That’s how the author of the article characterized it, but when I read the actual quote, the sentiment from the parent seems quite different to me (and seems pretty reasonable, actually, IMO).
This is a warning for personal insults. Telling other posters to shove things up their ass is not appropriate for this forum. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Most of us are discussing what’s in this thread, for which we should read this thread (and possibly, but not necessarily, the content of the links in this thread). It’s also possible to comment on the article, in which case one should read the article (and possibly, but not necessarily, the contents of the links in the article). And so ad infinitum.
If you feel that any of my posts have crossed the line for GD, I would urge you to report them. If it bothers you to see me laugh at idiots, well, we all have our non-gender specific cross to bear.
You think it’s reasonable to be surprised when the latest progressive theories about parenting clash with experience? You don’t have children, IIRC. If and when you do, you’ll find out.
Regards,
Shodan
The problem is that the commentary in the thread by people who haven’t read the article is tending heavily toward the super-ignorant. This isn’t an issue about which folks have much background knowledge, and the suppositions people are making are wrong.
Thanks for the urging–I’m happy to do so! Unfortunately, content-free vapidity has a long tradition of being on the right side of the line in Great Debates. Fortunately, there’s a remedy: calling it out for the contemptible foolishness it is.
I am availing myself of that remedy :).
I don’t think you’re following my meaning – I don’t believe the actual quote from the parents supports the author’s assertion they were surprised their child took social cues from the wider world. I think the author was incorrect in the way they described the words of the parents as “they were surprised…”.
What exactly is “hostile” about my summary? It is accurate and sums up the essence of the people interviewed in the article. It’s not as if I cherry picked a quote or two that only appear extreme when taken out of context. My personal opinion is relegated to the second paragraph to make it clear that it’s just my personal take on the subject and not objective fact. What, should I have been laudatory of their parenting style in order for you to not perceive it as hostile?
I agree that it’s ignorant to comment on the article without reading it, and I do wish those that didn’t simply didn’t bother commenting because if I had intended it to be a general discussion absent of the article’s content I wouldn’t have bothered posting a link to it. But you seem to overlook the commenters who did in fact read it thoroughly and are also of the opinion that the parents are ridiculous in their approach. So what do you say to them? If everyone didn’t read the article but thought the parents were doing an amazing job based on my summary alone, would you still take umbrage with how they formed their opinions?
Wait, paralyzed people can be smart?! You’ve upended my entire world view!
Also, fascinating to learn that gender identity can be changed by the parents accidentally saying or doing something - totally unconsciously! - that somehow convinces their child that they’re a different gender. What’s really interesting about that is the number of trans people who have reported that their parents engaged in much more overt efforts at getting them to change their gender expression - like, say, beating them with a leather belt - which were ineffective. Apparently, saying that little Timmy looks cute in pink is enough to convince Timmy that he’s really a girl, but beating him so bad he ends up in the hospital can’t change him back.
But summaries are subject to bias and manipulation, so if one is going to form an opinion on the contents of a link, it is really best to go directly to the link first and thoroughly examine the content that is the subject of a thread before making up your mind about it. This is how misinformation spreads.
Great dog name, though!
Deep breath: my admittedly cranky middle-aged self finds this silly. Just dress your baby girl in blue and give her toy trucks; if she identifies as a girly girl in first grade, buy her pink tulle and Barbies – if in third grade she wants to wear workbooks and be called Greg buy her boots and call her Greg. I don’t see how ungendering your kid serves any purpose beyond confusing a child and giving parents street cred in some circles.
Most scientists and gender studies scholars overlap in the belief that gender is a messy affair of intertwined nature and nurture (I teach gender studies). Brain studies, while still in their infancy, have shown that heterosexual male and female brains have some key differences (as do lesbian and hetero women’s brains). Studies also show that nurture might not, in some cases, have as overwhelming an influence as is thought.
TL;DR: challenging gender essentialism is important, but let’s also pay attention to the science.
A lot of children go through a stage, around 2-3, where they are actively trying to work out what sex/gender means. They will ask over and over if they are a boy or a girl, who else is a boy or a girl, and how do you know. It can be difficult to discuss gender in a trans-friendly way with a two year old, so be ready for that.
As far the article goes, if children are born with a gender identity that only they know, that will manifest in time, and misgendering them is hurtful and harmful, it seems really irresponsible to force a gender on them before they are ready. You gain nothing from doing so, and risk causing damage. I think it would be amazing to have a gender-unspecified time in early childhood so we could see what develops. I wonder how long it would go on for. Maybe some children would never choose a gender.
There’s a lot to unpack in that article, and it’s doesn’t help that overly precious terms like “theybys” are just ridiculous and make the entire concept easy to dismiss.
Firstly, as Jennshark mentions, the theory of gender isn’t exactly a settled issue. A lot of people remember that “sex is physical, gender is social” but the whole theory about what gives people their gender identity is just not known. There’s been some science and philosophy on this, like the work of Julia Serrano, but what all of this is isn’t exactly something we know. We do have evidence suggesting gender identity, and even some of the stereotypes associated with genders and sexualities, aren’t just a completely arbitrary social construct, though. This is a good primer video on gender philosophy. Only about 9 minutes
However, the concept of not identifying babies with a gender until they’re old enough to explore their identity isn’t, necessarily, a bad one. We give a lot of credence to the genitals that come at birth (to the point of “correcting” intersex people to fit into a box). Things like gender reveal announcements and gender-coded baby showers and all that are part of that. I’ve seen a lot of transpeople whose parents treat them like a doll, whose gender is super important to them and that they’re not the same kid anymore which just isn’t true. A big part of that is parents just act like all of those gender reveals and stuff are just being rejected by the child, and thus they’re rejecting all the celebration the parent did for the child.
There’s nothing wrong, and a lot right, with allowing kids to grow up relatively neutrally and let them self-identify wherever on the spectrum they want as they get a better view. Though parents liable to do this stuff probably weren’t going to be a problem if the kid was trans anyway. Still, if it ever becomes a social norm, that’s a good thing.
FORCING a kid to be nonbinary is kind of sick though, it’s basically just another type of gender assignment and since it’s so uncommon it’s also tantamount to treating your kid as a science experiment.
They should just move to Hungary, as Hungarian doesn’t have gendered pronouns. Gender neutrality in genderless languages - Wikipedia
On the other hand, whole lotta reasons to avoid Hungary right now.
These are parents who will show up on the first day of school registration with their attorney in tow so that they can file a lawsuit immediately because there are not gender-neutral bathrooms in the Pre-K and kindergarten areas of the school.
Buying into this mindset completely means that the only acceptable name would be the word They. One can envision a classroom of 26 children where 9 of them are named They.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We all know where this is headed. The parents of several four year olds will be sitting around having conversations about how adorable it is that their children got caught playing " gender-neutral medical exploration. "
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I’m not sure whether you’re addressing a hypothetical or if you’re talking about something in the article. Nobody in the article that I saw was forcing a kid to be nonbinary in any meaningful sense–i.e., nobody was punishing a kid for expressing a gendered identity. They just weren’t telling the kid which if any gender identity to adopt, letting the kid make their own decision.
“They” isn’t a name, it’s a pronoun. We routinely have classes of 26 children where 13 or more of them are “he” or “she.”
And kids are well-known for making good decisions.
Are you really attempting to argue that kids can’t be trusted to determine their own gender identity? Their parents have to tell them whether they’re a boy or a girl, or else they’d get it wrong?
Do you also believe that kids need their parents to tell them whether their sexual orientation is heterosexual or homosexual, for instance?
Furthermore, I don’t see why it would be a problem or a “bad decision” even if some small children did initially select a gender identity that they later changed their minds about. The gender identity of babies and toddlers is such a minor issue anyway that they were traditionally referred to in English by the indefinite neuter pronoun “it”. If little Pat comes to pre-K claiming to be a girl one month and a boy the next, who the hell cares? Why not just let Pat develop a definite, consistent, persistent gender identity on Pat’s own schedule, just as Pat will eventually do with sexual orientation?
To clarify, I personally hold no brief for the policy of deliberately maintaining parental neutrality on the issue of a child’s gender identity, which I think would probably boil down mostly to fussy behavior policing that’s more trouble than it’s worth. But I’m thoroughly unconvinced that there’s any reason to think that such neutrality would be intrinsically bad for the child.