Yes, parents should teach tolerance. That is a better cause to go after than attempting to change gender roles at this point. That doesn't make me think these parents are less dumb for doing this.

Read through most of this stuff, kinda see where payne's coming from, although imo, it just seems like most of the time you're using the whole "why not" kinda response as an argument, which really doesnt work.

Cardinal had a lot of good points, but when you look at it, it moves into something very deep. Basically, if the parents raise their children apart from societal norms, their children will most likely be fucked in the real world. Truly, you can't really argue with that in a good way. Society is judgng and generally shuns those who are away from the norms, more based on how severely they are removed from those norms. Yeah, the kids may gravitate towards society's way once their hormones kick in more, but still, they way they act or dress may still set them up as social pariahs.

You could argue that society doesnt need social stigmas on gender, and that what these parents are doing is justified by that, and you may be right. But looking at it from a real-world perspective, society will not change its view on gender roles. They have existed pretty much since the dawn of humanity and will continue on. Why? Because there IS a difference between mena nd women. Not just because society puts those differences int here but because biologically and psychologically, they are different.

Society will always have these roles, and crossing these roles will cause you to be removed from society, hurting you later on in life. You think they're going to be able to find jobs when they go into a workplace and cross those barriers? People will freak out. You wont last long, and even if you do put up a front during work, it's still going to be difficult to have any social life.

Basically, while it may be nice to say that philosophically that what they're doing is right by breaking social stigmas, and that if everyone adopted it the world would be a better place, it isn't practical at all. The kids are still going to have a hard time because society doesnt change. In this regard, i see that the parent's are in the wrong. Setting your child up for a potentially crappy life from the get-go is irresponsible. It's almost as if their kids are test subjects in a big sociological experiment, at least to me it looks that way.

Also, un-schooling is absolutely retarded. The potential for the kids to discover something and lose all of their interest in learning is too great imo. I'd need to see some proof that they're actually being prepared correctly for what they may face in the job market or the future with that sort of education. I'd need good statistics (i.e. not those home-schooled statistics that don't even consider the sociological implications of the process to begin with) and plenty of them.

So we should just acquiesce and go along with it for fear of ridicule and hardship? Since that's the case, we should challenge it even more. Yeah, you just go along pretending that everything will be okay if we just do as society dictates because we're afraid. As far as I'm concerned, disguising this as an argument why not to do it is an intellectual crime. Things don't change by going along with the status quo. Things change by getting attention and making a statement: that you're mad as hell and you aren't going to take it anymore.


We cannot challenge our nature? We challenge viruses with our vaccines and treatments, we challenge genetic defects with cures and knowledge. Just because something is natural does not mean we should go along with it. There will be people pushing back, but they better have a good damn reason, because you'll find plenty of intelligent and resolute people at the forefront staring down their competition. I know more than a few mothers that do not respond well to their child being heckled on this issue, and they'll be vocal, that I can promise you.


I think you underestimate society's opposition. It isn't called the seeds of change without reason.


Society doesn't change? Could you make a more uneducated statement? And crappy life? You mean a life in which they know that they control? Quit fearing change, it isn't a proper argument.


Sir Ken Robinson seems to disagree.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 26 2011, 6:40 am by Sacrieur.

Not sure where that came from, but there's no redefinition of genders' roles in their process at all.


This kind of view refrains the society from progressing. No one should ever comply to it, period.
You say the philosophical view I advocate it impractical? I reply your stagnant view is impractical.
I believe this whole issue about over-passing our prejudices in regards to men wearing pink and such is rather minor (in the sense that it is easy to get over it), and it's only a matter of time before society gets to realize it and surpass it. The only thing it takes is education. This is far from being impractical.

Also, the ideology advocated by the parents isn't about saying men and women are exactly the same: it's pretty clear that for them, penis => male; vulva => female.

This wasnt what i was saying at all, and you're bending my words. I'm not saying that society won't change and that we should just go along due to fear. Society does change, it just takes time, and a certain amount of manpower. A society in which there are only a handful of these people who have this view is not going to change to fulfill their views in their lifetime. Yes, maybe ideologically you should fight it. But is it worth the negative impact on you and your children?
This, again, does not respond to my point actually at all. You can challenge genetic defects and viruses because they are foreign things in our body that cause harm. The way you word it, it sounds like you're saying we should challenge sex, as in the biological and psycological things that differentiate a man and woman. I really dont get what you're going at, and it seems mostly like a crazy way of trying to debunk my argument, while not really giving a good response back.
Yeah, because there's totally no logical reason why gender roles exist. Oh wait, it's called that men and women are inherently different.
Okay, i should have said that it doesnt change in the short run. My bad. As far as fearing change, I don't, and i dont see how you got that from that section. Once again, you're almost attempting to debunk my argument with random rabblings, which dont really help or further the argument.
I understand what you're getting at, but there are much better ways of getting to it than through un-schooling. Okay, look at it this way. Kant had this thing called the categorical imperitive (at least if i remmeber correctly it was kant) which was flawed in some ways but worked wonders in ethics at the same time. It says that for you to determine if something is right, you have to apply it universally. Think about unschooling in this way. If everyone was unchooled, what would the world be like? How many people do you think would willingly take the time to learn physical and organic chemistry in order to develop new fibers and such to further society? I doubt many. The free-reign way of doign things has proved in many experiments to not work. There are better ways imo to allow creative freedom and still teach what needs to be taught.

And please, stop trying to debunk arguments using strange tactics that dont further the actual argument.

EDIT:
Dealing in absolutes is always dangerous (lol kinda an oxymoron).
Examples? I can't really seem to get what you mean. Practicality basically refers to how easily it is applied. The philosophical view that, in a way, society should change, is much more difficult than the view that they should just conform themselves. For every one of them, there are millions that are already rooted in their views that aren't going to change for them instantaneously.
I think that view is kind of naive (no offense). You know how difficult it is for people to let go of their views? Even with education, i dont see gender roles going away any time soon, because it's something that is based off of an actual concrete difference. The reason civil rights did not work the same way was that the physical and psychological differences were not the basis of the roles, but was based more on prejudice.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 26 2011, 7:05 am by ShredderIV.

No one ever argued against the fact that men and women are inherently different. The parents aren't trying to mix both genders, god damnit, they are simply trying to remove the useless restrictions such as "boys shouldn't wear pink clothing".

There must always be martyrs.

EDIT:
On a related note: http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html

He was responding to my argument about gender roles, and why they exist in the first place. I understand what the parents are attempting to do.
This is basically my point. Why make your own children martyrs. I get the whole thing from a philosophical viewpoint; trying to change society, start of an avalanche kinda thing, but from a parental viewpoint, i wouldn't want my kids to have to go through the ridicule and such that they may face, thus answering the original question, of "do you agree with the decisions of the parents".

"Please stop picking holes in my poorly reasoned conclusions."

If this is so, then he should have shown me those poor reasons and actually responded to my argument with a counterpoint that related to what i was actually saying.

...what? Isn't the whole point that they want to avoid the prejudice set by society's gender roles hoping that one day they can live in a world where such rules don't exist? That seems to be what you've been advocating this whole time. So not sure why you don't know where that came from.

That would be a gender role, for example.

Really? Language barrier got me there I guess.

It's not like the kid will get rocks thrown at him.
It'll just increase the intolerance-cases encounter rate, and that is, only if his choices are indeed to wear pink as a boy or such.

Incidentally unschooling can work with some kids, but the majority of kids require more structured learning. I know one family which was essentially unschooled and their kids are all pretty motivated to learn and be good workers and such. I also know that unschooling would NOT have worked with my family and me particularly. Standard structured homeschooling worked out pretty well in my family's case though

I think a lot of people in this thread are getting their terminology mixed up.

Sex: genitalia you are born with, based on your genetics. Eg XY or XX (ignoring all the abnormalities like XXY etc)
Gender: your social identity, how you choose to express yourself. Usually this is based strongly around your sex, but it doesn't have to be.

This family are allowing Storm to choose its gender. Jazz has chosen a gender identity that has many elements and characteristics of typical of the female gender, but prefers if people called him a boy.

Transgendered people are those who are born a particular sex, but identify very strongly with the opposite gender, to the point where many of them will live their lives as the opposite gender, and some will get sex re-assignment surgery so that their sex organs and physical body characteristics (breasts, adams apple removable, etc) match their gender identity.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

Lol it was the same as the old communism standard. Boys were told to grow out there hair and girls told to keep their hair short.
I think that non gender specific helps to keep the level of vanity way down, of course theirs very negative consequences to this. Like how do you ask a girl out to the dance if half the boys looks like girls.

Yes i believe that is the correct term; saying that genitalia determines your gender. This of course to me is purely scientific, whatever gender you want to be in my eyes really determines the gender. (I'm not trying to argue with you here its just that English is a stupid language )


This statement i strongly agree with calling someone transgenders just infers that they at on point had the genitalia of a opposite gender.
(From Tim to Kim <-- Link to article about youngest trans-gender) Adding on to this statement i find it amazing that people would want to voultiary do this (Eunuch) These people are called Eunuch, this use to be more popular when it was necessary for certain jobs I.e. no penis means no impregnating the emperor daughter.

A lot of people are missing the point that this child is <1 year old. Just going to throw that out there. And to reinstate my argument, what benefit does this bring at such a young age? Gender and ultimate sexuality are inconceivable to a child, yet that is the primary reason for people deciding to change gender. Those parents aren't doing any favours for their kid. It's media attention whoring at it's absolute worst (same goes for that 'pop singer' Tempz linked to).

The parents should raise the kid as a male or female, and then let it decide on its own what it wants to be (later in life).

Young children actually absorb a hell of a lot of knowledge about the world as they grow up. A lot more than most people give them credit for.

Being introduced to everyone as a 'boy', and being routinely exposed to society's idea of the male gender pretty much is indoctrination into going with society's established gender roles. Evidently these parents see that as something they want to avoid (not necessarily a problem, they just want different). I think for most kids this probably won't 'harm' them, except to the extent it results in ridicule from others.

Certainly if the child actually is genderqueer or gender questioning, being raised in such a fashion is likely to be extremely beneficial for them, as often genderqueer people have huge self-esteem and identity issues as a result of the conditioning they've been subjected to their entire lives that the way they think and feel is 'wrong' based on what's between their legs. It's similar to the problems that many homosexual/bi people have (I never did) where they feel rejected by society, but generally genderqueer people are even less accepted and have a much harder time - even the gay community can be quite dismissive and unaccepting of trans and genderqueer people. In (very) crude terms (that probably a lot of people would object to), homosexual is more about what you do, whereas genderqueer is about who you are.

Children do absorb a lot but its what they do with it that counts, I'd assume that over 99 percent of kids keep their gender.

To me the 1 percent of gender-queer is half conditioning and half interest for the idea. As children adore anything new they take the idea and blow it up.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 27 2011, 1:41 am by Tempz.

Yeah, people are just "interested" in the idea and so "choose" to subject themselves to a lifetime of being side-lined and excluded from society as a freak, just like gay people "choose" to be gay.

You're also making it out like kids hear about the idea of being genderqueer and then go "hey, that sounds like fun, why don't I do that?" which is just moronic. Genderqueer people grow up feeling strange and different, and usually only in their teens, or for some when they're adults, do they actually find out what they're going through happens to other people to, and that there is an umbrella term for it.

I really think you have *no idea* what you're talking about.

Well i stated that 99 percent of people will keep the gender, I'm sorry i made it sound like "hey that sounds like fun,"

When i stated that it was half gender-queer and half conditioning i was talking about the 1 percent of people...

I know exactly what you meant. And you're still wrong.