Confusing the Child's Gender?

[awmperry]

My wife is pregnant with our first - a boy - due to be born in September. I've already bought him a toy MP5A6, which he'll get when he's old enough to be instructed in gun safety. (My wife and I have both said "We've got to get that gun for our kid if we have one" for years - it's brilliant, with a working fire selector and everything.)

Would I still be buying a toy gun if it was a girl? Yes. Would I refuse to buy my son a My Little Pony or a Barbie if he asked for them? Well, yes, but only because they're so expensive these days - if he wants "girly" toys, and they're not extortionate, he'll get them.

He will be in no doubt that he is male - but I don't see any reason why that should dictate what he can and can't do.

My sister is barely five foot; she does kickboxing, plays rugby, has worked as an animal trainer for TV and currently works with large and dangerous animals in a zoo. She had Barbie dolls as a child, but also water pistols.

When I was a kid, I had lots of toy guns; I also had a My Little Pony and a number of cuddly toys (most of which I still have somewhere, in fact). I had a Ken doll, a couple of Action Man figures, and bucketloads of Lego.

The point is that my sister and I both got the toys we were interested in, regardless of whether they were bright pink or not. We've both grown up to be healthy, non-confused, and in solid, happy relationships.

But we were damn sure all along whether we were boys or girls.

So yeah - I think the "We're not telling so as not to limit them" idea is utter nonsense.

My son will know that he is a boy. What he does with that information is his problem - he can turn out straight or gay, keen shooter or hoplophobe, whatever makes him happy.

To know where you're going, you've got to know where you're starting from.

 

[snappydog]

This is terrible. I tend to agree with the mother's views, but she's basically turned her child into a living weapon to strike against gender roles. He shouldn't just be a tool for her to make a point.

This.
I think it's interesting, but since the child will inevitably know his/her own gender, and be aware of others of the same gender... you can't hide it. I mean, I don't remember ever caring which one I was, I just liked being a person. This way, might the kid not get more confused about who it wants to be once its gender is eventually revealed? I'm not sure who this experiment's supposed to be directed at, it's only going to confuse both the child and those around it.
And what if it wants to be the gender it isn't biologically? As stated above, it'll be fairly impossible to keep it from finding out its own gender, but you know.

Don't like calling it 'it', but I can't bring myself to refer to it as Storm. Thanks, Tim Minchin.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Letting a child know their gender has nothing to do with whether they will succumb to the stereotypes of same. My sister plays women's football, is entirely comfortable whether in a skirt, dress, suit, shorts, jeans, mens or women's attire, and is almost entirely gender blind. Mostly this is the same with me as well, though I've never had a proclivity for women's clothes. And by mostly the same with me I mean i don't conform to gender stereotypes for males. I don't like sports, I'm aggressively intellectual, like and always have liked reading and quiet activities etc

Knowing a child's gender does nothing to reinforce stereotypes, whether you treat your child to stereotypes as they grow up reinforces stereotypes. My parents never forced me or my sister to play sports, or read ahead of time, or choose artistic imagination-driven play or more pattern based scientific play. They just left out all the tools necessary and we went with what we wanted. There's lots of baby pictures showing that our living room and play areas were basically kitted out with everything from doll's houses, colouring books, balls and physical things. I gravitated towards dolls and creating worlds and stories, (creative play as I suppose it would be called), my sister was much more practical, figuring out the block based puzzles (analytic play? I don't know) and physical exercise.

Both of us knew our gender, neither of us conformed to stereotypes. It's about the environment, not the gender itself.

 

[Nickolai77]

The issue I have with this, is that the child has a gender. The child has anatomy for that gender. That gender is also on their birth certificate. I can forsee a confused child in the future.
Look, I know male children that play dress up in girls clothing and play with Barbie dolls. They know they are boys though. Their parents let them do this where other parents wouldn't. What these parents in th OP are doing however, I find repugnant.

Sorry, no. You're confusing terminology. Ask feminists. Ask anyone dealing with gender politics.

Gender is NOT innate. It is the social constructs and expectations associated with the idea that you are a certain sex

I know this gets confused a lot. (mainly because people feel weird talking about a person's sex, and try and avoid that word.)

But you said the child has a gender. and, has anatomy for that gender. Which is wrong. Blatantly wrong.

Conflating sex & gender causes uncountable headaches.

The child has a sex. - This is the physical anatomy. And it cannot be changed. (Not currently. Surgery and medication can partially alter things, but it's an incomplete transformation.)

The gender however is a socially enforced role that has next to nothing to do with the sex of the child, and everything to do with expectations. Which is what the whole point of this experiment the parents are conducting is.

I think it's misguided too, but your confused usage of the terminology involved doesn't help anyone.

I agree that gender and sex are separate things, but i do think that sex does influence gender in part. There will always be, for instance, more males than females in jail for violent offences because of the effects of testosterone on the body (and in turn, these biological aspects are reinforced by social factors) and more females working with children that males. The evolved chemical make-up of males and females is generally different, depending on the individual, and this encourages certain aspects of socially constructed behavior.


On topic, i personally think it's unrealistic and silly parenting not telling the child what there gender is. One day that child will have to go out into the real the world, and if it has confused ideas about gender other children won't tolerate it. Really, i'd take a more moderate approach and just allow the child the freedom to choose what toys and clothes they want, regardless of the gender.

 

[William MacKay]

i just studied this sort of thing in RMPS. your gender is how you portray yourself (boy/girl) your sex is your body (sexual organs). letting your children pick will confuse them, because one might choose to be a girl, but not understand the actual difference if it is left like this: a choice. therefore, the child might think it's a girl, but actually is a boy (not in the physical sense, in the gender sense).

Gender is NOT innate. It is the social constructs and expectations associated with the idea that you are a certain sex

The child has a sex. - This is the physical anatomy. And it cannot be changed. (Not currently. Surgery and medication can partially alter things, but it's an incomplete transformation.)

The gender however is a socially enforced role that has next to nothing to do with the sex of the child, and everything to do with expectations. Which is what the whole point of this experiment the parents are conducting is.

no, gender is not socially enforced, it is innate. Kim Petras, German pop singer, was born Tim ( a male) physically, but thought she was a girl (her gender). sex is physical, gender is mental. society has nothing to do with how you see yourself, but it defines it more clearly. for example, if people said women should be builders and men should be dancers, Kim would still feel like Kim, not Tim.
the problem with this is that the child may receive social exclusion from both genders, and the homeschooling makes it worse: if there is no social interaction then there is no difference portrayed so the child wouldnt enter either. one said he wanted to be seen as a boy, but dresses in girls clothing: but does this child know the difference? and the newer one is even more screwed: what if it decides 'im a boy' then starts growing boobs and having periods, because its a girl (or decides its a girl then starts making sperm), then ends up ignored by other boys (or girls). this child will probably be seen as a 'freak' not because it isnt fitting into gender roles, but because it doesnt know the difference.

also, fucks sake why call it Storm. why not go with something gender ambiguous like Billy/Billie or Jamie/Jaime (yes, they are spelled different, but they are phonetically the same).
also, this child will be unable to get: any photographic ID, a Drivers Licence, a Passport, join the army as a frontlines soldier, join a public gym (or even go to anywhere with public changing rooms), or date/have a family (because of homeschooling which will ignore sex ed about gender/sex roles in relationships (mainly physically) so the child wont know how to have a sexual relationship)
without releasing the birth certificate. also there may be some confusion about some points:
women can't be sent to the frontlines by law.
and in a changing room you're going to get (mostly) naked. now girls, how would you like it if i, a boy, walked into your changing room to use? chances are you'd kick me the fuck out. boys, what if a girl did the same? you'd stare at her tits, wouldnt you? the child wouldnt understand the problem, or what's happening, or why the have/havent got what you do in your pants.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: previous comments

The issue I have with this, is that the child has a gender. The child has anatomy for that gender. That gender is also on their birth certificate. I can forsee a confused child in the future.
Look, I know male children that play dress up in girls clothing and play with Barbie dolls. They know they are boys though. Their parents let them do this where other parents wouldn't. What these parents in th OP are doing however, I find repugnant.

Sorry, no. You're confusing terminology. Ask feminists. Ask anyone dealing with gender politics.

Gender is NOT innate. It is the social constructs and expectations associated with the idea that you are a certain sex

I know this gets confused a lot. (mainly because people feel weird talking about a person's sex, and try and avoid that word.)

But you said the child has a gender. and, has anatomy for that gender. Which is wrong. Blatantly wrong.

Conflating sex & gender causes uncountable headaches.

The child has a sex. - This is the physical anatomy. And it cannot be changed. (Not currently. Surgery and medication can partially alter things, but it's an incomplete transformation.)

The gender however is a socially enforced role that has next to nothing to do with the sex of the child, and everything to do with expectations. Which is what the whole point of this experiment the parents are conducting is.

I think it's misguided too, but your confused usage of the terminology involved doesn't help anyone.

I agree that gender and sex are separate things, but i do think that sex does influence gender in part. There will always be, for instance, more males than females in jail for violent offences because of the effects of testosterone on the body (and in turn, these biological aspects are reinforced by social factors) and more females working with children that males. The evolved chemical make-up of males and females is generally different, depending on the individual, and this encourages certain aspects of socially constructed behavior.

Yes, that's true. biology undoubtedly influences gender roles, but that doesn't make gender in any way innate.

It just means that certain elements of gender were constructed around biological biases. (And many other elements were not. That's quite apparent when you start comparing different cultures.)

gender remains an artificial social construct regardless of what biological biases might have influenced it. The biggest concern of those that take issue with gender roles though tends to be the opposite; It reinforces behaviour that might not be innate.
(To what extent are men innately violent for instance, and to what extent is this caused by social reinforcement of the male gender role? Something which is innate is difficult to do anything with. But if it mostly an aspect of learned gender behaviour, changes in upbringing & cultural attitudes would have a big impact.)

Anyway, it's a complicated issue at the best of times.

One day that child will have to go out into the real the world, and if it has confused ideas about gender other children won't tolerate it.

I lived through this myself, and this is a bit of a half-truth.

Children aren't innately that intolerant. They pick it up from the adults around them. Or eachother.
Since I had some degree of gender variant behaviour through most of my life, I recall a few things about various situations.

The worst problem is being in an environment that rigidly enforces gender boundaries.
The more rigid the boundaries are, the more difficult it will be for a child that doesn't fit into the boundaries.

I went to a school that had both boys & girls attending it, but very strictly enforced the seperation between the two. - That was a living hell for someone like me that wasn't so clearly one or the other.

Meanwhile, a completely different school that felt no need to make a big deal out of it, and where clearly most of the children came from environments that didn't make a big deal out of it really wasn't such a problem.
Everyone played with everyone else. The kids didn't really care what you were.

So, in a way, your advice about the real world and tolerance is somewhat self-perpetuating.

Create an environment that rigidly enforces gender roles, and yes, this will be true.
But, create an environment that doesn't care so much, and it won't matter anywhere near as much. - The kids reflect the behaviour of the adults they come into contact with. - It's not an innate intolerance.

 

[Fledge]

If the kid picks to be a boy and ends up being a girl, there will be a lot of hormone issues. I believe he/she/it will probably end up depressed as fuck.

Also, they named the fucking kid Storm? jesus christ.

This.

 

[CrystalShadow]

i just studied this sort of thing in RMPS. your gender is how you portray yourself (boy/girl) your sex is your body (sexual organs). letting your children pick will confuse them, because one might choose to be a girl, but not understand the actual difference if it is left like this: a choice. therefore, the child might think it's a girl, but actually is a boy (not in the physical sense, in the gender sense).

Gender is NOT innate. It is the social constructs and expectations associated with the idea that you are a certain sex

The child has a sex. - This is the physical anatomy. And it cannot be changed. (Not currently. Surgery and medication can partially alter things, but it's an incomplete transformation.)

The gender however is a socially enforced role that has next to nothing to do with the sex of the child, and everything to do with expectations. Which is what the whole point of this experiment the parents are conducting is.

no, gender is not socially enforced, it is innate. Kim Petras, German pop singer, was born Tim ( a male) physically, but thought she was a girl (her gender). sex is physical, gender is mental. society has nothing to do with how you see yourself, but it defines it more clearly. for example, if people said women should be builders and men should be dancers, Kim would still feel like Kim, not Tim.
the problem with this is that the child may receive social exclusion from both genders, and the homeschooling makes it worse: if there is no social interaction then there is no difference portrayed so the child wouldnt enter either. one said he wanted to be seen as a boy, but dresses in girls clothing: but does this child know the difference? and the newer one is even more screwed: what if it decides 'im a boy' then starts growing boobs and having periods, because its a girl (or decides its a girl then starts making sperm), then ends up ignored by other boys (or girls). this child will probably be seen as a 'freak' not because it isnt fitting into gender roles, but because it doesnt know the difference.

Um, FYI, I'm a transsexual (Like the person you're using as an example: Kim Petras).

Gender isn't mental. Transsexual literature may make that assumption, but that most assuredly was not the original meaning of gender.

The reason for the confused statement you are making here is that what you're trying to say has no words to describe it.

Transsexuals called it 'gender' because it would otherwise involve creating an entirely new word for it. Unfortunately, a lot of people that didn't understand the gender/sex distinction to begin with took this notion on board as being valid, when in reality it just adds to the confusion and causes a lot of frustration among groups that were trying to get out from under the stupid restrictions gender roles lead to (IE. Feminists.)

Innate physical traits -> Sex
Social constructs applied to you by others -> Gender

How you see yourself (Mental. In principle.) -> Doesn't have a word for it. But on the assumption that it is innate and cannot be changed, a more accurate description would be 'mental sex', NOT 'gender'.

The whole idea that gender is innate goes against what it was originally meant to describe.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I'm not going to tell my children they're human, I'm fed up on this oppressive stereotypes of breathing oxygen and having two legs!

 

[Nimcha]

Social constructs applied to you by others -> Gender

I disagree with that statement. A better wording would be 'Traits associated with a particular sex'. It's less restrictive.

 

[William MacKay]

i just studied this sort of thing in RMPS. your gender is how you portray yourself (boy/girl) your sex is your body (sexual organs). letting your children pick will confuse them, because one might choose to be a girl, but not understand the actual difference if it is left like this: a choice. therefore, the child might think it's a girl, but actually is a boy (not in the physical sense, in the gender sense).

Gender is NOT innate. It is the social constructs and expectations associated with the idea that you are a certain sex

The child has a sex. - This is the physical anatomy. And it cannot be changed. (Not currently. Surgery and medication can partially alter things, but it's an incomplete transformation.)

The gender however is a socially enforced role that has next to nothing to do with the sex of the child, and everything to do with expectations. Which is what the whole point of this experiment the parents are conducting is.

no, gender is not socially enforced, it is innate. Kim Petras, German pop singer, was born Tim ( a male) physically, but thought she was a girl (her gender). sex is physical, gender is mental. society has nothing to do with how you see yourself, but it defines it more clearly. for example, if people said women should be builders and men should be dancers, Kim would still feel like Kim, not Tim.
the problem with this is that the child may receive social exclusion from both genders, and the homeschooling makes it worse: if there is no social interaction then there is no difference portrayed so the child wouldnt enter either. one said he wanted to be seen as a boy, but dresses in girls clothing: but does this child know the difference? and the newer one is even more screwed: what if it decides 'im a boy' then starts growing boobs and having periods, because its a girl (or decides its a girl then starts making sperm), then ends up ignored by other boys (or girls). this child will probably be seen as a 'freak' not because it isnt fitting into gender roles, but because it doesnt know the difference.

Um, FYI, I'm a transsexual (Like the person you're using as an example: Kim Petras).

Gender isn't mental. Transsexual literature may make that assumption, but that most assuredly was not the original meaning of gender.

The reason for the confused statement you are making here is that what you're trying to say has no words to describe it.

Transsexuals called it 'gender' because it would otherwise involve creating an entirely new word for it. Unfortunately, a lot of people that didn't understand the gender/sex distinction to begin with took this notion on board as being valid, when in reality it just adds to the confusion and causes a lot of frustration among groups that were trying to get out from under the stupid restrictions gender roles lead to (IE. Feminists.)

Innate physical traits -> Sex
Social constructs applied to you by others -> Gender

How you see yourself (Mental. In principle.) -> Doesn't have a word for it. But on the assumption that it is innate and cannot be changed, a more accurate description would be 'mental sex', NOT 'gender'.

The whole idea that gender is innate goes against what it was originally meant to describe.

obviously you would have a more in-depth experience due to mine being from outside views and only basic knowledge. what i said was based mainly on my own beliefs and what i learned in school, which did help to form those opinions. thanks for the correction, which does sort of fuck up my argument, which i suppose is good. sorry if i caused any offence.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Social constructs applied to you by others -> Gender

I disagree with that statement. A better wording would be 'Traits associated with a particular sex'.

Then you're going to run into some serious arguments with various medical groups, social activists, and quite a few others.

Besides, 'Traits associated with a particular sex' is kind of a redundant statement, since it implies some kind of innateness. 'Traits usually associated with a particular sex' would be better if you insist on that kind of definition.

Because if you define gender as 'traits associated with a particular sex', what is the point of talking about sex & gender? You've created a definition that for all intents and purposes amounts to
gender = sex.

Why? Because the definition of (a person's) sex is essentially: 'The collection of biological traits related to a person's method of reproducing themselves'
(for a more general definition you simply replace 'person' with 'organism' in the above statement)

Since this covers all traits you have that depend on only on what physical sex you are, your definition of gender is redundant unless it covers traits that are not in any way innate.

 

[Beliyal]

Why is everyone calling these people hippies?
In fact, why do people hate hippies so much? Hippies were the people that brought women and blacks their rights, and are working for gays and beating out the kinks now.
Admittedly, hippies are also the people encouraging the peddeling of bullshit like CRYSTAL THERAPY, but every group has its idiots.

I don't get the hippy hate.

Exactly what I was wondering too.

Amazes me how many people are wholly against this. I support it fully. Why?

As a child, I was given dolls frequently. I hated dolls. I hated dresses. I was forced to interact with them, and it made me miserable. Eventually my parents took the hint and just let me play with whatever I wanted to play with, but the fact of the matter is this: I didn't want to be assigned to being a girly girl. I wanted to be a tomboy. Even to this day I more commonly associate my gender with male, and I'm offended by the girly shit that is supposed to appeal to me just because I don't have a penis.

Letting the child choose means no more of that bullshit. Is their life going to be harder? Maybe. For me, my childhood was hard because my parents didn't accept who I was inside. So society accepting me for conforming to the girly role as a child didn't necessarily make it better; it just re-enforced that something was wrong with me.

Even reading the article shows that it's not like the child will be utterly ignorant of their gender. Their five year old knows he's a boy, but he wears dresses. I think it'd be a pretty awesome world where everyone just embraced their inner self without having to suppress and stamp it out.

Why is it so hard to accept that "male" and "female" should only be assigned to genitalia? Last I checked, my vagina wasn't the sole deciding factor in what I like to wear, what my favorite color is, or what I find fun.

I agree with this post fully. Although being radical and using children for your own personal crusades is a bit immoral (so, all extremism in this idea of letting kids choosing their "genders" for themselves is wrong in my book), the general idea is actually something I already decided to do with my kids (if I have them one day). I don't plan to force them to be something they might not like, but I'll definitely present them with all the possibilities. I won't buy only dolls and toy kitchens if I have a girl, I'll give her the opportunity to choose her own fun and life. Same for a boy. I may be biased because of my personal experience (my mom wanted a girly girl and only bought me dolls and she wanted me to wear dresses and I hated them, before I was even conscious enough to remember it; we often laugh at our home videos where I just abandoned my gift (a doll) and took my brother's gift (a sword)), but I will most certainly not impose a role on my kid. However, if my potential girl would ever like to play only with dolls and wear make-up and dresses; that's fine with me. I just want the child to choose what they love the most, because being denied something just because of an ancient stereotype is pretty frustrating and harmful to the psychological well-being of a person (I speak from experience, unfortunately). I'd also like to note that I like being a woman and wearing dresses and having "girly" traits; what I don't like is being forced to only like those things, because anything else is inappropriate, and that's the feeling I wouldn't like my child to have all his or her life. My closet is full of skirts and my shelves are full of weapons; so what? Society needs to get over it, and one of the ways to achieve this is through an idea like this one. The change won't come over night, but I suspect that in a few decades, things will be much more different (and hopefully better) regarding this issue.

 

[Tanfastic]

This is why there's Tomboys and Nancygirls, A girl that acts like a guy but everyone fully knows that she is still in fact a girl is a good thing. I know a lot of Nancygirls as well who are perfectly accepted in society (The occasional "he's gay" does come up though, something you have to deal with no matter who you are.) If they don't know their gender its going to screw up their whole life (sure they'll know if they have inner or outer plumbing but they won't know where that belongs) it kinda enforces transsexualism (which is fine) to a whole new level, soon EVERYONE would be a tranny.

Ex: A girl falls in love with a "boy" who acts very manly and is more of a jock than the jocks. They end up in a situation where they will soon come to "know" each other much better than friends, the pants come off and BAM we have a taco instead of sausage. Now this other girl has a slight case of the homophobe nature and freaks out then tells all her friends and it spreads like wildfire.

 

[BanthaFodder]

fucking hippie parents... look, stop trying to be "new age" and "progressive". if your kid is a girl, THEY NEED TO BE TOLD THEY'RE A FUCKING GIRL (same goes for boys).
little Tommy can listen to Hannah Montana and little Suzy can play baseball, but this is just fucking stupid...
sadly, these kids (I refuse to call them "Storm" or "Wolverine" or "Drain-O" or whatever the fuck stupid assholes name their kids nowadays, as those are not names) will probably have some severe psychological disorders later on in life. it's always a shame with things like this, the kids'll get screwed up all because of the gobshite parents. innocent victims because two dumbass hippies wanted to "stick it to the man".

and to anyone who doesn't think these kids'll get messed up later on in life, think of this: imagine that you do not know what gender you're supposed to be. you don't know what clothes you should wear to suit your comfort and function needs. you end up with few friends because your parents introduce you as "our genderly ambiguous child, Storm". yeah, it's sad when this shit happens...

to all the hippies, beatniks, and just flat-out stupid ass people: STOP. BEING. SO. FUCKING. STUPID.

 

[HentMas]

wasn't there a few years back a kid that was already big enough and the parents didn't told anyone its gender, so the kid would be able to change to male and females clothes whenever it felt like it?, it had long hair and i remember it looked quite androgynous, but i also remember it didn't cared about its sex at all

*i use "IT" because i have no idea what gender it is.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Here's my belief, I think stereotypes are overrated, yet I think that it's important that young children know that they are female or male.
The point is that they are children and it's up to the parents to guide them because they don't always make decisions based on what is in their best interest.
It is a parents job to be supportive and accept their child for who they are and who they become. However, allowing such young children to make gender related decisions that they don't even understand yet could be very confusing for them later on in life.
When they grow up and if they prefer to be the other gender or whatever, then ok, they are old enough to make decisions.

It'd be one thing if they actually kept the kids in the dark about it, but they don't seem to be. The older son knows perfectly well that he's a boy; he just likes to wear dresses, for reasons of his own.

Keeping everyone else in the dark about the sex of the baby? Possibly taking it a bit too far, but I don't think the kid is going to be traumatized by it. (I wasn't necessarily raised as a "girl," although my parents didn't try to keep it under wraps. While there were certainly traumatic experiences in my childhood, being allowed to tomboy it up all I wanted wasn't one of them.)

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Hmm....

Not sure how I feel about this one.

On one hand, it does allow the child more choice, and is no doubt going to be important for future research into how geneder roles and the like natrualley devolp, but...