Parents decide to bring up "genderless" child

prinz

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

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?

I'd say anyone willingly put themselves in a position in order to give themselves a pat on the back for some reason are belittling other people who find themselves in a similar position through no fault of their own. What next? Parents covering their kids eyes and leaving it all up in the air if the kid is blind or not. To me that belittles the situation of the children and their parents who are actually blind.

prinz

NotYetKatie wrote: »

Most of you need to stop being ignorant conservatives and open your mind about things.

Too much delicious irony for one sentence.

iamwhoiam

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.

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.

Read what I wrote and what are you talking about ? I never once , not once said they had mentioned medical conditions . Read it properly and dont get smart with me ,I have lived it with parents and by God if you cant see that I feel for you .


This is my post , no insinuation , no mention of this child having any condition and in fact I could not be bothered now to even argue with you .


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 .

iamwhoiam

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

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?

Talk about a whole post going whoosh over someones head .I posted it and you clearly have not got a word I said

Kevin Duffy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Read what I wrote and what are you talking about ? I never once , not once said they had mentioned medical conditions . Read it properly and dont get smart with me ,I have lived it with parents and by God if you cant see that I feel for you .


This is my post , no insinuation , no mention of this child having any condition and in fact I could not be bothered now to even argue with you .


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 .

So why make the comparison and why use the words "genuine cases"? The parents idea didn't belittle cases of ambiguous genitalia, you're the first to mention it.
And as for "don't get smart with me" - who do you think you are? Lol.

Kevin Duffy

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Talk about a whole post going whoosh over someones head .I posted it and you clearly have not got a word I said

See, it didn't go over my head and I got every word you said, which is how I know it was so off-message.

iamwhoiam

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

See, it didn't go over my head and I got every word you said, which is how I know it was so off-message.

No ., you didnt or you would understand what " genderless " means to some parents.
Some parents do not have the choice of having genderless kids .The parents in the article did .There is my comparison , one had no choice ,one did .My whole point being that the parents od Storm quite obviously know nothing about real cases of a questionabe gender
Thats it .I will argue no more with you , I actually simply could nor be bothered explaining it all to you .

Bobby42

I get that the parents don't want their child to be harmed by gender stereotypes. I get that they want the child to figure out what they like and how they like to behave without being pressured from rigid gender stereotypes.
But I think they're trying to wrap the child in a bubble and shield them from reality. Stereotyping is part of life. We all do it. A lot of the time it isn't a particularly nice part of society but it is reality. There are race, class, gender, cultural, religious, and countless other stereotypes in society. The mind can only deal with so much information at one time so we tend to put things in boxes and stereotype. It is completely natural for a child to be influenced by society and stereotypes. I think it would be harmful for a child to be shielded from any social influences. I know stereotypes aren't always positive but with good parenting a child can be themselves and not conform to the various stereotypes that they will be confronted with at various stages of their lives. I think the parents are trying to delay the inevitable. Eventually the child will experience gender stereotypes and they may or may not have an influence on them. The person we eventually become is a result of both the parenting we experience and the social environment we live in.

partyatmygaff

NotYetKatie wrote: »

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

If non human animals don't have a gender as you claim why is it that the males and females of certain animals behave differently?

Take for example a pride of lions. The males and females of the pride each have different roles to each other.

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

How can you say that it will give the child a better standard of living when their older children already appear confused and already appear to be a target for bullies? Children of their age who have been raised normally by and large live perfectly happy and trouble free lives. These children however are being made spectacles by the media thanks to the actions of their parents. They have found themselves in the middle of a media frenzy and in the middle of what can only be described as an extremely unethical social experiment orchestrated by their parents.

The child will most likely be a bully target,

So why the hell are the parents allowing that to occur? Why are they giving bullies a reason? What parent would knowingly condemn their child to a life of bullying and ostracisation by the society they will live in?

Most of you need to stop being ignorant conservatives and open your mind about things.

"Right on!"

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.

If a stoner believed that letting their toddlers take MDMA and weed on a daily basis would fill their child's life with "grace, escapade and serenity" would you be equally understanding? Don't be such an "ignorant conservative" about things man.

Mickeroo

NotYetKatie wrote: »

"

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.

Thats where they're completely missing the point, a child's gender develops naturally because of social influences not in spite of them, this process has evolved along with every other aspect of human society over thousands of years. Social infuence is a natural thing.

Also animals do have gender, there's not one trait that is unique to the human species, except possibly our obsession with the past.