You're all Transgender hens until Proven Otherwise!!

L.Jenkins

hens is an androgynus word in Swedish.

Jhcx

DaJaVu didn't this come up ages ago. i thought it died out and not more was said about it. Although the page says XX march 2012. But this was on Joe i could have sworn.

Yadi yada. genders this genders that. big deal. Although you wont see me pushing a buggy. Unless im tired and want to lean on it. My excuse women have better grip on a buggy.

biko

In this article from a Swedish daily the word "hen" is used to gender neutralise the person.

**** is ****ed up.

Han - him
Hon - her
Hen - gender neutral word.

fasttalkerchat

biko wrote: »

In this article from a Swedish daily the word "hen" is used to gender neutralise the person.

**** is ****ed up.

Han - him
Hon - her
Hen - gender neutral word.

Thanks for that! I assumed they were using the sweedish word for the bird.

Mr Benevolent

Not sure what the OP is on about. A girl on a buggy wouldn't phase me particularly. A boy pushing a pram is going to get laughed at. A boy wearing a Spiderman outfit while wheeling a pram will be ostracized and beaten up. Proper order too.

WindSock

Braelynn Helpful Infantry wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense to me. Surely if a kid is restricted by gender stereotypes then they're likely to buy less of the toys on offer. Right?

I guess it's easier to market products aimed specifically at one or the other. Doll houses and Bacardi Breezers for the girls, monster trucks and Wkd for the boys.

The King of Moo

I'm still a little unclear: is the picture of the kid dressed as Spider-man pushing a pram irrelevant? Because it's awesome .

If "hen" in Swedish is a feminine word like it is in English then obviously it's a poor choice to describe all kiddywinks.

But if it's gender-neutral then I don't see what the problem is. It doesn't seem too different from calling kids "kids."

And I don't see how it's going to destroy the genders. It'll just avoid pressuring kids into conforming to gender stereotypes and allow them to come to terms with their identities themselves. And most of them would probably identify broadly with one gender and be straight so things probably wouldn't be very different.
The Swedish seem a pretty on-the-ball bunch: it doesn't seem to have affected them.

WindSock

I dislike the term 'kids' being used for my children. It confuses them so much that I think they are going to turn into goats when they are older. They are already eating my clothes off the washing line. I'm calling Joe....

antodeco

For people on fancy smartphones here's the image that doesn't load on the mobile site

http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/39988.jpg

biko

It's not only "hen". Now they've introduced Dum and Mad (instead of Mum and Dad, my translation btw) in a new kid's book called "Kiwi and the monster dog".

Btw, if anyone is interested in gender and equality etc read the book "Egalia's Daughters"

fasttalkerchat

The thread title sounds like something you tell yourself in a night club in Thailand.

Mardy Bum

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nope. Nature would crate the male/female role all by itself if we didn't try to class it.

Transgender was the wrong word the more I think about it, wish I had a word for it.

How would "nature" make a role. When did nature learn how to talk? We are a little more advanced than cats and dogs. Language creates roles. You appear to think the world is black and white. Its grey. There is no such thing as the male/female role. They are sexes. Gender is completely different. Look up what sex and gender means.

sbsquarepants

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The majority of boys like having sex with girls. That's a universal truth and if it wasn't none of us would be here.

Seems like common sense to me. I have nothing against homosexuality but it is ludicrous to suggest it is anything other than a minority.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You may have to find out what a truth is before saying things like that.

Sex, gender and sexuality are all different.

True to an extent, but i don't believe gender is anything like as manufactured as some people would have you believe.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'm afraid essentialism stopped being taken seriously after the 60s. Gender is a societal construct. Male and female are different sexs alright but that has nothing to do with man/woman or heterosexuality/homosexuality.

Sounds like bollox to be honest. Males are male, females are female - they always have been and always will be. You can see the differences in dogs and cats for god sake and very few of those have read Sartre

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Gender and sexuality are phenomenally complex. Freud, Klein, Winnicott, Lacan, Foucault, Sartre are essential reading. You have to be able to see the difference between sex, gender and sexuality. You dont mean boys as boys you mean male as boys from what I can see from your posts. Boys as boys doesnt make sense.

It's a wholly contrived distinction. Boy and male are, in all but the most ponsy patheticaly politicaly correct terms, interchangeable, as are girl and female.

Confab wrote: »

Not sure what the OP is on about. A girl on a buggy wouldn't phase me particularly. A boy pushing a pram is going to get laughed at. A boy wearing a Spiderman outfit while wheeling a pram will be ostracized and beaten up. Proper order too.

Confab, you're a man of principles. I like the cut of your jib!:D

wonderfulname

biko wrote: »

Han - him
Hon - her
Hen - gender neutral word. They

We already have gender neutral words in English.

What's the problem with not forcing over the top gender roles on children? Its getting ridiculous at this stage, I don't remember any pink princess housewives or mini manly men when I was growing up but I see them everywhere now, strange, one dimensional, boring children. Even if you take the gender issue out of it it's just plain weird anyway, and a disservice to every child that seems to be growing up with a personality that can be described with a colour, it can be very limiting to train people into those roles.

xflyer

The whole nature or nurture argument is obviously pointless. The simply reality is that all through history and the world today in wildly different societies and civilisations male/female roles remain pretty consistent. If there was a better way it would have happened by now.

It's all very well for some Swedes and a few others to try and change society. But it's doomed to failure. People vary in behaviour and sexuality and gender identity right across the spectrum. But the simple truth is that the majority of people fit the broad stereotype. In all seriousness no amount of tinkering with gender identity and behaviour will turn most boys onto playing with dolls or behaving like girls unless they already that way inclined. Same with girls with have no interest in playing with dolls and wearing pretty dresses and they definitely have pressure to conform to the stereotype.

Sure, it might make a more tolerant society where a boy taking an interest in traditionally female roles will be applauded rather than bullied. But I doubt that even if it's encouraged you will find many takers. In the case of girls, for years now they've been encouraged to take on many male careers with the result that some previously male professions are dominated by women, notably in medicine. But they've almost universally ignored most of the more techie type jobs.

I would like to see a more tolerant society, where being different whether it be gay or gender identity is just 'normal' in a different way. To some extent, walking the streets of the cities in this country it seems to be happening already. Amazing for someone like me brought up in the old way. But forcing it, is not the way to go.

But it's not the end of the world as we know it. Because it won't work. People don't change easily, even Swedes.

The King of Moo

biko wrote: »

It's not only "hen". Now they've introduced Dum and Mad (instead of Mum and Dad, my translation btw) in a new kid's book called "Kiwi and the monster dog".

Btw, if anyone is interested in gender and equality etc read the book "Egalia's Daughters"

That seems a bit extreme. I guess the idea behind it is that Mum and Dad are gender-loaded terms to be avoided, but I don't think that's the case these days. I think it'd be better to keep the terms but demonstrate that they don't have to be tied to outdated gender stereotypes.

And I still think they can be used in the case of single parents and same-sex couples. I can't imagine any kid having a problem with being brought up by Mum and Mum.

armitage_skanks

In nature the opposite sex of many animals behave differently.

The female lioness tends to mind the children and catch the food, while the male protects the pride and chases off other males who might jeopardise the stability of the pride. If you observe them enough, males and females clearly have different personalities and behaviours.

Are these 'gender roles' that have been pushed onto lions by society? If you put them into a zoo when they are young and don't have these roles pushed onto them by their fellow lions, what happens? Does the male start behaving like a female and vice versa?

Nope. Males and females are biologically different and this affects both physical appearance and psychological behaviour. That's just one of the wonderful beauties of life and for the PC Brigade to try and deny that is ridiculous.

Wetai

biko wrote: »

In this article from a Swedish daily the word "hen" is used to gender neutralise the person.

Oh .. Its an ok word then IMO, as long as they use an androgynous word in other languages but I wouldn't be surprised if they just used hen in English.

I don't get why this wasn't mentioned in the OP.

wonderfulname

xflyer wrote: »

But the simple truth is that the majority of people fit the broad stereotype.

For the most part, yes, but I have yet to meet someone who wholly does, be it a man enjoying cooking or a woman screaming at the rugby on tele, a child shouldn't feel bad for having an interest on the other side of the line.

Mardy Bum

sbsquarepants wrote: »

True to an extent, but i don't believe gender is anything like as manufactured as some people would have you believe.



Sounds like bollox to be honest. Males are male, females are female - they always have been and always will be. You can see the differences in dogs and cats for god sake and very few of those have read Sartre



It's a wholly contrived distinction. Boy and male are, in all but the most ponsy patheticaly politicaly correct terms, interchangeable, as are girl and female.

It is manufactured and has been proven since the 60s onwards conclusively by the experts in a range of fields. Obviously male is male. I said sex is different to gender i.e male/ female =/=man/woman. Boys is a created term to signify difference there is nothing essential about it (While Im at it all language is made up to create difference through binary opposites, all words are signifiers they don't actually correspond to anything only the constructed terms society has given them). It doesn't make a different if its PC or not the actual fact that people don't recognise how society is constructed is more worrying.

CreepingDeath

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

What I think is unfair is forcing a gender role on a child from the moment they pop out. I feel a child has a right to make up their own mind, make mistakes and learn.

Absolute rubbish.

Every one of us here can (theoretically) trace their parents and parents parents etc., back to the beginning of life on this planet.

We have all successfully survived millions of years of natural selection and sexual selection because our ancestors were heterosexual and followed cultural gender roles.

The fact that our parents survived and were able to reproduce says that their choices, genes and lifestyle were successful (from a biological point of view) to continue their genetic line. And that's the only goal that matters in life.

So it makes complete sense that parents pass their knowledge, values, culture and concepts of gender to their offspring so that they follow a similar successful path in life.

Every mammal on the planet teaches their children their way of life, because it works and has worked for millions of years.

The ones who fail to follow it and stray off the heterosexual path are typically voluntarily removing themselves from the human gene pool.
A genetic dead-end to a malfunctioning mindset.
Mod note: user banned for this comment

The King of Moo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

In nature the opposite sex of many animals behave differently.

The female lioness tends to mind the children and catch the food, while the male protects the pride and chases off other males who might jeopardise the stability of the pride. If you observe them enough, males and females clearly have different personalities and behaviours.

Are these 'gender roles' that have been pushed onto lions by society? If you put them into a zoo when they are young and don't have these roles pushed onto them by their fellow lions, what happens? Does the male start behaving like a female and vice versa?

Nope. Males and females are biologically different and this affects both physical appearance and psychological behaviour. That's just one of the wonderful beauties of life and for the PC Brigade to try and deny that is ridiculous.

What about all the gay animals?

Doesn't the fact that they're not discriminated against suggest that some of our ideas about gender and sexual identity are unnatural?

I don't buy the "animals have gender roles so we should" argument anyway. First of all, only the majority of animals follow stereotypical gender roles. You give the example of lions, but what about male seahorses, who carry the eggs until they hatch, not the females?

Second, we're a bit more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. We're rational, intelligent creatures, for the most part, so why should we automatically do as other animals do when we can question things that are taken for granted and choose what we want to do, or be?

jaffacakesyum

Haven't read much of the thread but the pose on the spiderman boy is hilarious :pac:

The King of Moo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

Every one of us here can (theoretically) trace their parents and parents parents etc., back to the beginning of life on this planet.

We have all successfully survived millions of years of natural selection and sexual selection because our ancestors were heterosexual and followed cultural gender roles.

The fact that our parents survived and were able to reproduce says that their choices, genes and lifestyle were successful (from a biological point of view) to continue their genetic line. And that's the only goal that matters in life.

So it makes complete sense that parents pass their knowledge, values, culture and concepts of gender to their offspring so that they follow a similar successful path in life.

Every mammal on the planet teaches their children their way of life, because it works and has worked for millions of years.

The ones who fail to follow it and stray off the heterosexual path are typically voluntarily removing themselves from the human gene pool.
A genetic dead-end to a malfunctioning mindset.

I'm a little unclear. Are you suggesting that people choose to be homosexual?
In what sense is homosexuality a "malfunctioning mindset?"
Do you think homosexuals can "repair" their mindsets?

I also don't really see what your post has to do with the one you quoted about children being free to come to terms with their own identities.

wonderfulname

CreepingDeath wrote: »

We have all successfully survived millions of years of natural selection and sexual selection because our ancestors were heterosexual and followed cultural gender roles.

Gender has nothing to do with sexuality.

Following your advice I have thought back through my family tree, cultural gender roles certainly not followed, yet I'm still here?

And I hate to break it to you, but the gheys are having children all over the place.

xflyer

wonderfulname wrote: »

For the most part, yes, but I have yet to meet someone who wholly does, be it a man enjoying cooking or a woman screaming at the rugby on tele, a child shouldn't feel bad for having an interest on the other side of the line.

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

King of the Moo, if this discussion is about gender roles, sure I can agree. Any forcing of gender roles is wrong. But denying gender identity is quite different and this is what is being attempted in Sweden and elsewhere. If it was a case of encouraging the expression of gender identity that might be good. But ultimately it will only affect a few. Most people are fairly comfortable with the identity. It would be equally wrong to force children to behave in a way that's against their instincts.

PhlegmyMoses

Spidermen are Spidermen, not Spiderwomen. No way should a Spiderman be pushing a pram around. He should be out saving people. He now seems to simply be out. Society really has problems when Spidermen can't be Spidermen.

The King of Moo

xflyer wrote: »

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

King of the Moo, if this discussion is about gender roles, sure I can agree. Any forcing of gender roles is wrong. But denying gender identity is quite different and this is what is being attempted in Sweden and elsewhere. If it was a case of encouraging the expression of gender identity that might be good. But ultimately it will only affect a few. Most people are fairly comfortable with the identity. It would be equally wrong to force children to behave in a way that's against their instincts.

I agree that forcing a child from identifying with a role they might feel inclined towards is wrong, but I don't think that's happening in this case. The kids are going to come across gender roles in every aspect of their life: their family, other kids, tv. I think what the schools are doing is simply not providing them with more set gender roles. But I'm sure if a boy wanted to play with a toy gun or a doll, the teachers wouldn't tell them to stop and be more gender-neutral. I think they're just not trying to push them down a certain path and let them find their own path.

wonderfulname

xflyer wrote: »

That's why I called it a broad stereotype. I remember staying with Mother recently watching television. I turned on a romantic comedy until I noticed my Mother pouting. Turns out she wanted to watch the football on the other channel. Something I have no interest in. Like I said it's a broad stereotype.

So you see that being less rigid in gender roles is beneficial to more than just the minority?

xflyer wrote: »

Mardy bum, you over analyse. At it's simplest boy means young male child. Even if that child identifies as female in her own mind.

That's a girl.

ghostchant

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't buy the "animals have gender roles so we should" argument anyway. First of all, only the majority of animals follow stereotypical gender roles. You give the example of lions, but what about male seahorses, who carry the eggs until they hatch, not the females?

Is your example of seahorses not a perfect example of instinctive gender roles in a species? Surely it's stereotypical in the case of seahorses.