Canadian parent raising child as gender-neutral.

Nermal

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're a gay man, so obviously you are part of a minority whose activities, throughout the centuries, have been vilified as being contrary to natural law. Eventually, human civilisation progressed to the point where the argument has been broadly won, that gender-based presuppositions are a vain and irrational attempt to classify individuals.

Embarrassing twaddle. Your own bloody screen name references a civilisation where homosexuality was not seen as contrary to natural law.

We didn't 'progress' from them either, we are not 'better' at morality than our ancestors.

SterlingArcher

gizmo81 wrote: »

This is happening right now and has for sometime.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/ireland-s-transgender-children-1.2171777

That article only proves how blind compassion can be. And how dangerous.

cgcsb

Nermal wrote: »

We didn't 'progress' from them either, we are not 'better' at morality than our ancestors.

Yeah we are better morally than our ancestors. Only a generation ago we were forcing young girls, in their tens of thousands, into state sponsored, church run forced labour camps because we thought they were sluts and therefore worthless.

Ipso

At least the Canadian government can provide good psychiatric help in the future.
text book example of attention seeker trying to live out their own ideology through a child.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

The baggage being that all the other kids have a gender and a certain role laid out for them and this individual does not at behest of their parent.

Can you read that back to yourself, and think about what you are saying?

You're effectively saying that it is harmful to allow a child to grow up without feeling the constraint of a predetermined identity.

Now, as a gay man, you are as entitled as anybody else to say such a thing. I just find it surprising.

I have a lot of friends who are gay men, and what I tend to like about them is that they have grown up out-of-sync with the predetermined pathways that society has tended to self-impose. Some of them are damaged and angry because of those constraints, but the vast majority, in my experience, are full of empathy for those who suffer from gender-based biases. That's probably why there are so many gay men who get behind the Repeal movement, for example. And that's why gay men seem to be particularly vocal in respect of transgender rights.

For these reasons, it is surprising to me to hear a gay man espousing the need for imposing predetermined gender roles on a child.

Nermal wrote: »

Your own bloody screen name references a civilisation where homosexuality was not seen as contrary to natural law.

Actually, it's a reference to Byron's poem The Isles of Greece. Miltiades was 'freedom's best and bravest friend', a democratic tyrant.

I'm not sure why I just explained that, because it's comical that you are using my username to make some clunky point about homosexuality in Ancient Athens. As you may not know, homosexuality (as we know it) invited social stigma; it was pederasty that was socially acceptable, with some rules attached.

Hector Bellend

I use to worry about young kids becoming criminals, addicts or having other life problems when they grew up.

Now they'll have to face added difficulties like these that they have no input into.

cgcsb

If you ask people as adults I would pretty much say just about everyone, with the exception of transgendered people, would NOT have liked to be brought up as 'genderless'. I know I certainly wouldn't have liked it. I view my maleness as an integral part of me, its the basis of my confidence and it frames my interpersonal relationships. I'm sure its the same for the ladies. Had my parents but a skort on me and started calling me an it. That'd undermine all that, and I'd feel more like a neutered lab rat.

Pac1Man

Terribly narcissistic of the parent. This is what safe spaces produces.

Hector Bellend

There's no way you can argue that a child is born "genderless". It's physically impossible.

I dont understand how this could be entertained.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote: »

If you ask people as adults I would pretty much say just about everyone, with the exception of transgendered people, would NOT have liked to be brought up as 'genderless'.

But this child isn't being brought up 'genderless'. The child can flip and flop between genders as much as they like, or stick as much as they like to being a male or a female forever.

I see no reason to believe that the parent will insist that a child who wants to wear dresses will be forced, on alternate days, to wear trousers. It's simply that the child will be calling the shots on who they want to be.

Irish Guitarist

It's far more likely that a child will be content being the gender they were born as than not. Why ruin a childs life from the moment they're born on the extremely slim chance they may want to have a sex change or that someday they'll get some idea in their head that they're some weird gender that you've heard that moron Bill Nye bullshitting about on Netflix?

Supporting your childs choices or lifestyle is one thing. Assuming from day one that they'll live a lifestyle that very few people live is child abuse.

voz es

It will all end in tears! Really It, why?

LadyMacBeth_

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But this child isn't being brought up 'genderless'. The child can flip and flop between genders as much as they like, or stick as much as they like to being a male or a female forever.

I see no reason to believe that the parent will insist that a child who wants to wear dresses will be forced, on alternate days, to wear trousers. It's simply that the child will be calling the shots on who they want to be.

Why does the child have to be genderless in order to wear what they want or play with what they want? It isn't necessary.

cgcsb

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Can you read that back to yourself, and think about what you are saying?

You're effectively saying that it is harmful to allow a child to grow up without feeling the constraint of a predetermined identity.

Now, as a gay man, you are as entitled as anybody else to say such a thing. I just find it surprising.

I have a lot of friends who are gay men, and what I tend to like about them is that they have grown up out-of-sync with the predetermined pathways that society has tended to self-impose. Some of them are damaged and angry because of those constraints, but the vast majority, in my experience, are full of empathy for those who suffer from gender-based biases. That's probably why there are so many gay men who get behind the Repeal movement, for example. And that's why gay men seem to be particularly vocal in respect of transgender rights.

For these reasons, it is surprising to me to hear a gay man espousing the need for imposing predetermined gender roles on a child.

.

Raising a boy as a boy and a girl as a girl, at least until a point where they express a wish to the contrary is not imposing a constraint or a prety determined identity in this day and age because children of both genders often engage in non gender typical behaviour without constraint. Also trans people are expressing themselves as such from an early age. The difference in this case is the child isn't inherently trans, as far as we know, but s/he is having this sense of otherness imposed on them by a parent.


When I was a kid gender roles were impenitrably strict as was sexual orientation, not the case now, non gender conforming people have much more wiggle room to operate in. This is different though, this is imppssed from parent to child.

I am full of empathy for others of all persuasions. And your point re gay men is just your perspective. I have a huge circle of gay friends who have no interest in trans issues beyond passive acceptance and quite a few would be pro life. It depends on the circles you move in. These are mostly white guys in their 30s with careers and mortgages. I'm sure arts students who use the ze pronoun and have blue hair probably devote countless hours to these issues, but the majority will grow out of it when they get mortgages like their parents before them.

One eyed Jack

cgcsb wrote: »

Raising a boy as a boy and a girl as a girl, at least until a point where they express a wish to the contrary is not imposing a constraint or a prety determined identity in this day and age because children of both genders often engage in non gender typical behaviour without constraint. Also trans people are expressing themselves as such from an early age. The difference in this case is the child isn't inherently trans, as far as we know, but s/he is having this sense of otherness imposed on them by a parent.

They're not though, and that's the whole point - their parent has simply chosen not to impose a gender on their child of either one or the other gender role. It's no different to any number of arbitrary decisions parents make for their children, and no different to some people in society choosing to criticise them for doing so. There's no indication nor suggestion as far as I can see anyway that the parent is raising the child as though they identify as transgender, and there's no indication nor suggestion that the parent will continue to enforce a non-binary gender construct on their child should the child express a leaning more towards one gender than the other.

When I was a kid gender roles were impenitrably strict as was sexual orientation, not the case now, non gender conforming people have much more wiggle room to operate in. This is different though, this is imppssed from parent to child.

This isn't any different than any number of arbitrary decisions a parent makes for their children, whether it be religion, or diet, or choosing to have their children vaccinated or not, any number of decisions which are open to criticism for not confirming to someone else's ideals for their child or children. You or I may not choose a particular ideal for our children, but just as we set boundaries and minimum standards of care on a parents responsibility towards their children, so too must society recognise that there are boundaries as to how much we have a right to interfere in how parents raise their children, in the interests of the child or children's welfare. I personally do not see anything to be initially concerned about in how this parent has chosen to raise their biological child, and I know you didn't suggest it, but I also see no immediate reason to have their child removed from their care. It's not as though they're raising their child to be a feminist...

I'm joking of course, but hopefully you get the idea. Surely as a gay man you can understand that your parents raised you assuming you were heterosexual, and you still didn't conform to expectations of heterosexuality. You must then surely understand that just because a child is raised without being made to conform to binary gender stereotypes, that this doesn't mean that they won't at some point align with binary gender stereotypes anyway? The basic premise of your argument appears to be akin to the same tropes that are parroted about LGB parents - that their children will turn out LGB. It's an unknowable non-sequitur based upon nothing more than fearmongering. None of us here have a crystal ball, none of us here can predict this childs future - there are simply too many variables and potentially influential factors to be able to make any determination of any sort at this early stage in the childs life, from the time they exited their parents womb, to the time when their decisions they make for themselves will be given legal recognition, to the time when the child themselves are an adult.

I am full of empathy for others of all persuasions. And your point re gay men is just your perspective. I have a huge circle of gay friends who have no interest in trans issues beyond passive acceptance and quite a few would be pro life. It depends on the circles you move in. These are mostly white guys in their 30s with careers and mortgages. I'm sure arts students who use the ze pronoun and have blue hair probably devote countless hours to these issues, but the majority will grow out of it when they get mortgages like their parents before them.

Nail on the head, it really does depend upon the circles you move in, and I don't think it would be beyond the bounds of reason to speculate that the parent in question likely moves in circles where they are supported, and their parenting decisions are supported, and their child will be taught to understand conflict and tolerance of people who are different from them or have different ideals from them, yes, even down to what clothes they wear or the colour of their hair, because those decisions are of course more important in some peoples minds than learning understanding and respect for people who don't conform to their ideals.

Will I Am Not

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But this child isn't being brought up 'genderless'. The child can flip and flop between genders as much as they like, or stick as much as they like to being a male or a female forever.

I see no reason to believe that the parent will insist that a child who wants to wear dresses will be forced, on alternate days, to wear trousers. It's simply that the child will be calling the shots on who they want to be.

There's a 99.whatever% chance that the child will identify as the gender it is born.
Why bother putting them through the unnecessary hassle?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

There's a 99.whatever% chance that the child will identify as the gender it is born.
Why bother putting them through the unnecessary hassle?

To please the .1% apparently. It's a case of lunatics running the asylum.

LadyMacBeth_

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

Why does the child have to be genderless in order to wear what they want or play with what they want? It isn't necessary.

The child, as they grow, will not be genderless. The point is that the individual, and that individual alone, will be the appointer of their own gender.

The parent is not guilty of child abuse by any sensible interpretation of that term; the parent is liberating the child from senseless gender-based rules about how males and females out to behave or dress.

cgcsb wrote: »

Raising a boy as a boy and a girl as a girl, at least until a point where they express a wish to the contrary is not imposing a constraint or a prety determined identity in this day and age because children of both genders often engage in non gender typical behaviour without constraint.

Without constraint?

I'm afraid I just don't believe that. But suppose it were true, that it's rare to see gender-based constraints...what's the difference between the norm, and this case, then?

The child will assume a gender at some point in the near future, we assume; it's just that the parent is refusing to impose constraints. So what's the problem?

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

There's a 99.whatever% chance that the child will identify as the gender it is born.
Why bother putting them through the unnecessary hassle?

What hassle? Why should there be hassle?

dr.fuzzenstein

Your gender is your gender. That is a scientific fact. It is determined by your chromosomes and is evident by your genitals. Unless something's gone wrong. Arguing or disagreeing with that fact is like disagreeing with gravity. No matter what deluded little world you construct around you, it is as inescapable as your species. Simply not liking or agreeing with a fact does not alter that fact.
The beauty of scientific fact is, it doesn't matter if you don't agree, its still true.

Your sexuality however is another matter. That's entirely up to the person themselves. Go nuts, have fun.
And that us why arguing about a child's gender is doubly idiotic in this case.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Your gender is your gender. That is a scientific fact.

Gender (noun):
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're not though, and that's the whole point - their parent has simply chosen not to impose a gender on their child of either one or the other gender role.

Raising the child genderless is their prerogative (if that is what is being done in this case, maybe it's not), although, as pointed out a few posts earlier, most parents these days would not be bound by any strict gender rules so it probably won't make all that much difference.

However, this whole saga is down to not wanting to list the child's sex on a birth certificate. The child was born biologically male, so why an international news story over it? As the child grows up they can come to their own conclusions about their gender. But stating that the child was born biologically male on a birth certificate won't have any kind of detrimental impact. This smacks of being more about gender politics than anything else.

osarusan

mzungu wrote: »

The child was born biologically male, so why the big international incident over it?

What? Who is responsible for that?

EDIT: Largely agreed on the rest though. If the child is just raised to 'be whatever they want' then it won't be all that different from normal. And, even though it made the news because of the lack of gender designation on a health card, I think that the child will be raised the same way whether that situation changes after judicial review or not.

One eyed Jack

mzungu wrote: »

Raising the child genderless is their prerogative (if that is what is being done in this case, maybe it's not), although, as pointed out a few posts earlier most parents these days would not be bound by any strict gender rules so it probably won't make all that much difference. However, this whole saga is down to not wanting to list the child's sex on a birth certificate. The child was born biologically male, so why the big international incident over it? As the child grows up they can come to their own conclusions about their gender.

Yeah, this is the part that I can understand why there would be an objection on the part of the State to a parent challenging the fact that the biological sex of the child is recorded. There are any number of genuine medical, legal and social reasons why the sex of the child is recorded on their birth certificate. I have no objection to the law being challenged, it makes for an interesting test case, but I don't see them winning their case.

The way it's gone international I suppose is just an indication of society's curiosity with anything which falls outside of social norms. It's just disseminated faster and to a wider audience than previous generations where a bearded lady was part of a travelling freak show. Nowadays we get it delivered to our desktop, whereas before we would have been largely unaware of their existence.

Will I Am Not

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Gender (noun):
the state of being male or female

Glad we cleared that up...

Doctor Jimbob

It's pretty obvious that in the context of a birth cert "gender" refers to a biological state. Recording that isn't imposing any kind of gender roles on a child, and is useful for a number of reasons mentioned already on here.

Having said that,could the whole issue not be cleared up by having it recorded as sex rather than gender?

mzungu

osarusan wrote: »

What? Who is responsible for that?

The parent that didn't wish to put down the biological sex on the birth certificate. That would have had nothing to do with what gender the child would identify as later in life. The child was born male, so where is the harm in putting male down as the biological sex on the birth cert?

osarusan wrote: »

If the child is just raised to 'be whatever they want' then it won't be all that different from normal. And, even though it made the news because of the lack of gender designation on a health card, I think that the child will be raised the same way whether that situation changes after judicial review or not.

Aye, that is the case alright, hence why talk about how the child was going to be raised is pointless. I think a lot of parents these days would be easygoing about gender norms and don't care what toys their kids play with or what clothes they wear. This is not a million miles away from being gender neutral. So I would imagine being purposefully raised genderless would not make much difference either way. IMO it is merely an extension of what is already being practiced, except with a trendy label and some ideology attached to it. As long as no kind of coercion is present (same goes for all methods of raising children) then each to their own.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that in the context of a birth cert "gender" refers to a biological state.

No it doesn't. If I want to change the gender on my birth certificate here in Ireland, I can change it very easily and quickly.

It's the same in most, if not all, the regions in Canada.

osarusan

mzungu wrote: »

The parent that didn't wish to put down the biological sex on the birth certificate. That would have had nothing to do with what gender the child would identify as later in life. The child was born male, so where is the harm in putting male down as the biological sex on the birth cert?

I agree, but that's not really what I asked.

Is the parent the one that turned this into an 'international incident'?

Or was it seized upon by the world is fucked brigade as an example of how the world is fucked?

Certainly, that's how it arrived on boards.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, this is the part that I can understand why there would be an objection on the part of the State to a parent challenging the fact that the biological sex of the child is recorded. There are any number of genuine medical, legal and social reasons why the sex of the child is recorded on their birth certificate. I have no objection to the law being challenged, it makes for an interesting test case, but I don't see them winning their case.

It does alright, I'm interested in seeing how this all pans out. They allow no gender to be stated on stuff like health cards, but for a birth cert might be a step too far for the reasons you mentioned above.

nullzero

gizmo81 wrote: »

Gender is a state of being, socially and culturally constructed. Gender has little to do with what's between your legs.

Ridiculous. Gender is a physical state not a psychological state or social construct.
I feel for people who feel out of place due to their own gender issues and I think it's a positive thing that society at large (at least in the western world) now acknowledge a person's right to associate in any way they like, but things have gone OTT over the last few years.
Just to be clear there is no gender spectrum even though transgender people exist and have rights. We need to get real.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Ridiculous. Gender is a physical state not a psychological state or social construct.

That's right, you just ignore the failing Oxford English Dictionary. Dictionaries are fake news. SAD!

Hank Scorpio

This is what happens when you give a platform to the crazies

mzungu

osarusan wrote: »

I agree, but that's not really what I asked.

Is the parent the one that turned this into an 'international incident'?

Or was it seized upon by the world is fucked brigade as an example of how the world is fucked?

Certainly, that's how it arrived on boards.

Being an activist in the area (along with her lawyer) I am quite sure they were aware that their story would be picked up on.

JupiterKid

Pure selfishness on the part of the parent. Let the child be a child and determine its own gender for itself. Childhood is precious and short and is no place to be hijacked by a parent seeking to make an attention seeking statement.

I'm thinking of starting a "Common Sense" movement.:D As an out gay man, I really do think political correctness in the West is going too far with all this pandering to people who have precious little to do but get offended on behalf of others. Everyone is a minority in some sense and can't we all just try to get along?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

JupiterKid wrote: »

Pure selfishness on the part of the parent. Let the child be a child and determine its own gender for itself. Childhood is precious and short and is no place to be hijacked by a parent seeking to make an attention seeking statement.

I'm thinking of starting a "Common Sense" movement.:D As an out gay man, I really do think political correctness in the West is going too far with all this pandering to people who have precious little to do but get offended on behalf of others. Everyone is a minority in some sense and can't we all just try to get along?

We need more like you!!

Frank O. Pinion

nullzero wrote: »

Ridiculous. Gender is a physical state not a psychological state or social construct.

No, biological sex is a physical state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Annasopra

nullzero wrote: »

Ridiculous. Gender is a physical state not a psychological state or social construct.
I feel for people who feel out of place due to their own gender issues and I think it's a positive thing that society at large (at least in the western world) now acknowledge a person's right to associate in any way they like, but things have gone OTT over the last few years.
Just to be clear there is no gender spectrum even though transgender people exist and have rights. We need to get real.

You seem to be confusing sex and gender

Annasopra

JupiterKid wrote: »

Pure selfishness on the part of the parent. Let the child be a child and determine its own gender for itself. Childhood is precious and short and is no place to be hijacked by a parent seeking to make an attention seeking statement.

I'm thinking of starting a "Common Sense" movement.:D As an out gay man, I really do think political correctness in the West is going too far with all this pandering to people who have precious little to do but get offended on behalf of others. Everyone is a minority in some sense and can't we all just try to get along?

Huh? You are saying "Let the child be a child and determine its own gender" - that is what they are doing.

JupiterKid

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Huh? You are saying "Let the child be a child and determine its own gender" - that is what they are doing.

The child was born physically male, therefore it is a male, not gender less. If he decides later on to transition to a female or no gender at all, then it is up to him and not his mother's decision to make as a means of seeking attention and to make a political statement. It's a despicable way to use a baby IMO.

Will I Am Not

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Huh? You are saying "Let the child be a child and determine its own gender" - that is what they are doing.

Let the boy be a boy, and on the minuscule off chance he wants to identify as something else when he's older then he can deal with that then.

Assetbacked

I would say "it" rather than "they".

EDIT: the mother said "they" in reference to one person; I'm saying it should be "it" how is that an infraction?! Merely semantics.

Roger Hassenforder

if you've a willy, youre sex is male. A winky, youre female. Not sure, intersex. let your kid play with which ever toys they want. the kid runs a far greater chance of being bullied by other kids because of the parents selfish act.

"hey kid, are you a boy or a girl? Want to play cowboys and Indians?"

Sorry guys, my non binary birth assigned gender-identity precludes me from participating in games where gender typifying of roles is required, and involves culturally appropriating persecuted ethnic minorities and colonist ideologies for self gratification

Nermal

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: Enough with calling trans, intersex and/or non-binary people mentally ill. Cards happening on that [polite edit] nonsense from here out.

We call devoutly religious people mentally ill round here all the time with no sanction. Interesting to know who the protected classes are, thanks.

LLMMLL

cgcsb wrote: »

If you ask people as adults I would pretty much say just about everyone, with the exception of transgendered people, would NOT have liked to be brought up as 'genderless'. I know I certainly wouldn't have liked it. I view my maleness as an integral part of me, its the basis of my confidence and it frames my interpersonal relationships. I'm sure its the same for the ladies. Had my parents but a skort on me and started calling me an it. That'd undermine all that, and I'd feel more like a neutered lab rat.

You have no idea how you'd feel about it. You only know how you feel about it currently from the perspective of not being raised that way. You probably still would have ended up male but a bit more open minded?

LLMMLL

mzungu wrote: »

I think a lot of parents these days would be easygoing about gender norms and don't care what toys their kids play with or what clothes they wear. This is not a million miles away from being gender neutral.

While it's definitely not like the 80s (I think if I ever wanted to wear a dress my father would have screamed the house down), I don't think modern parents are as easy going as suggested. My brother and his wife are probably around the mid range of modern liberalness. There's a boy in my niece's class who studies wears dresses let's call him Jimmy, and anytime his name is mentioned by my niece, her parents will say "you mean Jimmy in the dress?" (There's only one Jimmy so it's not really necessary to ask that), then they'll turn to us and go with a knowing smile "Jimmy is a boy in her class who likes to wear dresses". It's not malicious but it's pretty clear that a boy wearing a dress is a bit of a joke and I'm pretty sure if my nephew wanted to wear a dress there wouldn't be a parental meltdown but he'd be firmly steered into wearing trousers.

LLMMLL

JupiterKid wrote: »

Pure selfishness on the part of the parent. Let the child be a child and determine its own gender for itself. Childhood is precious and short and is no place to be hijacked by a parent seeking to make an attention seeking statement.

I'm thinking of starting a "Common Sense" movement.:D As an out gay man, I really do think political correctness in the West is going too far with all this pandering to people who have precious little to do but get offended on behalf of others. Everyone is a minority in some sense and can't we all just try to get along?

You sound exactly like those people who think gay people should have been happy with civil partnership.

Annasopra

JupiterKid wrote: »

The child was born physically male, therefore it is a male, not gender less. If he decides later on to transition to a female or no gender at all, then it is up to him and not his mother's decision to make as a means of seeking attention and to make a political statement. It's a despicable way to use a baby IMO.

So you are contradicting yourself.

GerryDerpy

The more tolerant we become the more we give stupid people a voice.

Roger Hassenforder

LLMMLL wrote: »

You sound exactly like those people who think gay people should have been happy with civil partnership.

He is gay...
Maybe he knows more about what gay people want?

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A winky, youre female.

You're wrong. A winky means you're a man. Proof? Watch this short video.

https://youtu.be/Ouoctylp2vU