“Fault” is of little consolation.
If someone amputates my hands because he hates my race, the fault is his. The person missing the use of hands, is me.
And we’re not talking about allowing a kid to go to school in a dress if he wants to. We’re talking about parents who decided that they like the idea of allowing their kid to pick his or her own gender, and so they’re going out of their way to avoid gendering said kid. It seems needlessly complex and if anything, they run the risk of enforcing gender roles. Just in case the kid might be trans?
Some seem to be seriously dedicated to erasing gender from the world:
Old MacDonald? It’s just a dumb song. Handing out cards?
Look at it this way: by putting so much emphasis on NOT gendering the kid, they’re really not much different than those they complain about, the ones they feel put too MUCH emphasis on gender. There’s no such thing as the excluded middle anymore.
I’ve been giving this thread (and this issue) some thought…
a) The whole transgender / nonbinary rejection of “biological sex is gender, period, end of story”, that whole rejection of biological essentialism, kind of depends on it not mattering what you’ve got betwixt your legs. If it doesn’t matter, then it need not be kept a secret, nor should there need to be an avoidance of referencing what’s down there.
The necessary disclaimer here — and the important thing to acknowledge with these ‘parents of theybies’ — is that in a social/cultural context where there are a boatload of assumptions and interpretations foisted onto people based on their biological sexual equipment, then the only obvious way to avoid that unwanted foisting is to keep the biological sex unknown.
But like affirmative action, it’s a patch, a fix that only makes sense in the context of something being already, historically, wrong.
b) The argument gets made by critics and detractors that this subjects the children to inappropriate and potentially destructive experiences, all in the name of social experimentation. This isn’t a single argument, though, it’s a set of different ones that all end up in the same conclusion-area. There are some people who are saying this because they think it is natural and important for children to get gendered — to be treated as either boys or girls and to learn what it means to be a boy or a girl. The people making this argument are taking the diametrically opposite viewpoint from the “theybies parents”.
Then there are people who are saying this because they visualize a few children being kept ignorant of their own biological classification, growing up in a world where other children aren’t being kept in the dark. If that’s what the “theybies parents” intend, that does indeed reek of “we know what’s best for you, baby, your ignorance is a blessing”, and I can certainly see this as a worrisome and heavy-handed social experiment.
Then there are people who say this because they visualize a few children being kept ignorant and unexposed to the social fact that most people are indeed treated differently depending on their sex. This is a more complicated and nuanced area than trying to keep kids oblivious about their biological classification. It reminds me of the question of whether minority parents should raise their kids as blissfully unaware of racism and bigotry as possible, so that they aren’t tainted by it, or if they should raise their kids to be savvy of the world’s racist bigoted nastiness so that they aren’t caught unprepared and vulnerable when they finally have to confront it.
c) Looking at it tactically — since it’s being looked at both as a “least restrictive way to raise your kids” tactic and as a “let’s change the world by uprooting its gendered assumptions” tactic — the end point certainly cannot be that gender neutrality is attained by keeping people unaware of other people’s biological configuration. That’s not sustainable; it depends on a lot of body coverage. You couldn’t do this and also be naturists (nudists), and in fact you’d end up needing gunnysacks and burqas. It would be difficult to keep the attempt from being tainted by body-shame and the notion that this physical secret was somehow sinful or socially unmentionable or taboo.
I think it works better as a thought experiment than as an actual endeavor.
Many boys are known to be ‘boys’ among their peers. What a stigma they must suffer! Girls? Many people know they are ‘girls’ and even call them that to their face. The horror! The horror!
These theybies, though, can proudly tell their schoolchums that they’re genderless! What could go wrong?
[sarcasm off] Everyday when I read my SDMB feed I am amazed at how amok political correctness has gone in the U.S. I’m reluctant to click to other sites and news feeds for fear they may even be worse. It’s all this astonishingly idiotic post-rational ideology that leads to the backlash that made Donald Trump’s election possible.
(And sure enough; whenever a new guest appears at SDMB with a message like “I voted for Hillary but can’t get 100% on board with p.c. extremism” the response is always, in effect, “Just vote for Trump, you racist sexist scum!!”)
I just don’t get this. So some hipster doofus in Park Slope does something. So what? How does that affect you?
Did you not read the second sentence?
Why are the kids going to pay a horrible price for it? Explain, Doc.
I read that, but if that’s your diagnosis, then you don’t come anywhere close to understanding the entire field of psychiatry. It’s like saying, “They need medical help, because they don’t enjoy watching soccer.” Or, “That house needs a plumber, because it’s painted green.”
Well, it’s not unusual for people to use “that person needs to see a psychiatrist” as a way of saying “that person needs to be locked up so the rest of us don’t have to deal with their fuckery”, with a complete lack of interest or belief in some specific neurological malfunction going on.
And if we were sitting around on bar stools, three sheets to the wind, that’d be a reasonable shooting-the-shit way to talk. In Great Debates, when we’re trying to figure out the ramifications of something like this, it’s a dumb thing to say. (Especially when the person saying it, IIRC, advocates a child-rearing philosophy that emphasizes corporal punishment and authoritarianism as a way of keeping children in their place).
That it’s a dumb thing to say is sort of a given. But point taken.
It’s not about consolation. It’s about fixing the problem. The solution is not that I should somehow change the color of my skin, but that we as a society should stop people who amputate people’s hands for racist reasons.
Similarly, the solution to children being bullied for “incorrect” gender signaling is not that you should force your kid to conform to gender expectations, but to stop the bullies.
Hence the claim that the parent has done something wrong is incorrect. The parent is themselves choosing not to be one of those bullies.
It’s not bigoted. It’s just out of touch and little-c conservative. It’s authoritarian in its own way: How dare these people practice their beliefs that are different than mine that don’t harm me in any way!
Based on what we know about gender, this whole thing is largely a waste of time. It’s not like this is a new concept. But, hey, if the parents want to do this, I can’t see any way it really harms the child. And I don’t think it really is a privilege issue as long as they don’t attack other people for not doing the same thing.
They can parent their kids how they want. They are at least trying to solve a real world problem, and, unlike other situations, they aren’t really harming anyone. There is no evidence that raising a kid in this way is harmful, either.
Again, I think it’s a waste of time, because gender identity is a real thing. If you want to do this, it’s better to counter the messages they will inherently get, rather than try to prevent them from receiving them. Sheltering your kids rarely works out well.
But I don’t begrudge these people for trying. Only maybe a little bit for not researching to find out how this has not worked in the past.
That’s… not how this works. I’ve heard from multiple transmasculine people that, in terms of their brain chemistry, staying on their meds is the only thing that stops testosterone from essentially poisoning their brains. Their mental health suffers immensely when they are off their meds, and not just because they look less feminine, but because they feel wrong, like they’re in the wrong body in substantial ways.
Oh sure, that’s a given. It’s the small minority that doesn’t that will likely be helped by this.
I’m quite sure the parents are aware of this.
You know nothing about gender dysphoria and even less about the experience of being trans. Everything you just said was completely wrong.
Well, when it comes to the decision of “what’s my internal representation of myself”, I welcome you to point to anyone else qualified to make that decision. Maybe a really good hypnotist, or someone with access to the vulcan mind meld. (Note: this user does not actually know what the hell a vulcan mind meld is.)
Imagine if I told you that you liked carrots. Without any information from you whether you liked it or not. I decided that your decision on whether or not you liked carrots - not whether you should eat them, or whether they’re good for you, or whether you’re vitamin A deficient, but whether you personally enjoyed eating them -was irrelevant, and you like carrots. You’d probably think I was fucking crazy, right? I mean, maybe if you were saying “I hate carrots” and I’d previously seen you present at the “We all really love carrots” club drinking a carrot martini and munching on one, but just out of the blue? I have no access to your mind. I cannot tell you whether or not you like carrots.
Gender’s a bit like that.
I’d bet good money given a decent cohort that these kids end up better-adjusted on average than kids raised by christian fundamentalists in a similar economic milieu.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider reading the article. Let’s just say I did not expect this kind of response from you, of all people.
Transmasculine people who consider testosterone a poison?
Seems unlikely.
Transfeminine. Mea culpa. :o
Who said anything about psychiatry? I said it is child abuse. And to me, anyone who would abuse a child ain’t wired up right. No shrinks needed to determine that.
You’ve been a member of this forum for about 3/4ths of my total lifespan, and still you think this qualifies as a rational, thought-out response worthy of Great Debates?
Why, you did:
Bolding mine. :dubious:
I don’t think this is necessarily a good idea either, but I don’t think it amounts to child abuse, per se. I’m guessing the kid will be fine, I think this is simply the parents throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Kids may not be miniature adults, but they’re not stupid. At worst, I’m guessing Zoomer will be some crunchie-granola hippie type. (With a name you’d give a dog)
Child abuse? That’s stretching it.
What’s abusive about the behavior described in the article? Loving parents are caring for their children like any other loving parents, and accepting the child’s own gender identification once the child expresses it.
I don’t see anything abusive about calling your child “they” until the child decides that they prefer “he” or “she”. Do you think that children won’t figure out their own gender identity if their parents don’t tell them?
As I asked Shodan earlier, do you also think that parents ought to be deciding for their children what their sexual orientation is, as well as their gender identity? What’s wrong with just letting children be children and figure out their own identities on their own schedule?
Like I said, I think being pioneers of early childhood gender neutrality is largely unworkable in a practical sense for other reasons, i.e., because it necessarily involves so much behavior policing of the rest of the world. But there’s a hell of a difference between “impractical” and “abusive”.