Canadian parent raising child as gender-neutral.

JupiterKid

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

No, I fully support full equality for LGBT people. You know nothing about me. But I draw the line at parents using their children to make a political point.

D3V!L

What's with the confusion between gender, of which there are two and sexuality ??

mrcheez

I wonder if they become a famous actor/ess and win the best actor/ess in a leading role, would they need to have a gender neutral version?

LLMMLL

JupiterKid wrote: »

No, I fully support full equality for LGBT people. You know nothing about me. But I draw the line at parents using their children to make a political point.

Presumably the parent would raise their child without gender restrictions whether gender is recorded on the birth cert or not. The supposed scoring of a political point will have zero negative effect on the child.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

LLMMLL wrote: »

Presumably the parent would raise their child without gender restrictions whether gender is recorded on the birth cert or not. The supposed scoring of a political point will have zero negative effect on the child.

Have you seen the parent? It's in for a life of confusion.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

https://youtu.be/Ouoctylp2vU

Lolz!

I was using a polite term that the wife and girls use for their bits. Not nice to hear your dad refer to your bits as a gash!

suicide_circus

It's amazing how much air time this sh gets given how few people are involved. Making babies gender neutral to make a really small amount of people feel better about themselves would be the height of stupidity.

One eyed Jack

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.

That appears to be exactly what the parent in this case is doing - arguing that their child should be allowed the right to self-determination, including the right to determine their own gender identity. Self-determination is a fundamental human right, to which we are all entitled. Why shouldn't a parent fight for their child's right to self-determination? Whether the court agrees that the scope of human rights law encompasses or extends this right to children could have all sorts of implications for Canadian and International law.

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?

Talk about pulling the ladder up after yourself

Could the same thing not be said of your being offended on behalf of the child of a parent whom you don't even know? The answer to the question as to whether we could just try to get along then, rests solely with you, and whether you believe that other people should pander to your world view, as opposed to being able to operate outside of your world view, and for that you would criticise them. It appears you want it both ways, but always centred around what you want, on behalf of everyone else.

Would you accept other people imposing their world view on you, in the pursuit of what to them is their common sense manifesto? You suggest that using a child to make a political point is abhorrent; your 'common sense' party manifesto suggests you would object to those standards being applied to yourself.

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.

I haven't seen any source which has alluded to the sex of the child. Perhaps you have one? Unless you do, then you are only assuming that the child was born physically male, which, even if it were true, would only confirm the childs sex, and not particularly saying a whole lot about their gender. Canadian birth certificates only specify 'sex' and not gender, and this is important, because the parents argument is in regards to 'gender designation' on the birth certificate, not sex. Here's the tricky bit - there is no gender designation on Canadian birth certificates, only sex designation, which is assigned by medical staff. Because there were no medical staff present at the birth of this child, their sex remains unknown, not just their gender.

You're suggesting that the parent in question in this case wants to make that determination for their child, but they actually don't, they want to allow the child to determine their own gender, if and when they feel they have the language and the capacity to do so. It is exactly what you are suggesting, and the exact opposite of Canadian law.

Is it a breach of human rights law? It'll be interesting to find out how the Canadian Courts decide. In Ireland the Gender Recognition Act allows for a person of 18 years or over to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. It doesn't allow for their original birth certificate to be altered, but it allows for the person to be given an amended copy which they may use from that point on. The same conundrum could be argued in Ireland where the childs sex is recorded on their birth certificate, and not their gender.

What the parent and their lawyer in the Canadian case however appear to be arguing is as though gender and sex are the same, which should have transgender rights activists shifting very uncomfortably in their seats given that it is they who originally pushed this paradigm of the separation of sex and gender identity. I'm not suggesting I've ever subscribed to that particular notion myself, as I don't believe it to be quite so simple as that, but it has been successfully used to argue in favour of the Gender Recognition Act in Ireland at least.

Frank O. Pinion

Can we get more opinions from people judging the parent based on the way they look? I totally value those opinions.

Jimoslimos

I'm a pretty liberal guy (Lib Dem voter, Guardian reader, sandal wearing, quinoa eater...ok maybe not the last one) but I think this is every sort of crazy. I'm happy for full grown (if perhaps not mature) adults to dress as they wish, use whatever pronouns, or undergo whatever medically unnecessary operations they want but pushing that onto their kids is tantamount to child abuse.

Firstly why the hell are people even entertaining the idea that it is somehow ok to hint to a child that their body might be "wrong" in some way or that their physical sex doesn't match their "gender" (requiring lots and lots of dangerous hormones and surgery) I don't have children but if I ever did I would NEVER do anything other than reinforce the idea that they should be proud of themselves and their body and not let anyone tell them otherwise. Especially as they approach puberty - where many teenagers feel awkward and uncomfortable about themselves.

Secondly can we stop with this nonsense of "assigned gender" on a birth cert? Makes it sound like the obstetrician present at the birth has some sort of magical sorting hat - male, female or Hufflepuff. Sex is recorded on a birth cert and isn't something that can ever be altered. I'm aware there are a tiny statistically insignificant number of individuals who are genuinely intersex but this debate (and most others) have absolutely nothing in common with those people.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What the parent and their lawyer in the Canadian case however appear to be arguing is as though gender and sex are the same, which should have transgender rights activists shifting very uncomfortably in their seats given that it is they who originally pushed this paradigm of the separation of sex and gender identity. I'm not suggesting I've ever subscribed to that particular notion myself, as I don't believe it to be quite so simple as that, but it has been successfully used to argue in favour of the Gender Recognition Act in Ireland at least.

I think it is the opposite, they do not wish to record the sex as either male or female on the birth certificate because it may not match the gender the child wants to identify as when the time comes. It is very much in line with the thinking behind the separation of gender.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it a breach of human rights law? It'll be interesting to find out how the Canadian Courts decide. In Ireland the Gender Recognition Act allows for a person of 18 years or over to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. It doesn't allow for their original birth certificate to be altered, but it allows for the person to be given an amended copy which they may use from that point on. The same conundrum could be argued in Ireland where the childs sex is recorded on their birth certificate, and not their gender.

They might be heading down that road alright. This was taken from The Guardian:

Without a birth certificate, Searyl is listed as a non-citizen in the province’s system. The court case is expected to be heard in late autumn, said barbara findlay, a human rights lawyer who chooses to spell her name without capital letters and is working with Doty on the court challenge.

“There used to be a reason to put sex on birth certificates. You used to need to know that because only men could vote, only men could own property, only men could sit in the Senate, and so on. Those days are long gone,” said findlay. “And just as we used to have race on birth certificates, but we don’t any more, it’s time to take sex off birth certificates and treat it, like race, as a private matter.”

Maybe they plan on arguing comparisons to racial and male supremacy of yesteryear?

JupiterKid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That appears to be exactly what the parent in this case is doing - arguing that their child should be allowed the right to self-determination, including the right to determine their own gender identity. Self-determination is a fundamental human right, to which we are all entitled. Why shouldn't a parent fight for their child's right to self-determination? Whether the court agrees that the scope of human rights law encompasses or extends this right to children could have all sorts of implications for Canadian and International law.





Talk about pulling the ladder up after yourself

Could the same thing not be said of your being offended on behalf of the child of a parent whom you don't even know? The answer to the question as to whether we could just try to get along then, rests solely with you, and whether you believe that other people should pander to your world view, as opposed to being able to operate outside of your world view, and for that you would criticise them. It appears you want it both ways, but always centred around what you want, on behalf of everyone else.

Would you accept other people imposing their world view on you, in the pursuit of what to them is their common sense manifesto? You suggest that using a child to make a political point is abhorrent; your 'common sense' party manifesto suggests you would object to those standards being applied to yourself.





I haven't seen any source which has alluded to the sex of the child. Perhaps you have one? Unless you do, then you are only assuming that the child was born physically male, which, even if it were true, would only confirm the childs sex, and not particularly saying a whole lot about their gender. Canadian birth certificates only specify 'sex' and not gender, and this is important, because the parents argument is in regards to 'gender designation' on the birth certificate, not sex. Here's the tricky bit - there is no gender designation on Canadian birth certificates, only sex designation, which is assigned by medical staff. Because there were no medical staff present at the birth of this child, their sex remains unknown, not just their gender.

You're suggesting that the parent in question in this case wants to make that determination for their child, but they actually don't, they want to allow the child to determine their own gender, if and when they feel they have the language and the capacity to do so. It is exactly what you are suggesting, and the exact opposite of Canadian law.

Is it a breach of human rights law? It'll be interesting to find out how the Canadian Courts decide. In Ireland the Gender Recognition Act allows for a person of 18 years or over to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate. It doesn't allow for their original birth certificate to be altered, but it allows for the person to be given an amended copy which they may use from that point on. The same conundrum could be argued in Ireland where the childs sex is recorded on their birth certificate, and not their gender.

What the parent and their lawyer in the Canadian case however appear to be arguing is as though gender and sex are the same, which should have transgender rights activists shifting very uncomfortably in their seats given that it is they who originally pushed this paradigm of the separation of sex and gender identity. I'm not suggesting I've ever subscribed to that particular notion myself, as I don't believe it to be quite so simple as that, but it has been successfully used to argue in favour of the Gender Recognition Act in Ireland at least.

Interesting points, but I stick firm to my opinion. Let's just agree to differ.:cool:

ceadaoin.

What the parent and their lawyer in the Canadian case however appear to be arguing is as though gender and sex are the same, which should have transgender rights activists shifting very uncomfortably in their seats given that it is they who originally pushed this paradigm of the separation of sex and gender identity

The latest push from activists is that biological sex is irrelevant and even a social construct. Gender identity is all that matters. So this is in line with that reasoning

Professor Moriarty

The child hasn't a clue and isn't allowed to grow up according to the norms of society. Let the child grow up as a boy or girl and let them change in any way when they are old enough to know who and what they want to be. But no. Some looper visits her 'beliefs' on her child in such a way as to single them out and confuse them.

But but but gender fluidity this and gender neutral that and.... Utter bollocks. Leave the goddam child alone.

osarusan

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The latest push from activists is that biological sex is irrelevant and even a social construct. Gender identity is all that matters. So this is in line with that reasoning

The parent's argument seems to be that they were assigned a gender at birth, and society's behaviour towards them/expectation of them etc was founded on that assignation, which in their case wasn't something they felt was a match at all, and caused them a lot of confusion and suffering.

I have sympathy for them in that case, but I think it would have been more logical (and attracted more support and less criticism) had they argued that the gender assignation should be removed from their own birth cert/other IDs, given their own existing feelings and experience (and their ability as an adult to explain those feelings and experience), rather than the potential experiences of their child.

Anyway, if this child grows up unhindered by the societal straitjacket of gender assignation (something which I don't really think is feasible anyway), and then identifies as the same gender as their sex, it actually wouldn't be something that would help the argument.

jmayo

Has anyone actually thought about the practicalities of this down the road.

Not sure if Canada has many single sex schools, but what happens when the kid is older and maybe wants to play sports?
Are they going to be on the girls or boys ice hockey team, on the girls or boys wrestling team?

What happens when it comes time to go for swimming classes ?
Are they going to have to have a separate changing room for THEM, because lets face it a kid with a mickie is not going to be welcome in the girls changing room or vice versa, no matter what their birth cert says or doesn't say.

What happens when it's the kids birthday, what type of presents, what type of birthday card do the other kids bring.

Imagine the confusion for other kids, what group does the kid gravitate towards and how accepting will other kids be of them ?

That kid is destined for a level of abuse that will probably make it's life hell, all so that their parent can feel superior and make a point.

And no, it is not because other parents/teachers think the parent is a fruitcake and haven't lectured kids about modern gender equality, it is because children will as sure as hell hone in on differences and ultimately use them against her/him.

Grayson

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm a pretty liberal guy (Lib Dem voter, Guardian reader, sandal wearing, quinoa eater...ok maybe not the last one) but I think this is every sort of crazy. I'm happy for full grown (if perhaps not mature) adults to dress as they wish, use whatever pronouns, or undergo whatever medically unnecessary operations they want but pushing that onto their kids is tantamount to child abuse.

Firstly why the hell are people even entertaining the idea that it is somehow ok to hint to a child that their body might be "wrong" in some way or that their physical sex doesn't match their "gender" (requiring lots and lots of dangerous hormones and surgery) I don't have children but if I ever did I would NEVER do anything other than reinforce the idea that they should be proud of themselves and their body and not let anyone tell them otherwise. Especially as they approach puberty - where many teenagers feel awkward and uncomfortable about themselves.

Secondly can we stop with this nonsense of "assigned gender" on a birth cert? Makes it sound like the obstetrician present at the birth has some sort of magical sorting hat - male, female or Hufflepuff. Sex is recorded on a birth cert and isn't something that can ever be altered. I'm aware there are a tiny statistically insignificant number of individuals who are genuinely intersex but this debate (and most others) have absolutely nothing in common with those people.

But (and I'm just making this for the sake of argument) gender is one of the few things that is on a birth cert. It doesn't contain any other information about the child except name. Everything else is about the parents. Is there actually a need for gender to be on the cert at all?
If it wasn't for the political ramifications it would make no difference if it was there or not.

ohnonotgmail

osarusan wrote: »

The parent's argument seems to be that they were assigned a gender at birth, and society's behaviour towards them/expectation of them etc was founded on that assignation, which in their case wasn't something they felt was a match at all, and caused them a lot of confusion and suffering.

I have sympathy for them in that case, but I think it would have been more logical (and attracted more support and less criticism) had they argued that the gender assignation should be removed from their own birth cert/other IDs, given their own existing feelings and experience (and their ability as an adult to explain those feelings and experience), rather than the potential experiences of their child.

Anyway, if this child grows up unhindered by the societal straitjacket of gender assignation (something which I don't really think is feasible anyway), and then identifies as the same gender as their sex, it actually wouldn't be something that would help the argument.

It also wouldn't detract from the argument.

Pac1Man

What will they call the child?

My guess is the child will be nameless, genderless and faceless. It won't even have a Bebo profile.

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

But (and I'm just making this for the sake of argument) gender is one of the few things that is on a birth cert. It doesn't contain any other information about the child except name. Everything else is about the parents. Is there actually a need for gender to be on the cert at all?
If it wasn't for the political ramifications it would make no difference if it was there or not.

How is recording sex (not gender) on a birth certificate only about political ramifications? Health professionals need to know the sex of a child, all the growth/height charts are based on sex. And obviously, as the child gets older this will become even more relevant. Certain conditions might be more likely depending on sex for example.

And that's before the child even starts school where they would want to know whether they are male or female. Although given that this person gave birth without medical assistance and refuses to have her child examined by a doctor, I doubt they would even be going to school tbh.

Whether this parent agrees or not, biological sex is a reality and can never change. Whatever gender the child decides they identify as in the future is irrelevant at birth.

Loomis

I'll just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67oBbpyE9Xg

Agent Coulson

That child won't need a college fund it will all the money to pay for a psychologist by then.

Call Me Jimmy

Hopefully the baby identifies as not their child.

Der Stier

Total PC madness, will end up doing a lot more damage.

Call Me Jimmy

And what's the problem with social constructs? As if it hasn't taken millennia to come up with ones that work