Parents decide to bring up "genderless" child

AudreyHepburn

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

You don't know what the outcome will be, none of us do. You are simply jumping to the worst case scenario, as are many posters.

For all we know the child will turn out perfectly fine. Labling this child abuse is too extreme imo.

later12

Mickeroo wrote: »

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.

Yes, anyone who has only glanced at a developmental psychology website probably could come up with such forthright statements based only on conjecture. Perhaps they should look deeper and eke out some evidence.

How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion that it "will cause severe psychological confusion"? Do you read teacups or something?

Mickeroo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You don't know what the outcome will be, none of us do. You are simply jumping to the worst case scenario, as are many posters.

For all we know the child will turn out perfectly fine. Labling this child abuse is too extreme imo.

WCS maybe, but why willingly raise a child in a manor that increases the possibility of the WCS coming to fruition?

Mickeroo

later10 wrote: »

Yes, anyone who has only glanced at a developmental psychology website probably could come up with such forthright statements based only on conjecture. Perhaps they should look deeper and eke out some evidence.

How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion that it "will cause severe psychological confusion"? Do you read teacups or something?

pardon, i should have said "it could......" not will.

later12

Dudess wrote: »

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

Really? There are literally thousands of articles about this over the internet. I am not sure how the story came about, but I think the point is that even if the parents gave an interview, which I assume they did, they are merely explaining a good idea that they believe others ought to consider.

The media preoccupation with the nature of this young toddler's genitalia is what I find disturbing. In that regard, I think the parents have made a very important point about gender and society in the 21st century, and how we ought to step back and look at how we are classifying children before they get the opportunity to develop.

Mickeroo

later10 wrote: »

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.

A clear knowledge of and comfort with ones own gender is not a restriction. Women having less physical strength then men or men being less flexible than women are gender restrictions,but unavoidable unfortunately. We're social animals, no-one raises their children to fulfil societal norms for an easy life, why on earth would anyone raise their children to deliberatley not fit in with society? I'm genuinely interested.

Fluorescence

I think the main thing here is that instead of making gender a moot point in the child's development, they're putting an enormous amount of emphasis on this kid's gender. An unnatural amount. The parents sound like they're forcing their two sons to like girly things instead of simply allowing them to like what they want. Instead of making gender roles unimportant in their household, they're stressing them and encouraging their kids to consider them far more than is necessary or even healthy. That kid Jazz sounds totally confused and unhappy.

I say, let the kids just be kids. Let them grow up as whatever sex they're born as, but assure them that if they like other things or feel like a different gender inside then that's ok too. Let them do activities they enjoy instead of forcing new-age gender ideologies on kids who aren't ready to get into all that stuff. Sometimes it really is ok to let your son play with toys like action heros or racing cars if that's what he chooses to play with cause it's what he enjoys.

later12

Mickeroo wrote: »

Women having less physical strength then men or men being less flexible than women are gender restrictions,but unavoidable unfortunately.

These are gender generalisations - they are not gender restrictions. An example of a gender restriction is trying to hide an erection in swimming trunks, or squeezing out a baby.

A clear knowledge of and comfort with ones own gender is not a restriction.

Knowledge of one's own gender? I think this baby will have no problem knowing his or her gender, or feeling comfortable with the fact that he has a particular genital organ. The question is one of why others must know whether or not he has a penis any more than they need to know its dimensions. It seems a little outdated.

why on earth would anyone raise their children to deliberatley not fit in with society?

Because sometimes 'fitting in' can inhibit personal freedoms. Thank goodness we were not all raised to 'fit in'!

partyatmygaff

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.

later10 wrote: »

The media preoccupation with the nature of this young toddler's genitalia is what I find disturbing.

Neither the media nor those asking "Is it a boy or a girl?" are interested in the genitalia of their child. I do not know about you but when someone asks "Is it a boy or a girl?" I usually assume them to be interested in the biological sex of the child. Biological sex is the main division in humans and it's only natural that the first thing anyone will ask about a new individual is whether they are male or female. If you adopt a five year old and a friend of yours asks "Is it a boy or a girl?" do you immediately assume them to be interested or preoccupied with the "nature of the young toddler's genitalia"?

The parent's actions are creating hundreds of certain issues in an experiment that may possibly mitigate the effects of one very unlikely issue. That hardly sounds like sensible or responsible parenting.

later12

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Biological sex is the main division in humans

Is it? Why not height? Skin colour? Ability to roll the tongue? Foot size? Eye colour? What makes sex a justifiable division?

If you adopt a five year old and a friend of yours asks "Is it a boy or a girl?" do you immediately assume them to be interested or preoccupied with the "nature of the young toddler's genitalia"?

No, but if I don't tell them and thousands of news articles appear on the internet, and people start tut-tutting me thousands of miles away, I might start to wonder.

The parent's actions are creating hundreds of certain issues in an experiment...

What 'certain issues'?

partyatmygaff

later10 wrote: »

Is it? Why not height? Skin colour? Ability to roll the tongue? Foot size? Eye colour? What makes sex a justifiable division?

Yes it is.

If someone wants to get to know someone better (Over the internet for example...) the first thing they ask them is "Age, sex, location?". They do not ask them about their height, their skin colour (Although some may...), the ability to roll their tongue, the size of their feet nor their eye colour.

What 'certain issues'?

Can you not answer that for yourself? They will certainly encounter hundreds of problems that they would otherwise have not encountered thanks to what their parents are doing.

Mickeroo

later10 wrote: »

These are gender generalisations - they are not gender restrictions. An example of a gender restriction is trying to hide an erection in swimming trunks, or squeezing out a baby.

That is the funniest thing I've read all day. So how is raising the child "genderless" going to free them from the restriction of noticeable public erections if they have a penis? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say there, am I restricted as a man because I can't give birth??

later10 wrote: »

Knowledge of one's own gender? I think this baby will have no problem knowing his or her gender, or feeling comfortable with the fact that he has a particular genital organ. The question is one of why others must know whether or not he has a penis any more than they need to know its dimensions. It seems a little outdated.

A persons physical gender and internal gender identity are two completely different things. Gender identity is formed in early child hood, they can seriously mess up their child by doing this, I'm not saying they will, but they're doing everything in their power to make it happwn, their older kids are already suffering because of their extremely restrictive parenting style.

later10 wrote: »

Because sometimes 'fitting in' can inhibit personal freedoms. Thank goodness we were not all raised to 'fit in'!

I don't see how being easily able to make friends and form healthy relationships with people can inhibit personal freedoms.

Kevin Duffy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Can you not answer that for yourself? They will certainly encounter hundreds of problems that they would otherwise have not encountered thanks to what their parents are doing.

What a poor debating tactic. "Listen, I've made a vague statement, with no facts or evidence and now that I've been asked to do so, I do not intend to clarify my vague statement or back it up."

Mickeroo

later10 wrote: »

Is it? Why not height? Skin colour? Ability to roll the tongue? Foot size? Eye colour? What makes sex a justifiable division?

Because unlike skin colour, foot size and all the rest sex actually results in significant differences such as physical strength etc. There's not an animal on the face of the planet that doesn't have differences between the sexes within their respective species and we as humans are no different.

Woman are different from men, the lines occasionally blurs sometimes but they are different.

partyatmygaff

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

What a poor debating tactic. "Listen, I've made a vague statement, with no facts or evidence and now that I've been asked to do so, I do not intend to clarify my vague statement or back it up."

Facts or evidence for what? It doesn't take a sociologist nor statistics to predict how these children will be received by their peers and by society.

It's patently obvious to anyone with even the littlest of life experience that these children will not have an easy life. Imagine it for a moment, you're in a public playground and a male "genderless child called Storm" walks in wearing a dress with its hair tied in a plait. How will the other children react to this child? They're not going to say "Right on man! Fight the power!", they will ostracise the child, discriminate against them and bully them.

Their parents cannot shelter them from society forever.

Kevin Duffy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Facts or evidence for what? It doesn't take a sociologist nor statistics to predict how these children will be received by their peers and by society.

Facts or evidence for your claims of course, rather than just saying "certain issues" and refusing to say what issues.

AhSureTisGrand

Has this been posted yet?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

citizen_p

Links234 wrote: »

do you mean to suggest that a child brought up without strictly defined gender roles could turn out to be transgender?

No I was simply stating that there was a documentry on about somthing which has a similar theme...

I don't think the parents in qustion should be overtly influential in raising their child. if the most extreme thing they do is buy gender neutral toys and lets the child choose toys from both "gender groups" of toys ie....a toy car or a toy baby.... I don't mind

but if its a boy and it chooses the female root at a young age and the parents whole heartidly support it and refer to it as a girl etc... its going to have some serious psychological issues later on...

partyatmygaff

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Facts or evidence for your claims of course, rather than just saying "certain issues" and refusing to say what issues.

By certain issues I meant issues that are certain (Definite) to occur. Not certain issues as in "some" issues.

Kevin Duffy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

By certain issues I meant issues that are certain (Definite) to occur. Not certain issues as in "some" issues.

Which makes your comment even more groundless - you can speculate and predict issues, but you, no more than anyone else, can say what issues are "certain" to arise.

partyatmygaff

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Which makes your comment even more groundless - you can speculate and predict issues, but you, no more than anyone else, can say what issues are "certain" to arise.

Saying that X problem is certain would be a bit much but all I said was
The parent's actions are creating hundreds of certain issues in an experiment that may possibly mitigate the effects of one very unlikely issue.


Based on your own life experience, do you honestly expect these children to live completely normal lives and to be well received by their peers and by society? Do you expect them to encounter no additional problems that they could have otherwise avoided had it not been for their parents?

Kevin Duffy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Saying that X problem is certain would be a bit much but all I said was
The parent's actions are creating hundreds of certain issues in an experiment that may possibly mitigate the effects of one very unlikely issue

So saying "certain" would, in your words, be a bit much and you're now saying that's not what you meant. How do you reconcile that with this as your explaination so?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

By certain issues I meant issues that are certain (Definite) to occur.

Based on my life experience, I think there will probably be issues. Based on that same experience, I wouldn't be foolish enough to say they are certain to occur, or predict precisely what they will be, or predict that there will be hundreds.

partyatmygaff

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

So saying "certain" would, in your words, be a bit much and you're now saying that's not what you meant. How do you reconcile that with this as your explaination so?

Did you actually read my post?

I said "Saying that X problem is certain would be a bit much". That means that saying that one particular problem or many particular problems are certain to occur would be a bit too much to predict. What I said is that they are certain to encounter problems, without specifying which.

Based on my life experience, I think there will probably be issues. Based on that same experience, I wouldn't be foolish enough to say they are certain to occur, or predict precisely what they will be, or predict that there will be hundreds.

There's nothing foolish about it. The children already appear confused and unhappy at this early stage in their lives.

AudreyHepburn

Mousey- wrote: »

No I was simply stating that there was a documentry on about somthing which has a similar theme...

I don't think the parents in qustion should be overtly influential in raising their child. if the most extreme thing they do is buy gender neutral toys and lets the child choose toys from both "gender groups" of toys ie....a toy car or a toy baby.... I don't mind

but if its a boy and it chooses the female root at a young age and the parents whole heartidly support it and refer to it as a girl etc... its going to have some serious psychological issues later on...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Did you actually read my post?

I said "Saying that X problem is certain would be a bit much". That means that saying that one particular problem or many particular problems are certain to occur would be a bit too much to predict. What I said is that they are certain to encounter problems, without specifying which.


There's nothing foolish about it. The children already appear confused and unhappy at this early stage in their lives.

Sigh.....once again none of us can KNOW what the outcome of this will be. We can of course speculate what it might be but we cannot say for certain.

partyatmygaff

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Sigh.....once again none of us can KNOW what the outcome of this will be. We can of course speculate what it might be but we cannot say for certain.

We can already see the first effects of their parenting. Their children appear to be confused and completely overwhelmed by the situation they find themselves in. They've been made targets for bullies by their parents and they've found themselves planted in the middle of a media frenzy of sorts generated by their parents.

Most normal children would be at school happily playing, learning and living a completely trouble free life. These children have instead found themselves planted in a social experiment examining a problem they themselves cannot comprehend.

Show Time

Any idiots can have a child yet you still need a license for a dog.

vicecreamsundae

Such overreactions.

all these parents are doing is deciding not to announce the child's sex to friends and family. they just don't want the child to be treated a particular way (spoken to in particular ways, given particular types of toys) dependant on its sex.
They don't OWE anybody an explanation of their kid's sex. -it's not really anyone's business. It's enough for them to say "This is our new baby Storm".

People are acting like they are planning to keep the baby's sex a secret from the baby itself or something! Obviously the kid is going to learn what sex s/he is, just like any other kid does. the siblings already know the sex, so it's not like it's some major lifetime project to keep the baby sexless, geez.
they just want friends and family to just accept the baby as a baby so for the first formative months/years it's not subjected to restrictive gender norms.

later12

Mickeroo wrote: »

That is the funniest thing I've read all day. So how is raising the child "genderless" going to free them from the restriction of noticeable public erections

You're misreading the situation. the parents in this case are not removing the child's right to his or her genitalia, they do not deny that a gender exists. According to a statement, they are just asking the world to allow their child to be as she/he wants to be without imposing gender norms.

am I restricted as a man because I can't give birth??

Yeah, you're restricted from giving birth in light of your biology. What I'm saying is that gender is a biological entity, I don't see it as being something which has a social identity as well. Why should it?

A persons physical gender and internal gender identity are two completely different things. Gender identity is formed in early child hood

Define internal gender identity as formed in early childhood, I can't wait to read this.

,

they can seriously mess up their child by doing this

How do you know?

Mickeroo wrote: »

Because unlike skin colour, foot size and all the rest sex actually results in significant differences such as physical strength etc.

I hope that you might expand on the 'etc' because physical strength? My sister is six feet tall and Germanic, she could probably take most Japanese men. Physical strength is not a gender issue alone, and although gender comes into it, I don't see what implications physical strength has for social interaction between adults. How is that remotely relevant or important?

Why should gender be ''the main division'', why not race, for example?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes it is.

If someone wants to get to know someone better (Over the internet for example...) the first thing they ask them is "Age, sex, location?"

What the ****? So what? Some people ask for breast size... what's your point?

I'm not saying people don't find gender important, I'm asking why they find it so important. Why are there thousands of news articles insisting that the parents must give this child a significant pre ordained identity based on his or her genitalia?

Kojak

Show Time wrote: »

Any idiots can have a child yet you still need a license for a dog.

But does that licence discriminate against people who want to keep the dog genderless??

soundoulehead

Yeah, you're restricted from giving birth in light of your biology. What I'm saying is that gender is a biological entity, I don't see it as being something which has a social identity as well. Why should it?

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that although there may be biological differences between the sexes, there is absolutely no need for there to be any social difference. This is wrong. There do exist social differences between the sexes, most of which are benign, many of which are instrumental to human happiness and well being. What should not exist are social inequalities between the sexes. Regarding homosexuality and regarding any grey areas of gender identity, well of course people should be free to express themselves how they wish, without fear of pigeon-holeing. However, the step many seem to take in disregarding all differences in pursuit of one socially cohesive sexless humanity, is asinine. To say that there shouldn't be any social identity based on sex, or to say that any existing social identity is some kind of an illusion, is completely wrong. Reference: Desmond Morris, The Human Zoo, The Naked Ape etc.

I hope that you might expand on the 'etc' because physical strength? My sister is six feet tall and Germanic, she could probably take most Japanese men. Physical strength is not a gender issue alone, and although gender comes into it, I don't see what implications physical strength has for social interaction between adults. How is that remotely relevant or important?

This is not a good argument. Japanese men are for the most part physically stronger than Japanese women, and Germanic men physically stronger than Germanic women. Not always, of course. But there is a clear difference. And this does have social implications.

Why should gender be ''the main division'', why not race, for example?


What the ****? So what? Some people ask for breast size... what's your point?

I'm not saying people don't find gender important, I'm asking why they find it so important. Why are there thousands of news articles insisting that the parents must give this child a significant pre ordained identity based on his or her genitalia?[/QUOTE]

Gender is important because sex is important and sex is important because this is how the species propagates itself

Rachiee

they are not concealing the childs sex from itself ! they are only concealing it from larger society, when the child grows older he or she can tell people if he or she is a boy or girl and it is likely that this will happen.

Gender Identity and sex (ie being an xx or xy) is not the same thing. usually peoples gender itentity does match their sex but not always.

What the parents are trying to do is to stop wider society applying a gender to their child based purely on its sex. No matter how hard you may try to offer your child gender neutral toys and clothes people who know your childs sex will give it gender stereotyped gifts and encouragements they are stopping this from happening thats all.

people quoting the raimer case as an example of how what they are doing is going to mess up their child..its completely different the raimer case proves that you cannot force a gender onto a child, these parents are doing the exact opposite they not only dont want to force a gender onto their child themselves they want to prevent society from doing it aswell.


I'm not saying the parents are right or wrong i'm just saying realistically its not like they are forcing the child to wear a chastity belt and yellow shorts for its whole life !

AudreyHepburn

To be honest I think most people are reacting negatively not out of concern for the child, but because they think the parents are weird/hippies/abnormal. They ust don't like anything that goes against the status quo.

Show Time

Kojak wrote: »

But does that licence discriminate against people who want to keep the dog genderless??

Normal dog owners know what sex they want their dog to be.

iamwhoiam

The sad thing about this is that it belittles the pain of the genuine cases of ambigious genitalia .Parents of babies born with adrenal hyperplasia and other congenital abnormalities of ambigious genitalia go through agony when faced with this real problem .Both the families and the babies face alot of difficult and painful decisions .
Kids have enough problems in this world without foisting a made up one on them . In my opinion the parents are seeking attention and gaining it by their baby and that is selfish and self centered .

I wonder have these parents seen a child born with bladder extrophy or cloacal anomalies or Turners syndrome .I am guessing not as they then might just thank god for healthy baby and get on with rearing the baby and giving a normal happy up bringing .

partyatmygaff

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be honest I think most people are reacting negatively not out of concern for the child, but because they think the parents are weird/hippies/abnormal. They ust don't like anything that goes against the status quo.

What makes you think that?

Kumejima

Douchebags.

citizen_p

Kumejima wrote: »

Douchebags.

great response there kumejima, youv'e really contributed alot to influencing my point of view with your educated anaylsis of social implecations surrounding this issue

Mickeroo

later10 wrote: »

You're misreading the situation. the parents in this case are not removing the child's right to his or her genitalia, they do not deny that a gender exists. According to a statement, they are just asking the world to allow their child to be as she/he wants to be without imposing gender norms.

They're making it significantly harder for "the world" to allow anything by plastering it all over the media. If thats the case they should just keep it to themslves, a media frenzy about the child's sex sure ain't helping their cause. If their child is a boy and decides he wants to wear a dress to school and they allow it then they're a little bit cruel. It's a slightly sick social experiment on their part, I hope it works out well for them.

later10 wrote: »

Yeah, you're restricted from giving birth in light of your biology. What I'm saying is that gender is a biological entity, I don't see it as being something which has a social identity as well. Why should it?

Define internal gender identity as formed in early childhood, I can't wait to read this.

Gender identity is seperate to biological gender this is why there are such things as tranvestites, transexuals etc. Some males are more male than others some females are more female than others. This is a very well established aspect of psychology. There are three stages:
1. Gender Identity - established by age 2 -3, a child can identify its own and other peoples sex
2. Gender Stability - By age 4 a child understands gender stays the same through out life
3. Gender Consistency - a child understands that even though gender indicators may change actual physical gender does not (not sure i remember correctly but i think thats by age 7)

Now I'm not saying its perfect, it raises quite a few questions, such as do gender stereotypes exist because their are social differences between the sexes or are there social differences between the sexes because we impose gender stereotypes on people? It's a very complex issue with lots of grey areas.

If you couldn't wait to read this because you're genuinely interested then you should read up on social learning theory, cognitive learning theory, behaviourist learning theory, it's all really interesting stuff, they don't relate exclusively to gender but there should be gender sections within them, if you want to read a theory that's complet bollox then try Frued's psychoanalytic theory. If you couldn't wait to read this because you thought I was talking out of my arse then I say good day to you sir :P



,

later10 wrote: »

How do you know?

I'm not saying for certain they will but the fact that their older child is having trouble already doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. This notion that "fitting in" is somehow a negative thing is frankly ridiculous, finding it easy to form relationships and make strong social connections with other people is what leads to a healthy life, it doesn't mean you are conforming to some oppressive society. The childs gender identity isn't the only thing that can effect how they get on in later life, a lot can come down to attachments and parenting style and all that.

later10 wrote: »

I hope that you might expand on the 'etc' because physical strength? My sister is six feet tall and Germanic, she could probably take most Japanese men. Physical strength is not a gender issue alone, and although gender comes into it, I don't see what implications physical strength has for social interaction between adults. How is that remotely relevant or important?

Why should gender be ''the main division'', why not race, for example?

I've already answered that question, if japanese men are so weak compared to everyone else why don't they have to compete seperately from other men in sports? Besides I doubt your sister is stronger than most Germanic men.

Women are naturally more flexible than men, men are naturally stronger than women, women have better language skills than men, men are statistically better at mathematics than women, men have naturally better spatial awareness than women,men tend to be more aggressive than women too I'm not making this stuff up however, it over simplifies to say its always the case as their will always be a few exceptions and in terms of mathematic and language skills the correlation between the sexes is becoming slighter, this is possibly(and most likel) due to men and women having a more equal standing in society in the last century or so.

later10 wrote: »

I'm not saying people don't find gender important, I'm asking why they find it so important. Why are there thousands of news articles insisting that the parents must give this child a significant pre ordained identity based on his or her genitalia?

Would you condone raising a biologicaly male child as a female??

Mickeroo

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The sad thing about this is that it belittles the pain of the genuine cases of ambigious genitalia .Parents of babies born with adrenal hyperplasia and other congenital abnormalities of ambigious genitalia go through agony when faced with this real problem .Both the families and the babies face alot of difficult and painful decisions .
Kids have enough problems in this world without foisting a made up one on them . In my opinion the parents are seeking attention and gaining it by their baby and that is selfish and self centered .

I wonder have these parents seen a child born with bladder extrophy or cloacal anomalies or Turners syndrome .I am guessing not as they then might just thank god for healthy baby and get on with rearing the baby and giving a normal happy up bringing .

Nail on Head.

deirdre_dub

Another, even better, article which, I think, dispels many of the myths that have been spouted here.

Mickeroo

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Another, even better, article which, I think, dispels many of the myths that have been spouted here.

Ok so basically they're not going to raise the child genderless as such but just basically let the child do whatever it wants with regards to what would be classed as gender typed behaviours, hence letting Jazz(presumably named after a Transformer which I am a-ok with) wear dresses. I do respect the woman's sentiment but she seems to be operating from the misconception that a young child is a complete person.

iamwhoiam

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Another, even better, article which, I think, dispels many of the myths that have been spouted here.

I still stand by my spouting and stick to what I said .These parents know very little about true cases of ambigious genitalia I am guessing ,becasue if they did they would know they pain the parents of these babys go through .

Kumejima

Mousey- wrote: »

great response there kumejima, youv'e really contributed alot to influencing my point of view with your educated anaylsis of social implecations surrounding this issue

De nada :cool:

Kevin Duffy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The sad thing about this is that it belittles the pain of the genuine cases of ambigious genitalia .Parents of babies born with adrenal hyperplasia and other congenital abnormalities of ambigious genitalia go through agony when faced with this real problem .Both the families and the babies face alot of difficult and painful decisions .
Kids have enough problems in this world without foisting a made up one on them . In my opinion the parents are seeking attention and gaining it by their baby and that is selfish and self centered .

I wonder have these parents seen a child born with bladder extrophy or cloacal anomalies or Turners syndrome .I am guessing not as they then might just thank god for healthy baby and get on with rearing the baby and giving a normal happy up bringing .

What the hell are you talking about? There is no suggestion in any of the articles on this family that suggest that the child suffers from any medical condition. In a thread full of spectacular point missing, you may have hit the peak.

The parents are not telling people what sex their baby is in order, as they see it, to avoid gender being imposed on it. I don't agree with their stance, but I see it for what it is and nothing more.

prinz

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? There is no suggestion in any of the articles on this family that suggest that the child suffers from any medical condition. In a thread full of spectacular point missing, you may have hit the peak.

LOL says the person who completely missed the point of the post they respond to with the above. Irony,

prinz

Storm has a sex which those closest to him/her know and acknowledge. We don’t know yet about colour preferences or dress inclinations, but the idea that the whole world must know our baby’s sex strikes me as unhealthy, unsafe and voyeuristic

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Baby+Storm+gender+parenting+media/4856804/story.html

I see Mom is still peddling the 'anyone interested' in a child's biological sex must be a kiddy fiddler of some sort. I wonder does she include Storm's grandparents in that, because last I heard not even they were being told.

Dear Kathy,
The whole world couldn't give a toss what sex Storm is. The only one making a circus out of the whole thing is you you dopey bint. The focus of the world's attention is not on your unfortunate kids, but on you and most people want to know what, if anything, is between your ears.

Kevin Duffy

prinz wrote: »

LOL says the person who completely missed the point of the post they respond to with the above. Irony,

No, I didn't miss it at all - it and a related post from the same person talked about "genuine" and "true" cases of genital abnormality. No one said this baby had any abnormality or anything like that, so what's the talk about "genuine" and "true" cases for?

I well understood the posts, you clearly didn't. I won't hold my breath for your retraction.

prinz

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

No, I didn't miss it at all - it and a related post from the same person talked about "genuine" and "true" cases of genital abnormality. No one said this baby had any abnormality or anything like that, so what's the talk about "genuine" and "true" cases for?

The post never insinuated this kid had a physical abnormality, you missed that part obviously. It's relating to genuine cases where for physical medical reasons some parents go through hell trying to decide what sex to go for, what the doctors should do etc when their children are born with serious medical conditions.

They are forced into the position these parents are willingly putting themselves into in order to simply be 'to be different'.

Kevin Duffy

prinz wrote: »

The post never insinuated this kid had a physical abnormality, you missed that part obviously. It's relating to genuine cases where for physical medical reasons some parents go through hell trying to decide what sex to go for, what the doctors should do etc when their children are born with serious medical conditions.

They are forced into the position these parents are willingly putting themselves into in order to simply be 'to be different'.

No, I didn't miss anything and there is no comparison between the two situations. All these parents are doing is keeping it quiet. That may not be a great idea, but it's ridiculous to compare the two. The poster who did it said it belittle cases of genital abnormality - eh, how's that, when they were the ones who did it?

NotYetKatie

Kojak wrote: »

But does that licence discriminate against people who want to keep the dog genderless??

"Gender is a range of characteristics distinguishing between masculinity and femininity, particularly in the cases of men and women. Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity"

Dogs don't have gender Captain Silly. Sex is between the legs, Gender is between the ears.

It's an abnormal way to raise a child, but hardly disgusting, abusive and unfair. They can't do anything about the sex, obviously until the child is older, but they're allowing the child's gender to grow naturally without social influence. In my opinion this will create a better standard of living and thus greater welfare for child, whether his/her gender arises to meet the sex or not. The child won't have the pressure of performing the apprehended gender role.

The child will most likely be a bully target, but you don't stand against the parenting of the bullies, do you? I've seen Mothers telling their kids to rob shops, fathers encouraging fighting and just general apathy, turmoil & calamity. Most of you need to stop being ignorant conservatives and open your mind about things. Comparing this child to a dog is appalling. These parents want the best for their kids and this is their general perception of how they can fill the child's life with grace, escapade and serenity. I understand them.

"Your clear eye is the one absolutely beautiful thing
I want to fill it with colour and ducks" - Sylvia Plath