff?

Links234

prinz wrote: »

In relation to Deirdre she has repeatedly made clear that she sees no negative side to the thing whatsoever. That's an extremely black and white stance to take on the issue and I don't see any other reason for it than Deidre's circumstances.

I don't think anyone is only seeing the negative. I haven't seen a poster yet make a concrete statement that any attempt to blur the lines of the gender roles is completely negative.

I'd disagree, people throwing around terms like "child abuse" and "abhorrent" are only seeing the negative. And most of the arguments being put forward are just empty appeals to tradition.

prinz wrote: »

In that case, I should have phrased it better, it wasn't aimed at you...and your perspective is perfectly valid. It's just not the right one.

But it is the left one :pac:

JajaD

Firstly, gender are sex are two different things. Sex is the BIOLOGICAL sex of a baby. Gender is masculine or feminine. Gender is socially constructed meaning it is something that is different in every society. For example: In some countries men are more 'feminine', less masculine, blah blah blah. Masculinity and Femininity are ideas of what society thinks man or woman can be. Take for example boys. When they are born they are surrounded by BLUE, blue vests, blue bedrooms, blue toys, car toys, toy soldiers etc etc. Why is blue a masculine colour? Because society says so. Why do men have to be masculine, strong, unafraid etc? Because society says so. Why do women have to rare children, be sensitive, weaker in the eyes of men etc? Because society says so. Genderless children are children (i presume) who dont choose their sex, but choose what 'way' they want to be man or woman. I havent looked too much into what this article is about but just wanted to point out that SEX and GENDER are two different topics...

deirdre_dub

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

So why do you believe that Storm isn't going to do the same?

They are not doing anything revolutionary.

So what's the problem?

deirdre_dub

prinz wrote: »

You FSKING didn't.

Aye caramba

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

:rolleyes:

deirdre_dub

polly78 wrote: »

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

Looking at all this stuff objectively is something I have to do to survive in this gendered world of ours!!! :rolleyes:

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.

It will help Storm in the sense that they won't have to go through the whole social process of saying to everyone "actually, I'm not X, I'm Y".

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

Exactly! The only difference between us is that I believe the only person who can decide what Storm likes is Storm.

deirdre_dub

JohnMarston wrote: »

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

I was also imposed with a male identity before I could understand what that meant, and it has cost me an awful lot of my life force.

deirdre_dub

philologos wrote: »

I wasn't imposed with one in so much as I wasn't imposed with the fact that I was human. I was simply informed of what I was.

Lucky for you that the information you were given was correct, then! Can you imagine what it would be like for you if you had been given the wrong answer?!

deirdre_dub

polly78 wrote: »

These are all out of context.

Deirdre and Links would be perfectly suited to post on transgender issues but in my opinion not on interfering with a newborns gender.

Why - because I was never a newborn child?

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So why do you believe that Storm isn't going to do the same? [...] So what's the problem?

I believe Storm will do the exact same, my problem is that they've created a spectacle out of a non-issue. That will not be easy for the child if the bullies find out. And, if the child is transgender additional fear of bullies will not sit well.

As I've said, I see no benefits or drawbacks to what they are doing. It is a ridiculous attempt at solving a problem that could easily have been solved by having an open minded household without the need for media attention.

[Note : I was going to quote your response to my drawbacks/benefits post but it ultimately reaches the same conclusions as this. Also, I meant no offence by using the wrong terms or implying you were fine.]

Links234

To hell with this, I'm raising my kid to be a time lord.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I80pc9jZ_t8

polly78

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Looking at all this stuff objectively is something I have to do to survive in this gendered world of ours!!! :rolleyes:

It will help Storm in the sense that they won't have to go through the whole social process of saying to everyone "actually, I'm not X, I'm Y".
Exactly! The only difference between us is that I believe the only person who can decide what Storm likes is Storm.

But you are thinking objectively from someone who was born in the wrong bodys point of view. Would you say that this upbringing would have been the way you would have liked to have been brought up?

Social awkwardness is hardly a valid reason. I thought most of transgenders trauma cames from physically having the wrong body.

Storm doesn't need to pick male or female, he already is either or. And if he grows up and wants to change this he will still face all the problems you did, I would think.

deirdre_dub

JajaD wrote: »

Firstly, gender are sex are two different things. Sex is the BIOLOGICAL sex of a baby. Gender is masculine or feminine. Gender is socially constructed meaning it is something that is different in every society.

There is an aspect of gender that is biological.

For instance, the feminine gender is generally considered to be more emotional. For many women, that emotionality comes from the effects of estrogen on the brain. Trust me - I know what I'm talking about here - I've never been as upset as I've been since starting HRT!

Also, I've recently had experience of low estrogen levels. The effects of that on me were that I wasn't "firing on all cylinders".

Why do men have to be masculine, strong, unafraid etc? Because society says so. Why do women have to rare children, be sensitive, weaker in the eyes of men etc? Because society says so.

True and false. Testosterone generally makes men stronger, and also generally gives men a slightly different experience of emotion to women (something that female-to-male transgender people talk about too). So whereas society certainly plays a part, and whereas I'm a supporter of men's rights to be fathers and women's rights in the workplace, there is an element of the above that is generally based in biology. Of course, everyone's biology is different - my biology is just an extreme example of that difference - and that is why I emphasise "generally". So there are some men who are utter softies, and some women who make seriously good businesswomen.

Genderless children are children (i presume) who dont choose their sex, but choose what 'way' they want to be man or woman.

This is probably the fifth time I've said this, but transgender people don't choose their gender either. I don't want to be a woman - I don't choose to be a woman. What has happened is I've discovered that my body needs estrogen, and that I can only successfully identify myself as female.

I havent looked too much into what this article is about but just wanted to point out that SEX and GENDER are two different topics...

Yes, they are, but they are also generally related. And neither your sex nor your gender should determine your future or the set of roles that are available to you in life.

deirdre_dub

Seachmall wrote: »

I believe Storm will do the exact same, my problem is that they've created a spectacle out of a non-issue.

It's not an issue for you, but it is an issue for many.

That will not be easy for the child if the bullies find out. And, if the child is transgender additional fear of bullies will not sit well.

If the bullies find out what, exactly?

Storm's parents, as far as I can see, have no more exposed Storm to bullying than your parents exposed you to bullying.

As I've said, I see no benefits or drawbacks to what they are doing.

I see benefits.

It is a ridiculous attempt at solving a problem that could easily have been solved by having an open minded household without the need for media attention.

Unfortunately, no household lives in a bubble isolated from the rest of society.

I meant no offence by using the wrong terms or implying you were fine.

It's not offensive for you to not know the terms used in a subject that you are unfamiliar with. As for me being fine - that is the point I am trying to make about the benefits of Storm's parents approach.

philologos

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Unfortunately, no household lives in a bubble isolated from the rest of society.

I can't see why any person would desire to be isolated from the rest of their society.

Even if this was so unfortunate, you'd realise that Storm will learn these dreaded gender roles through socialisation anyway?

Seachmall

deirdre_dub wrote: »

If the bullies find out what, exactly?

Storm's parents, as far as I can see, have no more exposed Storm to bullying than your parents exposed you to bullying.

I was never in the media as being raised as a "genderless child". I don't think much of it but have you ever met a rational bully?

I see benefits.
Unfortunately, no household lives in a bubble isolated from the rest of society.

Exactly. What they're trying to do is make the household a more comfortable place if the child is transgender (i.e. it won't feel the need to explicitly state that it's transgender, that will just be known as it would if it was cisgender) which can be achieved without doing what they're doing. You can refer to the child as a boy while making it clear there are no expectations for them to fit the traditional gender roles. Yes, they will learn that "he" and "she" are linked to gender-roles but they should also learn they are just terms of convenience.

If the parents identify, assuming this is possible, from a relatively young age (5?) that the child is transgender they presumably will refer to it as "he" (if it's biologically female) and the child will learn itself to be a "he". Now the child has the confusion regarding why it doesn't look like a "he" and why others don't call it a "he". Try explaining that to a 5 year old.

What, in my opinion, they should do is refer to it as it's biological sex and if it is transgender then explain (when it's old enough to understand (9?)) that the "he"/"she" references are ultimately meaningless and are simply convenient. And of course if they'd prefer to be referenced otherwise then that's fine.

Of course if the kid isn't transgender, which is most likely (statistically speaking), then there's no explanation needed this way.

Dudess

I agree with gender roles not being imposed on children - hate when people get freaked by the idea of What if they have a girl and I give them a blue babygro?!, that kinda sh1te. I think it's preferable if children are let find their own way - a little girl wants toy cars? A little boy wants to put on his mum's high heels? Let 'em. Their true self (to a point - there are always conditioning factors at play; if not at home, at school, among their peers) will out.

But this self-indulgent, attention-seeking, pretentious crap when gender in the biological sense is a reality?! Nature is already telling us that males and females are different - why try to fly in the face of this?

Plus, I'd be of the opinion that while some gender roles/tendencies may be constructed, others are natural. For instance, women as nurturers - well, men can't have babies, and men can't feed babies with their bodies... so I think that, while of course fathers are nurturers too - and sometimes moreso than their children's mothers - the idea of nurturing as the woman's role seems to come from an organic, benign place. I doubt it's the creation of an evil, patriarchal society.
I remember watching a social experiment with baby chimps on TV once: they were presented with a selection of toys. The boy chimps went for the toy cars, the girl chimps went for the dolls. Maybe there was some manipulation at play, but I couldn't see any.

deirdre_dub

Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret

The bit I agree with most is where they say that the "whole world's need to know what is between the baby's legs is unhealthy, unsafe, and voyeuristic".

It's a 4 month old child, for crying out loud! Why do you need to know what is between its legs?

later12

deirdre_dub wrote: »

It's a 4 month old child, for crying out loud! Why do you need to know what is between its legs?

So that you know whether or not to start saving for a college education and a gentleman's club.

Gordon

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret

Kid in the picture is a boy, the secret is no more.

xsiborg

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret

The bit I agree with most is where they say that the "whole world's need to know what is between the baby's legs is unhealthy, unsafe, and voyeuristic".

It's a 4 month old child, for crying out loud! Why do you need to know what is between its legs?

deirdre i expected better from you than the bolded part, that just comes across as "yiz are all pedos!" sensationalism.

for me personally anyway as i think for most of the posters here, its NEVER been about whats between the childs legs, its about the parents decision to defer parental responsibility to their children, and the double standards they use to say- "we want to set an example for the world, now leave us alone!". they cant have it both ways!

the only way this can be topped the next person or persons, that decide to raise their child, or children, as feral children, ykno, just to two fingers to the world and its nasty stereotypes.

god forbid they might actually have to take responsibility for their decisions as parents to raise their children in the best interests of the child, of course not, it makes complete sense to say a four month old child knows what's best for itself... :rolleyes:

Kojak

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The bit I agree with most is where they say that the "whole world's need to know what is between the baby's legs is unhealthy, unsafe, and voyeuristic".

It's a 4 month old child, for crying out loud! Why do you need to know what is between its legs?

Whatever about what's between its legs (a very crude way to put it for a 4 month old), surely society will enforce the gender on the child after a term of time. What I mean is that boys or girls at his school will automatically know what gender it is and deal with it accordingly. Also I am certian that when they enroll the child in a pre-school or national school, the parents can't say "no gender" when asked if its a boy or girl.

A question should be asked "Are these people fit to be parents" when they are using their own child as some sort of bizarre project to try out a genderless society. I know the have 2 other kids, but still what parent in their right fúcking mind would subject their child to this kind of torture with regard to how society will view them.

OutlawPete

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Storm's parents, as far as I can see, have no more exposed Storm to bullying than your parents exposed you to bullying.

He (I agree with Gordon there ) has already been refereed to as a “girl-boy" by two little girls, that will only get worse.

HavingCrack

The main problem I see with the parenting going on is that the parents are either naive or ignoring the fact the vast majority of the world does not have the same outlook as themselves. The oldest child has already been called a 'girlboy' by other children and this will only get worse. However, instead of trying to help the kid by saying that not everyone thinks like they do they decided to 'unschool' him. In effect this seems to be the child does whatever it wants without boundaries. What child will choose to learn maths if they can run around the garden instead.

The parents think they are liberating their children but all they are doing is shielding them from the world in reality. Dressing up as a girl if you're a boy is not viewed as normal by children as well as a lot of adults (I'm not agreeing with this view but pretending it doesn't happen is putting your head in the sand). These are young children at the end of the day, not grown adults and putting this sort of pressure on kids not to 'conform' to society is ridiculous. Some day Jazz and Storm and all the rest will have to face the outside world without their parents and I doubt that they will be in any way ready to face it.

I know one guy who had parents similar enough to this. He was homeschooled (in reality he didn't learn much), had no boundaries etc, in effect he could do whatever he wanted growing up. When he hit 14/15 he couldn't hack the outside world at all, he had been so insulated growing up. He had no idea not everyone thought like he did. It wasn't until his twenties he sorted himself out. As far as I can see these parents are pretending the big bad world doesn't exist and I sense trouble down the road with this approach.

Susannahmia

Its obviously a boy, he has a masculine jawline and shaped face.

flyaway.

I really can't see the point. Most people are perfectly happy with their gender, so what's the point in doing this JUST IN CASE he/she has gender identity issues when they get older, even though that chance is so tiny it's barely worth thinking about?

I don't like the idea of people using their children as social experiments- which is exactly what they're doing.

later12

flyaway. wrote: »

I really can't see the point. Most people are perfectly happy with their gender, so what's the point in doing this JUST IN CASE he/she has gender identity issues when they get older, even though that chance is so tiny it's barely worth thinking about?

I don't know, but I don't think that is the point.

We have all felt or witnessed gender expectations at some time in our lives, I am sure. Women are often expected to want children. Men are often expected to earn more than their wives. If anybody rears the children on a full time basis, it is generally expected to be the mother. Boys are often praised for engaging in particularly masculine activities that may leave them open to resenting it or feeling restricted in terms of personal expression. Girls often feel they have to conform to feminine social codes. Non conformists are sometimes seen as outsiders, and for some people, such issues relating to gender expectations can lead to psychological stress.

So I don't see the problem with what these parents are doing. I don't know if it will work, but it is a noble aim they are aspiring to.

flyaway.

later10 wrote: »

So I don't see the problem with what these parents are doing. I don't know if it will work, but it is a noble aim they are aspiring to.

And if it doesn't work? If the kids end up extremely confused and depressed because they've been bullied (like the older sons have already been) all their lives? I don't see how that's worth it, when it could have all been prevented.

Nobody's saying they have to set strict gender boundaries for their children. I'm female and grew up playing with boys toys all the time- but they're just taking it to the extreme.

I also don't get how they don't want to make a big deal about his/her gender but are telling their story to the world...

later12

flyaway. wrote: »

And if it doesn't work? If the kids end up extremely confused and depressed because they've been bullied (like the older sons have already been) all their lives?

You can't raise your kids in cotton wool but you can raise them to have happy and confident in their own personal freedoms. I have a lot more respect for parents who raise their children without gender restrictions, even to the point of not mentioning the genetalia, than those who expect their children to fulfil societal norms for an easy life, though not necessarily a free one.

Dudess

Well I think parents should let children express themselves without gender boundaries affecting them, absolutely, but that doesn't require going to the point of hiding the kid's biological gender, which is determined and not something that's constructed/conditioned.

xsiborg wrote: »

deirdre i expected better from you than the bolded part, that just comes across as "yiz are all pedos!" sensationalism.

Yep, just seems like the parents are pretending their detractors are perverts in order to justify what they're doing, which isn't child abuse in my opinion (I feel sometimes that expression is misrepresented - it's a very serious accusation, to be fair) but it's just not necessary - and seems more about the parents wanting to be different for the sake of it, rather than the child's welfare.
Nobody's obsessed with what's between the kid's legs anyway - they just disagree with pretending that what IS there won't play a role in the child's development.

PrincessLola

Susannahmia wrote: »

Its obviously a boy, he has a masculine jawline and shaped face.

LOL what? Secondary sex characteristics (ie masculine face) don't usually appear until a child has sufficient levels of sex hormones (testosterone or estrogen) in their bodies, usually at puberty. I am not saying it isn't a boy, I'm just saying that babies never look 'masculine' or feminine' in anywhere but their actual genitals. Thats why people insist on blue=boy and pink=girl, so people know the gender

later12

Dudess wrote: »

Well I think parents should let children express themselves without gender boundaries affecting them, absolutely, but that doesn't require going to the point of hiding the kid's biological gender

Perhaps it isn't so much that they are hiding the gender, but the fact that they are bemused to discover people are so interested in whether the child has a penis or a vagina. Who seriously needs to know that right now?

It seems pretty reasonable to question why people want to know about the nature of young childrens' genitalia.

Mickeroo

Societal norms are societal norms for a reason. Raising their child in that manner will cause severe pychological confusion later in the childs life and quite possibly result in tonnes of social problems. Anyone who's even glanced at a developmental psychology website could tell them that. Its abuse plain and simple.

Dudess

later10 wrote: »

Perhaps it isn't so much that they are hiding the gender, but the fact that they are bemused to discover people are so interested in whether the child has a penis or a vagina. Who seriously needs to know that right now?

It seems pretty reasonable to question why people want to know about the nature of young childrens' genitalia.

Because they (the parents) are drawing attention to it.