Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Raising a "Genderless" Child

May 24, 2011#1

Espy

No, this isn't about some bizarre experiment performed by Steinman.

It is about a bizarre experiment performed by someone else however.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/24/genderless-child-creates-media-firestorm-toronto/

A Toronto couple raising their 4-month-old without identifying the child as a boy or a girl have created a media firestorm in Canada, where some have likened the scenario to a "bizarre lab experiment" that seeks to undo thousands of years of social evolution.
Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, are raising their third child, Storm, to be free of societal norms regarding gender. Is Storm male or female? The parents won't say, so no one knows except Storm's older brothers, Jazz and Kio, as well as a close family friend and two midwives who helped deliver the baby, according to the Toronto Star.

I for one am horrified. I mean, really... "Storm"? Who the hell do these people think they are? Gwyneth Paltrow and Boring Guy from Coldplay?

But stupid coldplay and wife related jokes aside, this is actually quite fascinating. Thoughts?

May 24, 2011#2

AshburnerX

There's a reason we don't let abandoned/orphaned kids be adopted by people planning to experiment on them, just as there is a reason why we have Child Services. This is tantamount to child abuse and they are likely going to lose their kid/s over this.

Seriously, this is the kind of thing someone needs to consent to first and this kid isn't being given a choice.

May 24, 2011#3

Espy

AshburnerX said:
There's a reason we don't let abandoned/orphaned kids be adopted by people planning to experiment on them, just as there is a reason why we have Child Services. This is tantamount to child abuse and they are likely going to lose their kid/s over this.

Seriously, this is the kind of thing someone needs to consent to first and this kid isn't being given a choice.

Thats the thing that bothered me about it. As fascinating of an idea as it is, it won't last and the kid, rather than the parents, will be the one to bear the brunt of any effects.

May 24, 2011#4

Chad Sexington

People named Storm:

But anyways, that's madness. Madness.

May 24, 2011#5

Dirona

AshburnerX said:
There's a reason we don't let abandoned/orphaned kids be adopted by people planning to experiment on them, just as there is a reason why we have Child Services. This is tantamount to child abuse and they are likely going to lose their kid/s over this.

Seriously, this is the kind of thing someone needs to consent to first and this kid isn't being given a choice.

Espy said:
Thats the thing that bothered me about it. As fascinating of an idea as it is, it won't last and the kid, rather than the parents, will be the one to bear the brunt of any effects.

Not that I agree with the parents but... aren't there a lot of things that parents do to/for/on behalf of their kids that in any other circumstance requires consent? (I'm thinking along the lines of medical things, education, and, well... religious things too.) Parents get some pretty strong rights in terms of what they can do to their children without their consent. Wouldn't this *whatever it is* (I don't want to call it an experiment) fall into that category? Doing what they deem best based on their role as the kid's parents?

That said, I think it is shortsighted and foolish, and that the kid is likely going to have a harder time of things as a result (at least for a few years). Heck, all three of the kids are going to have a hard time once they get closer to the age of majority.

May 24, 2011#6

Hailey Knight

What exactly are they doing that's bad? Clothes? A lot of kids wear the same stuff, pants and shirt. Having both genders' toys? I'm trying to see what exactly is so heinous except for that name. There just aren't details to point out what's a problem, aside from saying "girls go to finishing school and boys play sports".

The kid is four months old. S/he doesn't have a fucking clue what's going on and won't be self-aware for a while yet. If it's a boy, people will know pretty quickly, just from how boys act with their external organs even at the age of 2.

"I don't think there's any question that this is going to do severe harm to this child," Fischer said. "That child is either a male or female, and it’s a tragedy that his parents or her parents are apparently unwilling to base their approach on scientific and biological truth."

The attempt to keep the child's gender a secret is simply a "terrible disservice," Fischer said.
"The vast majority of people have enough common sense to recognize that this is lunacy," he continued. "The vast majority of people are motivated by a deep level of concern of what's going to happen to that poor child."

Maybe other people need to mind their fucking business. Four months old. The kid doesn't have a clue what a boy or girl is, can't even understand the words you're saying, can't feed itself. You dress most kids of that age in a neutral color, and no one has any idea what gender the child is, so they just guess.

May 24, 2011#7

strawman

Even at one month old infants are picking up on tone of voice, handling, reactions, etc. Thing every adult does differently based on sex of the child.

Enculturation starts long before four months old.

I wonder if they are using 'it' for the pronoun.

May 24, 2011#8

Philosopher B.

Society is pretty fucked up when it comes to gender and gender expectations. However, seeing as one still has to live within that society, I don't know how stellar of an idea this is. I think rushing to call this child-abuse and wanting to string the parents up by their pull-strings is a ridiculous overreaction, though I do wonder how much serious thought they put into this beforehand.

Alternate post:
Brb, getting a degree in social psychology.

May 24, 2011#9

Philosopher B.

Interesting - here's a longer article on the family and their practices:

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/...le/995112--parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret

May 24, 2011#10

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
Even at one month old infants are picking up on tone of voice, handling, reactions, etc. Thing every adult does differently based on sex of the child.

Enculturation starts long before four months old.

And clearly the parents know what the gender is--they're withholding that from others. It's not their privilege to know, and I'm sure the kid is getting as many cheek pinches and people babbling nonsense as any other infant.

I wonder if they are using 'it' for the pronoun.

That'd be bad.

Unless you're a person who hard-lines keeping genders as complete polar opposites, which is no longer true in the modern day and is sexist without needing to hear Charlie say so, there's really nothing different that would be being done at 4 months between either gender. Their general day is going to be eat, sleep, burp, crap, and cry, and sometimes put plastic in their mouths.

Social experiment aside, this is a fun game for dealing with the intrusive. "What gender is that baby?" "If you can't tell, why should we tell you?"

May 24, 2011#11

drifter

Reading the article, they briefly considered going with "z" as a pronoun, but they are currently using (s)he. As in, pronouncing it as she, but pretending the s is in brackets. :I

May 24, 2011#12

Hailey Knight

drifter said:
Reading the article, they briefly considered going with "z" as a pronoun, but they are currently using (s)he. As in, pronouncing it as she, but pretending the s is in brackets. :I

If the kid's in any developmental danger, it's from stupidity.

BUT, as can be seen anywhere you go, that's clearly not ground for removing children from parents.

May 24, 2011#13

Wasabi Poptart

To an extent I can understand what they are doing. With both of my kids I refused to give into the parade of blues and pinks that came with each of their genders. I do not and will not make my kids play with toys because this is what a boy plays with and this is what a girl plays with. My son plays with his sister's tea set and cooking set. She plays with his Star Wars toys and dinosaurs. Noah has worn my heels and clothes when he was playing at home. I used to put on my grandfather's clothes and pretend I was a man. I feel it's natural to want to explore gender roles and I will not discourage either of them from doing it. I agree with giving children the freedom to express themselves and not being rigid about what males and females should or shouldn't do.

However, I don't necessarily agree with what these parents are doing. But then again there are a few things I read in the article PhilosopherB posted that I don't agree with as far as how they are raising their kids ("unschooling" for instance). I think the psychologist at the end of the story sums up my feelings well in saying that the parents have possibly denied Storm a way to identify him/herself. I believe (s)he will take cues from the parents and older brothers as to gender. I don't see it as abuse, but as something that bucks societal norms and could leave a lasting, possibly negative, effect on Storm later on.

May 25, 2011#14

@Li3n

I think that naming the kid Storm will have way more negative effects then not enforcing on it societies expectations of one or the other gender...

Now if they start forcing it to not do stuff it wants so it can stay neutral, that will be the thing that will have negative effects.

May 25, 2011#15

Azurephoenix

As much as the parents think they are doing their kids a favour by "freeing" them from the tyranny of pronouns and stereotyped colours and whatever the hell else they're worried about... do they not realize their children do actually have to try and fit into society at some point? I see their three children growing up to be social pariahs.

May 25, 2011#16

sixpackshaker

I just wonder how parenting decisions become news. Did the parents release a statement or were the grandparents, grandstanding to the media.

I just hope they teach the child which bathroom to go into by time (s)he hits kindergarten.

May 25, 2011#17

Joe Johnson

"Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn."

What? This is a stupid quote from the article. Really? Weird, cause no one else does this. At all. Everyone else who raises a child does so in a completely unbiased manner. They ask if they want to go to church, or what school to attend, or what political party/system they believe in. All the time.
/sarcasm

May 25, 2011#18

Espy

I think the real issue will be how long will they keep it up? At a certain point they will be forced to either lie to the child about gender & society or they will have to try to explain to the kid their odd and conveluted worldview to a child who won't get it.

May 25, 2011#19

drawn_inward

Let kids be kids. If you are a boy with 4 older sisters, you will probably play dress-up, and play with barbies. That doesn't mean your son is gay. That's retarded. Admonishing your son for wearing a dress or enjoying dancing or your daughter for rough-housing or playing football is equally appalling. Kids are little sponges and absorb the culture around them. If they are into something and you make it seem bad/wrong, then they are going to think that there is something wrong with them. That's where a bunch of psychological damage is done.

Having said that, I think it's a little weird to not tell people if your kid is a boy or a girl. Who cares? People love babies and are curious. I've heard people ask some seriously personal things. Did you have them vaginally? --- :aaah:

I don't have kids, but I hope I don't enforce ridiculous gender roles on them as infants. I would be fine if my boy wants to be in ballet and my daughter wants to play baseball/football. Let them be kids for goodness sake and teach them to respect their elders, and teach them right from wrong, by being their example and not just lecturing them.
QED

May 25, 2011#20

Adammon

I thought I'd be concerned but in the big scheme of things, all they're doing is fucking up their kids mentally and socially; it's not like they're physically hurting them /s

May 25, 2011#21

MindDetective

Eventually those hormones will kick in and the child's gender will assert itself. This will probably happen a lot sooner than adolescence too. As an experiment it is interesting. As a parenting tactic, it is a bit naive.

May 25, 2011#22

Adammon

It's funny that by creating a 'genderless' child , they're reinforcing that certain behaviours or decisions are gender specific. The fact that one child picked purple is something to be heralded where back in reality wouldn't have generated a second look. Yet somehow this selection is indicative of a movement past gender. My wife rode BMX bikes, played video games and didn't own one barbie doll and it didn't take her parents pushing her to break traditional gender roles to do that.

As an experiment, if the children grow up to be gender stereotypes or conversely completely fucked up, I wonder if the parents will actually change their minds on gender roles in child rearing.

May 25, 2011#23

Dei

So I didn't raise my son to really play with one toy over the other, and all his toys were pretty gender neutral, and yet the most fascinating thing in the world for him was watching cars zip down the road. OMG IT'S A BOY TRAIT THAT I CLEARLY IMPOSED ON HIM, etc etc. I think for the most part, kids will like what they like, and I think gender influences some things whether we want to admit it or not. Mostly I'm with the whole "I hope the parents let their kids know which bathroom to use by the time they are going by themselves.".

May 25, 2011#24

MindDetective

I'll just put this here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/20/chimps-play-male-female-genetic

May 25, 2011#25

Espy

I'm probably gonna buy my son (god forbid I ever have one) a shitton of GI Joes and Transformers. But I'm not gonna tell him if they are boy or girl toys. Oh he is gonna be MESSED up.

May 25, 2011#26

Joe Johnson

Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to buy mine Barbies, but have her dress in camo with a gun, and tell him that anyone can be a soldier!

May 25, 2011#27

sixpackshaker

My Sis-in-law was not going to buy my nephew "violence" toys. But every time he found a 2 foot long stick at age 2 it became a gun or sword. She can't even think of a time he has seen some one wielding a sword or gun... So "violence" toys were added to the OK to buy list.

May 25, 2011#28

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
My Sis-in-law was not going to buy my nephew "violence" toys. But every time he found a 2 foot long stick at age 2 it became a gun or sword. She can't even think of a time he has seen some one wielding a sword or gun... So "violence" toys were added to the OK to buy list.

Try reading Killing Monsters. It explains fairly well that make believe violence is necessary in child development not just because it relieves stress and empowers children, but because it also helps them understand what is real and fantasy. It's a great book and I highly recommend it.

May 25, 2011#29

Disconnected

Oh shit, it's the Third.

May 25, 2011#30

Covar

Can't believe no ones said this yet.

They should have named the baby Pat. :awesome:

May 25, 2011#31

Wasabi Poptart

Espy said:
I'm probably gonna buy my son (god forbid I ever have one) a shitton of GI Joes and Transformers. But I'm not gonna tell him if they are boy or girl toys. Oh he is gonna be MESSED up.

You won't have to tell him. What I found out with my son is that they figure it out on their own. When my son was 3, he had a bunch of toy cars from the movie Cars. I was only allowed to play with Miss Sally because I am a girl and so is she. If I wanted The King, Doc Hudson, or (God forbid) Lightning McQueen, I was told I couldn't play with those because they were only for boys. We never assigned genders to his cars. He learned it though. And I would have to "fight" to get to play with the car I wanted instead of the powder blue girl Porsche.

May 25, 2011#32

sixpackshaker

You are much younger than I thought.

May 25, 2011#33

Wasabi Poptart

Who me? I'm an old lady with little kids.

May 25, 2011#34

Dei

Once you have kids, you're old. (Or at least, you feel old

)

May 25, 2011#35

Azurephoenix

AshburnerX said:
Try reading Killing Monsters. It explains fairly well that make believe violence is necessary in child development not just because it relieves stress and empowers children, but because it also helps them understand what is real and fantasy. It's a great book and I highly recommend it.

Sounds like an interesting read... I may have to check that out.

(my two and a half year old runs around with a superman cape wielding a truck in one hand and a toy screwdriver in the other making laser noises lol).

May 25, 2011#36

sixpackshaker

Wasabi Poptart said:
Who me? I'm an old lady with little kids.

If you were playing with "Cars" toys as a kid... that puts your age around 10.

May 25, 2011#37

MindDetective

sixpackshaker said:
If you were playing with "Cars" toys as a kid... that puts your age around 10.

She was playing Cars toys as an adult with her kid. Don't worry, I had to reread it too.

May 25, 2011#38

Wasabi Poptart

I'll blame the bad sentence structure on my daughter who was climbing all over me and trying to hit the keys while I was typing. Ha!

May 25, 2011#39

GasBandit

"Storm" is going to be Buffalo Bill when Storm grows up.

May 25, 2011#40

General Specific

AshburnerX said:
Try reading Killing Monsters. It explains fairly well that make believe violence is necessary in child development not just because it relieves stress and empowers children, but because it also helps them understand what is real and fantasy. It's a great book and I highly recommend it.

"Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed." -- G. K. Chesterton

May 25, 2011#41

Philosopher B.

From Topic Discussions, I just read the last person to post in this thread as 'Gender Specific.'

May 25, 2011#42

Hailey Knight

Well... he is.

May 26, 2011#43

Piotyr

So is this the next step in gender neutrality, then? Pretending gender doesn't exist?

Gender should be something that is celebrated, no matter what it is. If you don't want to cater to the gender stereotypes growing up, then fine. But let boys be boys and let girls be girls. All this is teaching the kids in the family is that gender is something to be ashamed of.

May 26, 2011#44

Emrys

To paraphrase Maurice Chevalier, "There is a difference between men and women. Vive la difference!"

May 26, 2011#45

sixpackshaker

Thank Heaven... for gender neutral children.... for with out them what would gender neutral children do??????

May 26, 2011#46

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Thank Heaven... for gender neutral children.... for with out them what would gender neutral children do??????

Tell my child I said "Hello." All my child knows is their gut says "maybe."

May 26, 2011#47

North_Ranger

I would like to formulate a thoughtful, well-reasoned rebuttal to this more than debatable attempt at questioning societal mores at the expense of a child who is incapable of expressing him- or herself... but this is just too much bull crap for me to handle without facepalming.

Seriously, I find this kind of 'experimentation' repugnant. Dangerous? Not per se. But repugnant, odious and using a kid as a test case for trying to erase one of the basic building blocks of one's personality and self-image? You bet your sweet patootie I think it is. Not to mention more than a little silly, considering that a child does not build up his or her personality and self-image only under the guidance of their parents; their peers also contribute to the issue, as well as teachers, relatives, all manner of people with whom the child comes in contact with. It is quite the case of hubris on behalf of the parents to believe that they can dictate the child to grow up as 'gender neutral'. But then again, reading about their other progeny it sounds like they have an axe to grind when it comes to the concept of gender...

May 26, 2011#48

sixpackshaker

The second article mentions that the children are "unschooled." Like a home school Montessori on downers. The children of that household decide everything about their education. The description of the oldest boy has me worried what will befall him if he ever gets around other kids his age.

May 27, 2011#49

Math242

jazz, kyo and storm.

fucking morons.

May 27, 2011#50

sixpackshaker

One is named for a "black" Transformer, another for Streetfighter, and one from Marvell comics... Nerdy Morons.

May 28, 2011#51

Norris

Uh, the siblings and therefore presumably Storm his or her self will know Storm's sex. What they're doing is not telling other people, IE people outside the household, Storm's sex. Therefore preventing people from forcing a gender identity upon him or her.

So moronic, but not abusively moronic. They're just fucking hippies, not necessarily horrible parents. Their kids will grow up more fine than not, I reckon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...ookout/parents-keep-childs-gender-under-wraps

May 29, 2011#52

DarkAudit

Can't really be any worse than the parents who named one kid Adolf Hitler, another Aryan Nations, and a third the girl version of Heinrich Himmler. Then claimed they weren't racist.

Last I heard CPS had removed those kids from that household.

May 29, 2011#53

@Li3n

North_Ranger said:
Seriously, I find this kind of 'experimentation' repugnant. Dangerous? Not per se. But repugnant, odious and using a kid as a test case for trying to erase one of the basic building blocks of one's personality and self-image? You bet your sweet patootie I think it is. Not to mention more than a little silly, considering that a child does not build up his or her personality and self-image only under the guidance of their parents; their peers also contribute to the issue, as well as teachers, relatives, all manner of people with whom the child comes in contact with. It is quite the case of hubris on behalf of the parents to believe that they can dictate the child to grow up as 'gender neutral'. But then again, reading about their other progeny it sounds like they have an axe to grind when it comes to the concept of gender...

Oh for fucks sakes...

The articles make it clear that they're not forcing the kid to be gender neutral, they're simply eliminating any outside influence on it's gender identity. That's why they're not telling anyone it's biological sex. Their idea is that it will allow the kid to be what it wants without peer pressure getting in the way.Like being pantsless in a sauna even if he'she's not Norwegian...

May 29, 2011#54

Hailey Knight

North peer pressures that on everyone of every nationality.

May 29, 2011#55

Mathias

Fucking hippie parents....

@Li3n said:
Oh for fucks sakes...

The articles make it clear that they're not forcing the kid to be gender neutral, they're simply eliminating any outside influence on it's gender identity. That's why they're not telling anyone it's biological sex. Their idea is that it will allow the kid to be what it wants without peer pressure getting in the way.Like being pantsless in a sauna even if he'she's not Norwegian...

Be what it wants? It's not like it really has a choice. If it's got a nutsack, I'm pretty sure it's on the fast track to being male. Unless the kid grows up and realizes that he's transgender, but I very much doubt that most transgender people grow up as gender neutral.

I just think what they're doing is pointless really.

May 29, 2011#56

Norris

Mathias said:
Be what it wants? It's not like it really has a choice. If it's got a nutsack, I'm pretty sure it's on the fast track to being male. Unless the kid grows up and realizes that he's transgender, but I very much doubt that most transgender people grow up as gender neutral.

Again, they are allowing the child to follow whatever he or she prefers rather than allowing friends and relatives to load them up with gender-specific toys and clothes. They are not forcing the child to live in a gender neutral environment. They disallowing gender-specific items but instead allowing items considered to both genders.

You're also confusing sex, which is what your organs are, with gender, which is what society says people with those organs are supposed to do and how they should behave. There are those who would argue, in my opinion rightly, that there are aspects of our culture's views on gender that are harmful to both sexes and all sexualities. However...

Mathias said:
I just think what they're doing is pointless really.

I agree with the above because this isn't actually gonna change shit in that regard.

May 30, 2011#57

@Li3n

Mathias said:
Be what it wants? It's not like it really has a choice. If it's got a nutsack, I'm pretty sure it's on the fast track to being male. Unless the kid grows up and realizes that he's transgender, but I very much doubt that most transgender people grow up as gender neutral.

Seeing how their oldest kid likes pink i'm guessing that's more what they're going for, and not actually making the kid go against hormones and sexual preferences etc.

Mathias said:
I just think what they're doing is pointless really.

Probably.

But it would be interesting to see how much it works and how much they'll influence the kids choices anyway...
Added at: 07:03

Norris said:
You're also confusing sex, which is what your organs are, with gender, which is what society says people with those organs are supposed to do and how they should behave.

Just to point out, that definition of gender is not that old, and outside psychology or whatnot isn't any more valid then equalling it to biological sex (especially since her/him, he/she etc where used to refer to biological sex exclusively for quite a while there).

May 30, 2011#58

Mathias

Norris said:
Again, they are allowing the child to follow whatever he or she prefers rather than allowing friends and relatives to load them up with gender-specific toys and clothes. They are not forcing the child to live in a gender neutral environment. They disallowing gender-specific items but instead allowing items considered to both genders.

You're also confusing sex, which is what your organs are, with gender, which is what society says people with those organs are supposed to do and how they should behave. There are those who would argue, in my opinion rightly, that there are aspects of our culture's views on gender that are harmful to both sexes and all sexualities. However...

I agree with the above because this isn't actually gonna change shit in that regard.

Their child is 4 months old. It has NO choices. They are indeed forcing a gender neutral environment on their kid.

Why it seems weird:

Human's have been assigning gender roles since male homo habilis started making fire and tools to hunt, while the females reared the children. I don't understand it when people fight the what our species has developed since we were considered the human species, divergent from apes. Hell, even apes assign gender roles, especially Gorillas. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole complete and total equality stance that progressives do. Little boys play with certain things, and little girls with others. This is imposed by society because well... it pretty much defines our history as a species.

I'm not saying they shouldn't explore things for themselves though. There's nothing wrong with being curious about what the other gender plays with i.e. boys playing house with dolls. Ultimately, children's play mimics what their fundamental gender role is in society which stems back to our ape ancestors and breeding. Males compete for female mating rights (hunting, providing ext...), and females bear and raise children. My major argument against what these parents are doing is that their kid will figure things out for itself when it has the ability to do so. All they should do is be loving and encouraging parents for when that time comes. Right now, if Star is a boy, they should obviously treat him as such.

There are some things men can do that women can't do as well, and visa versa. Why are these parents ultimately doing this? To reassure themselves as being against the status quo; nothing more. What's this all boil down to? What's the point? Do they want to seem gay/transgender supportive?

I mean if you're gay, you're gay. Same with transgender. What do gender roles as a child have to do with it? I could argue that they're promoting gender stereotypes by confusing their child. Ultimately they're using their kid as a sociological statement/experiment. I'm just glad they won't be able to keep up this charade for very much longer.
Added at: 08:28

GasBandit said:
"Storm" is going to be Buffalo Bill when Storm grows up.

Little Storm's all grown up.

Look! He's being gender neutral!

May 30, 2011#59

Hailey Knight

Mathias said:
Their child is 4 months old. It has NO choices. They are indeed forcing a gender neutral environment on their kid.

Why it seems weird:

Human's have been assigning gender roles since male homo habilis started making fire and tools to hunt, while the females reared the children. I don't understand it when people fight the what our species has developed since we were considered the human species, divergent from apes. Hell, even apes assign gender roles, especially Gorillas. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole complete and total equality stance that progressives do. Little boys play with certain things, and little girls with others. This is imposed by society because well... it pretty much defines our history as a species.

I'm not saying they shouldn't explore things for themselves though. There's nothing wrong with being curious about what the other gender plays with i.e. boys playing house with dolls. Ultimately, children's play mimics what their fundamental gender role is in society which stems back to our ape ancestors and breeding. Males compete for female mating rights (hunting, providing ext...), and females bear and raise children. My major argument against what these parents are doing is that their kid will figure things out for itself when it has the ability to do so. All they should do is be loving and encouraging parents for when that time comes. Right now, if Star is a boy, they should obviously treat him as such.

There are some things men can do that women can't do as well, and visa versa. Why are these parents ultimately doing this? To reassure themselves as being against the status quo; nothing more. What's this all boil down to? What's the point? Do they want to seem gay/transgender supportive?

I mean if you're gay, you're gay. Same with transgender. What do gender roles as a child have to do with it? I could argue that they're promoting gender stereotypes by confusing their child. Ultimately they're using their kid as a sociological statement/experiment. I'm just glad they won't be able to keep up this charade for very much longer.
!

Now all that I can agree with.

Especially the "pointless" part. Which is why I don't understand people's screaming and flailing arms and overreacting.

May 30, 2011#60

Mathias

I'm not screaming. I just think they're morons. Plain and simple.

May 30, 2011#61

Krisken

Thread Llama rating, of 5.

May 30, 2011#62

Hailey Knight

Mathias said:
I'm not screaming. I just think they're morons. Plain and simple.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about much of the first page and some posts on this one treating this like an atrocity. Yours was the reasoned argument.

I can name names and point fingers at the people whose posts came off as "won't somebody please think of the children!" but I think everyone can figure out who those were and maybe gauge on a 1-10 scale how much they were overreacting.

May 30, 2011#63

Krisken

I already told you, it's a scale of 5.

May 31, 2011#64

@Li3n

Mathias said:
Human's have been assigning gender roles since male homo habilis started making fire and tools to hunt, while the females reared the children. I don't understand it when people fight the what our species has developed since we were considered the human species, divergent from apes. Hell, even apes assign gender roles, especially Gorillas. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the whole complete and total equality stance that progressives do. Little boys play with certain things, and little girls with others. This is imposed by society because well... it pretty much defines our history as a species.

Somehow i don't think gorillas would have a preference for pink or blue depending on their sex...

May 31, 2011#65

LittleSin

Random fact: Before the 1940's pick was a boy colour and pale blue was a considered a girls colour.

See, red was consdiered the colour of Christ and blue the colour of the Virgin Mary. White itself was attributed to innocence, thus children. The mixture of those colours made them true childrens colours.

It was only with the advent of mass prduction clothing and toys that the colours made the switch.

The more you know!

May 31, 2011#66

Green_Lantern

LittleSin said:
Random fact: Before the 1940's pick was a boy colour and pale blue was a considered a girls colour.

See, red was consdiered the colour of Christ and blue the colour of the Virgin Mary. White itself was attributed to innocence, thus children. The mixture of those colours made them true childrens colours.

It was only with the advent of mass prduction clothing and toys that the colours made the switch.

The more you know!

It is almost if colors are just fractions of the light spectrum and devoid of meaning until you give it to them!

May 31, 2011#67

Hailey Knight

Green_Lantern said:
It is almost if colors are just fractions of the light spectrum and devoid of meaning until you give it to them!

Shut your fucking mouth or I'm gonna go all rainbow children's rightful upbringing on your ass.

May 31, 2011#68

sixpackshaker

Pink is what the edges of a carnation is, not the color. The color used to be rose.

Jun 1, 2011#69

Dei

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...aks+gender+parenting+media/4857577/story.html

Dear crazy lady, maybe if you don't want to deal with an internet shit storm, you shouldn't tell the media all about your life.

Jun 1, 2011#70

@Li3n

LittleSin said:
Random fact: Before the 1940's pick was a boy colour and pale blue was a considered a girls colour.

Heh...

Jun 1, 2011#71

Azurephoenix

Dei said:
Dear crazy lady, maybe if you don't want to deal with an internet shit storm, you shouldn't tell the media all about your life.

I can't like this enough...

Jun 1, 2011#72

Mathias

@Li3n said:
Somehow i don't think gorillas would have a preference for pink or blue depending on their sex...

<whoosh> missed the point again.

Jun 2, 2011#73

figmentPez

LittleSin said:
Random fact: Before the 1940's pick was a boy colour and pale blue was a considered a girls colour.

See, red was consdiered the colour of Christ and blue the colour of the Virgin Mary. White itself was attributed to innocence, thus children. The mixture of those colours made them true childrens colours.

It was only with the advent of mass prduction clothing and toys that the colours made the switch.

The more you know!

And yet, oddly, there is a “a robust, cross-cultural sex difference in color preference,” in that men dislike pink while women favor it. “Biological Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference,” Current Biology, August 200 as reported by Popular Science. Girls like pink, and it's not just our culture. Both genders like blue, though.

Jun 2, 2011#74

AmazingP

That this so-called experiment generated such kind of attention both from common people and of course the media speaks volume of the kind of divide happening right now in our society.

While I am for the equal treatment and development of both genders -- whether male or female or those in between-- I think we should also recognized the fact that as humans we have our own sexual identity which should have been properly nurtured and not to be discarded.

As to what this experiment might result into, nobody can be sure. I hope that the child will never be confused when he/she is already an adult. Equality does not mean being blind.

Jun 4, 2011#75

Adammon

Sexual identity != gender

Jun 8, 2011#76

@Li3n

Mathias said:
<whoosh> missed the point again.

Nope, you did when you skimmed the articles and missed the part about their previous kids wearing pink and braided hair while still disliking it when someone thinks they're girls...

AmazingP said:
As to what this experiment might result into, nobody can be sure. I hope that the child will never be confused when he/she is already an adult.

Yes, because our society doesn't raise kids that end up sexually confused anyway...

The only question is how accepting society will be of him/her. I see way more problems caused by that then by what the parents are doing.

AmazingP said:
Equality does not mean being blind.

Jun 8, 2011#77

Ravenpoe

Alright, this discussion has gone on too long without this being posted.

Jun 8, 2011#78

Chad Sexington

Ravenpoe said:
Alright, this discussion has gone on too long without this being posted.

Are you kidding me? I posted this on the first page! It's the third post in the thread! WHY AM I SO IGNORED

LIFEISPAIN

Jun 8, 2011#79

@Li3n

Don't worry, no one checks the 1st page once the thread id past it.

Jun 8, 2011#80

Chad Sexington

@Li3n said:
Don't worry, no one checks the 1st page once the thread id past it.

My version was even better, it was neat animated video and... I just... feel so... unappreciated. *sobs and collapses into the fetal position*

Jul 13, 2011#81

@Li3n

And now the swedes totally steal the idea: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419

Jul 13, 2011#82

North_Ranger

@Li3n said:
And now the swedes totally steal the idea: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14038419

It's "hän", not "hen", and "Jukka", not "Yukka", you goddamn tea-sipping sheep-shafters! /rant

This seems awfully funny to me, otherwise... especially when it sounds like the people running that place think other kindergartens are discriminatory when it comes to kids and their gender. Hell, I remember playing with dolls in kindergarten, and I remember girls playing with toy trucks and cars as much as the boys did. So in that sense it sounds like they're just doing what everyone else does, except they try to garner attention with this whole "gender neutral" title.

Of course, this is in Sweden so what the hell do I know?

Jul 13, 2011#83

@Li3n

North_Ranger said:
It's "hän", not "hen", and "Jukka", not "Yukka", you goddamn tea-sipping sheep-shafters! /rant

Welcome to the post Tower of Babel world...

Forums