http://www.thestar.com/article/995112

Do you agree with the decisions of the parents?

I personally think not imposing gender determinism to the child is a very good "progressive" and open-minded decision, and if I was to have a child, I most likely would try to apply it.
However, in regards to what they call "unschool", I am not quite sure about it. Interest in science comes after being forced to study it a bit I believe. After 2 generations, we'd probably see a huge gap in scientific progresses.

I agree with this statement:

I think what the parents are doing is dumb, personally. They seem to think they are giving the kid freedom to be whatever gender he or she wants to be, but people have been associating with a specific gender other than their actual one for years without the need for such secrecy. On top of that, without an operation, the kid can't exactly be whatever gender he or she wants if the body parts don't fit the bill.

I guess what I don't understand is why they need to keep the gender a secret, as the kid could associate with whatever gender he or she wants regardless. They say that this way the kid can have long hair if he or she wants, but how is that related to keeping the gender hidden? I had long hair for a while. We all remember FaRTy's epic long hair. Just seems like such an odd justification. Really it seems like they want to be known as those parents who tried to be neo-hippies and change the world rather than actually care about giving their kid freedom.

I'm not sure how we can argue that they are indeed imposing their political and ideological view.
In regards to keeping the gender secret, it's to prevent the child from being treated by other according to this gender I guess.

Yes, how dare the parents impose their silly ideology on their child. As a patriots and loyal Americans they should raise their children into the gender roles designated by our great society.

You parents are really dumb. For real.

Boys and girls choose who they want to be regardless of what gender they are. I know girls who are uber aggressive gamers who go hunting and guys who like to go shopping and do arts and crafts. It has nothing to do with the way a child is born or raised. Most girls gravitate towards feminine things, and boys gravitate towards more masculine things. Why is it that women can wear pants, but guys aren't supposed to wear dresses? I personally wouldn't wear dresses, but that's just because I don't think anyone should have to wear them. Jeans are comfortable, sturdy, and look good on everyone.

These parents are just conducting some stupid social experiment with their children. They actually encourage their sons to do things against what boys typically do, and then call it letting the children make decisions.

Are you suggesting they are or they aren't? The main reason why I can agree with the idea that this act is them imposing their own beliefs is because they have no idea what the kid wants. They assume that the kid would be happy to be able to choose his or her gender and live how he or she wants, but it doesn't quite work that way at such a young age. For all we know, the kid could grow up confused and angry because of what the parents did. I completely agree that the kid could get mocked for it as well. I understand why they think this is a good thing and that they can change the perceptions of the world, but they need to think about this on a smaller scale. Maybe I just identify with the kid too much as I had absolute freedom when I was growing up, and sometimes I don't think that was the best way to raise me.

I understand that, but that's also part of why I think its dumb. The kid will be treated worse for being different than he or she would be otherwise.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 25 2011, 11:07 pm by DevliN.

I guess that's the reason

You think? When people buy toys from Toys'R'Us for a new-born, don't you think they will buy it according to its gender, thus forcing him to play with this toy and only this one? Not to mention Toys'R'Us actually helps customers into identifying what each gender "should" like (pink washing machines and make-up for little girls; guns, trucks and blue stuff for little boys).

You've never heard of the induced determinism based on early-life experiences? It's based off pretty solid observations, and I'm not saying it's "proved" simply because I do not have any evidence to provide.

I'd call that child abuse and take the children away.

This is absurd on so many levels. I feel terribly sorry for that poor kid. Children are both brutally honest and cruel in nature, and I have a sneaking suspicious that the parents know this - and that is why they also practice unschooling. The parents obviously have feelings against the "rote 9 to 3" schooling and education system... But routine and discipline won't be instilled into their children through 'un-schooling' (which I feel is just lazy parenting). And despite the lack of discipline these kids are going to get, how will they socialise with other kids their age?

The whole thing is just beyond contemplation. One messed up family in my opinion. It is easy to instil freedom for your kids, they're going about it in all the wrong ways however.

Edit: just read the rest of the article... I agree with Centreri, get those kids into protection asap.

Really? Protection?

The children are not being mistreated or emotionally abused. Quit your blowing of hot air, can you prove through valid psychological studies that this type of treatment is harmful to the child's development?

Yes and No. The reason children don't particularly identify with any gender is because they haven't developed yet. Once the hormones kick in they will definetly idtentify with a specific gender. Parents who raise their children based on the childs gender are just giving the child a headstart, more or less. If not having a gender specific child is so important, just have them do things that aren't gender specific. Wearing overalls, playing at the park, reading books, get them a puppy. If anything, those boys are just going to feel stupid when they try to go into the womens bathroom because the symbol on the door was a person in a dress.

I don't think this is about how the children will identify themselves once they are older. Of course, they will know that if they have a penis, they are males, and vice versa. What the parents are trying to do is to prevent the child from slipping into this whole "you're a boy, you shouldn't wear pink dress" type of induced thoughts.
By thinking the parents are currently trying to prevent the children from having any gender, you're just proving how incredibly deep this idea of "gender-based determinism" is encrusted in our minds. It's not because a boy wears pink clothes during all his youth that he will think he is a woman.

We could also discuss the relevancy of having unisexual bathrooms.

Common sense has a pretty damn solid argument to the 'morality' of this issue.

1) Your child is going to end up a member of society one day. That society is defined by prefabricated norms and ideals which have accumulated through generation after generation of human life. By choosing to have a genderless child you immediately set yourself apart from the rest of society. Their decision to do so is through their moral and ideological outlook, and quite frankly, radical views on oppression and freedom in the 21st century. I find it ironic how the article mentions that the mother came across the idea of a 'genderless' child while reading a book in her school library - yet in her infinite wisdom, her children are not being sent to school and therefore being deprived of developing that sense of curiosity.

2) Your child has a gender, it is not something you can just hide or refuse. Your child is male or female, there are no other ways to look at it. If your kid decides that she wants to be male instead of female, that decision will come later in life once the actions and choices (of the kids life) have accumulated, resulting in a conscious and thought-out decision being made. By denying your child gender from its birth, it isn't going to know if it should be male, or female - this base confusion is going to cause psychological harm if the child ever feels insecurity, doubt or anxiety - during puberty, relationships and even socialising with others.

3) What advantages does their decision bring to either their family or the life of that kid? Nothing whatsoever. Sure, it's a shining beacon for how to create a progressive world tomorrow by imposing unlimited freedom today... Assuming 'everyone' was raising there kid this way... But they are not, and this child is just going to stick out like a sore thumb wherever it goes.

Look at the picture on the article, read the caption. If you saw that 'brother', you would immediately have doubts as to his sexuality. The reason we have 'blue is for boys' and 'pink is for girls' is because children need affirmation and identity. The first things your child will learn when learning to speak, are what/who people are, and affirmative statements. Such as: "I am a boy", "You are my daddy." etc. Children require this affirmation early in life so they can instinctively 'learn' behavioural cognition through observing similar 'boys' to them. The last thing a child requires during it's most developmental stages is uncertainty, doubt and removal from other same-aged children.

Here's the misconception. The child is not genderless: it's just free from any restrictions imposed by the society related to genders (such as colors, certain manners, certain clothes, etc.). A society rejecting anyone not conforming to this kind of useless and crappy constructivism is just close-minded... which is exactly the case. It's still awesome to see people rage on racists or homophobes and call that they are open-minded and that everyone should be, but can't stand that kind of thing. That's exactly how people were reacting toward blacks before racism became socially unaccepted. It's really just a matter of time before people realize they are wrong; a long time.

We could argue the sense of curiosity is innate. But I'm just being devil's advocate here: I pretty much think you need to be forced to study a minimum of sciences before being able to actually show interest in it.
Let's also not forget that once the child shows interest into something, they advocate an approach of doing anything they can to properly answer the questions of the child.

This, sir, is exactly how people think, and that's what makes this society so pessimistic. It also prevents it from progressing.
Without minorities trying to induce some ideologies to others, nothing new would ever get through the current norms and values.
I hope you realize that. This is a very dangerous way of thinking which directly interferes with possible progress.

In resume, you've got it all wrong. At least, there's hope for you to realize how you've misinterpreted what is actually going. This is not about preventing the child from having any gender.

Why is this a bad thing? Do you need to know someone's sexuality to address them as a person, or to know how to act towards them? I think the cultural imposition of modern gender norms is just idiotic, there's no reason to dychotomize gender into two polar opposites. Treating children differently because they're boys or girls just reinforces the stupid gender stereotypes we have to deal with. We don't need any of the pink/blue garbage, children need an identity that they create for themselves, not one that society imposes on them.

Guess who this is?



Meet President Franklin Roosevelt.

I like Cardinal's post

The gender identity and affirmation early in life is definitely meaningful. There is a reason why that there's an "identity crisis" emerging as a teenager and it's because people are different. I don't see a need for a a child, easily swayed, into confusion over social norms so early in life.

Could it be you currently are implying that wearing skirts, playing with dolls, liking the pink color, and such, helps a little girl to identify itself as part of the "female gender" ? If that's what you mean, then you must understand the parents are doing this exactly to fight against that kind of thought.

Also, thanks to Sacrieur for finding this article: http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/teen-ya/story/2011/05/Gender-stereotypes-easing-more-for-girls-than-boys/46886846/1

EDIT:
Just realized this is a beautiful application of Kantism.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 26 2011, 12:54 am by payne.

I'm going to draw a parallel between this argument of gender-neutrality and the social perceptions thereof, to the case of being born into a religion. Invariably, if your parents are religious, you will be brought up through either parental upbringing or education in the religion you 'belong' to. Is it right for a child who cannot understand religion, or the social perceptions and prejudicies which society hold, to be forcefully thrown into that religion? Of course not, but changing your religion is socially acceptable, whereas changing your gender is not.

I know it is not about preventing the child having a gender, but the entire concept misses the point I am making. Society will judge you, people will judge a book by its covers. Little boys do not play with dolls, because dolls are effeminate and therefore are played with by girls. Conversely, little girls don't play with toy guns and trucks since these are masculine. If you see a mum and dad walking down the street with a child in a pink dress, you immediately think 'its a girl'. Imagine if you knew the mum and dad in question and they were old neighbours of yours from years ago. So you go over and say hi, but on closer inspection the child in the dress is actually a boy. Your mind will formulate notions and judgements about these two parents. Why is their boy dressing like a girl?

My essential argument is that raising a child as 'gender-neutral' creates problems and nothing positive. Essentially it is a rebellious act of non-conformism which serves no immediate or perceivable goal other than separating yourself and your child from society.

In short. Yes. Gender is embedded in our language, therefore communication becomes difficult if you do not know someone's gender. You basically can't use pronouns - which would suck. You need to know someones gender in order to know how to act towards them. If someone offends you and you get violent, you would feel bad if the person you were violent with turned out to be a girl. If someone takes a liking to you and shows a more than friendly interest in you - you would feel offended if you were straight and it turns out the person flirting with you was of the same sex.

Firstly, gender is embedded in language. "He went to the shop" and "She bought this for me", for example. By obfuscating your child's gender on the grounds that you do not wish to submit your child to the 'norms' of society is an incredibly selfish and non-progressive act. Imagine how others would have to tread over their words in conversing with or about someone without a known gender. Calling them 'it' would sound degrading, as 'it' refers to inanimate objects, and you wouldn't want to call a girl a boy, or a boy a girl because society defines us in these ways for the procreation of the human species.

Secondly, 'culture' is a social construction. We perceive our world through the lens of culture which interprets symbols of meaning. Again, blue is for boys and pink is for girls. This concept exists because an infant cannot understand gender, much as it cannot understand religion. You therefore affirm - for the child - that it is a boy or a girl through these pre-existing constructs. What good is it to completely hide all allusions to gender from your child, when it is inextricably a part of their humanity? See the last paragraph of my first post.

To solve the issue at hand, the stigma surrounding sex, homosexuality, trans-gender and trans-vestite should be broken down at the societal level. This would allow a child to be born truly free. The solution is not to simply choose not to disclose your childs gender, deprive it of the symbolisms and knowledge (which society provides), and go 'meh we'll see what happens'.

(it's 2am here, can't really argue properly, meh)

At least eZterix understands.

public static void main(String[] ARGS!!! Whatever... I can't find it so I'll try to explain it as best as I can... I believe it can be a consequence of lying about such a serious matter... :

A couple years ago, I saw a documentary, it was about a very young boy (He was only a couple days old) that was stuck in a fire. His genitals ended up cooked. The parents, didn't know what to do, luckily, a scientist ended up crossing their way. He had a theory. If you make a boy believe he is a girl, that's what he'll become. (I guess it worked both ways.) He made the parents agree to proceed to a surgery. That boy, grew up as a girl, never knowing the truth. If I remember correctly they give the child some girl hormones, or whatever it's called, without saying it. (There was also an older brother in the family.) Anyways, at around 30+ years, the mom decided to do a big revelation; she told the truth and guess what happened! The girl that was a boy, if I remember well, suicided, unless it was the older brother? (One of them suicided, that's for sure.)

To link with the OP, I guess that based on that story, it's not a good idea to lie about such a serious matter. No one wants to be different, when it's such a serious matter. Everybody is unique in their own way, no should want to be that unique...

Anyone knows what documentary I am talking / writing about?
I'm not sure if this post is at the limit of a lite discussion, so feel free to remove my post (Or tell me what to change).

There's these quite interesting things called "names." You might have one, and someone could even possibly refer to you by it. Child and baby are also genderless, and yeah there goes pretty much your entire argument. Also, I vehemently disagree with both bolded statements.


This is just a sad attempt at fancy wordplay that doesn't actually get to anything but your still unfounded opinion that this is bad. "interprets symbols of meaning" ... "affirming pre existing constructs" ... "broken down at the societal level" ... If you want to actually sound smart, provide an intelligently deduced opinion. I'm not your English teacher who will give you a good grade for using big words.

As for this, that you referenced: I learned discipline and the majority of my basic education from my parents. Teachers did essentially nothing in that regard, I probably would have been far better off home- or un-schooled (which is a terrible prefix choice, by the way). The only reason I listened to most teachers was because they could call my parents, though some earned my respect by being fair and effective. I fear far more for children whose parents expect them to be taught discipline by the school system than for someone home schooled.

The social aspect of the issue is one that has been argued for decades with home schooled children. I'll just cite Wikipedia which shows exactly the opposite of what you claim:



Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 26 2011, 1:29 am by FaZ-.