confused troll is confused? Yes?

What I like most about your post FaZ, is that you claim my language use is beyond your understanding, and that my claims are unfounded - and you finish it off with a quote from wikipedia (the most factually accurate and scholarly of all websites... lol)

Social constructivism is a concept in fields of socialism and anthropology.
Culture is a debated topic and largely undefinable. One definition involves interpretting how different societies interpret their surroundings - and ultimately every societies culture makes use of symbolism. For example, a car symbolises status and wealth - not just a mechanical vehicle that gets you from a to b faster than walking.

Next time you have a conversation with someone, blink every time you or the other person say's he, she or it. Alternatively, never say he or she in a conversation and always refer to people by there names. You will look like a fucking retard. 'yo Faz, where did peter go?' - 'Peter went to the shop' - you won't say that, you will say 'he went to the shop'. And what if you didn't know if Peter was a he or a she? My argument isn't invalid, your post is invalid.

Why is this black woman refusing to leave me her bus seat?

Moar social constructivism!

Wikipedia -is- a very good and reliable source. However, you must always look out for sources.

That's different. Racism is an abstract construct. Gender is very much real and not up for debate.

I can tell you aren't a native English speaker...

Yes, but it will never give you knowledge and understanding of academic principles and concepts. Which is ultimately why FaZ failed to contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way.

I didn't say your language is beyond my understanding, I'm saying you're not putting your words together to form a coherent message, you're just talking out of your ass in an attempt to sound intelligent. That's not difficult, it's how I write most term papers, but it's useless in a debate.

Since you evidently also never learned how to garner scholarly sources from Wikipedia articles, here's the survey that's referenced: http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/HomeschoolingGrowsUp.pdf

I'm not going to respond further than that, really not worth my time.

When will you understand this is not about denying the fact that every human have a determined biological gender, but rather about trying to fight against the induced stereotypes related to genders... just like the society used to have induced stereotypes related to races.
And both of these induced stereotypes are restricting the freedom of human beings.

If you want to say Wikipedia is unconvincing, you do it by arguing with what is quoted, not by saying "wikipedia sucks".

Like this:
People who are home-schooled have likely come from higher socio-economic backgrounds, who have 1 or more parents that can afford to stay home during the day to raise them, and it is well known and accepted that a big predictor of life outcomes is your your childhood socio-economic background. Unless they controlled for this in their survey (and since it says survey and not study, I think they didn't), then their results really don't mean much.

And when you decide to give your opinion on the topic instead of nitpicking individual posts, you are welcome to come back.


Thanks for that. But I read the first few things FaZ said and immediately realised he wasn't responding to the content of my post, then I just glanced over the rest of it and saw 'wikipedia' and went straight for the reply.

I want boys to stay boys and girls to stay girls because when I dance with girls (ballroom) it works better when they follow and I lead, than when I lead and they try to back lead.

You aren't helping your case much here.

Well, my reply was to your post in which you stated that the child isn't being deprived of gender, merely the environment which society attributes to gender.

The first thing FaZ says is to do with using names instead of pronouns - and therefore my argument that gender is embedded in language is wrong.

If he remembers the article which this thread is about, the childs name is Storm. Is that a male or female name? What about Jazz? Or Kio? It really doesn't contribute whatsoever to the discussion of how the parents are raising their children.

Standards for dress change over time. In the 1900's or whenever Roosevelt was born, it was the norm that young boys wore dresses. If you're going to use an outside source to defend your point, don't fuck up. Research the actual subject matter.

Why should a name absolutely represent someone's gender?

The point is exactly to declare that dress standards and such shouldn't exist, or at least that they shouldn't restrict the freedom of individuals, which is currently the case.

The point of that image is that gender roles is entirely a cultural concept. If they can change over time, why can't they be done away with?

I wonder what will happen when they grow beards and leg hair when they're in their pink miniskirt dresses and long hair with straight across bangs. Disastrous moment imo. Unless they're already a girl in which case I recommend a good-quality razor. Perhaps waxing.

So now you just want to do away with culture?


Because FaZ said so - or at least didn't know what a pronoun was and implied that baby should be called baby instead of he or she.

What's the big deal? The kid's going to be scarred because s/he made internet news to the point that a video game forum took notice. I'm serious. I think the worst part is that someone initiated all this excess media coverage.

That wasn't your point and don't try to pretend that it was. If it were, you'd have pointed that out. Your point was that people raised freakishly can turn out well.

And I won't get into any discussions here except those nice factual ones.

This wins the award for the first post actually having to do with the right and wrong of the argument in the OP, instead of the right and the wrong of the replies. :3

Let's also not forget that racism is still very much alive and well, despite the lack of segregation and laws against such things. So "used to" is incorrect, as we probably have more racial stereotypes today than ever before.

Basically here is my original point in a nutshell. If a boy wants to be a girl, he can be. If a girl wants to be a boy, she can be. If a boy is more feminine, that's fine. If a girl is more masculine, that's fine. People have already been deciding what gender they most associate with for years and years without the help of some parents trying to change the world. If anything, growing up being told what you should play with or how you should dress would help you figure out what you want to be ultimately.

I have no issue with a kid wanting to be the opposite sex. Come to think of it, one of my favorite films is "Ma Vie en Rose" about a little boy who really believes he's supposed to be a girl and is told he can't be as the community shuns his family. My issue is when the family is purposely creating chaos and confusion to prove a point at the expense of their child.

Women having to wax is yet another oppression from the society that should gtfo.
Anyways, you're just demonstrating that you embrace the current lack of "open-mindness".

I hesitated about talking about this, but found it irrelevant. Anyways, you've done it, I guess people can thank you for the clarification.
On a related note (to racism): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/work/right-rsum-wrong-name/article1145212/page1/