• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias

You could have fooled me.

What are you getting at, then, with all your talk about how gender roles "serve no purpose" and "have no value," along with your support of the actions to neutralize gender roles in the preschool in the OP?

That there is no great harm in reexamining and questioning gender roles. You guys are flying off the handle because the Swedes are doing something different and that would only make sense if you thought there was something very valuable about gender roles. There does not seem to be anything of that great of value in them to me. Those that are of true value don't need to be supported by gender pronouns, uniforms or stereotypes.

Concerning the learning of foreign languages: Why do you think many parents try to raise their children bi-lingully when they are very young? Past a certain age threshold people generally take to language much less easily, and so have to be taught systematically. Immersion is still better. Young children, however, pick up on languages automatically, through interaction... It is a form of learning, but most of the language is not specifically taught to them. In short, young children and adults learn languages very differently... Young children are much better at it and don't specifically need to be taught all the rules.

Immersion does not mean they are not being taught. It is just a way of teaching.

I've never seen a parent have to specifically teach their child to say "him" when referring to a male and "her" when referring to a female. I've never seen any child corrected on the use of gendered pronouns either, except in the case that the subject's gender is ambiguous in the first place. No one needs a Ph.D in English, or even a high school degree, to raise children that speak fluent English.

I have seen it and so? You don't have to have a degree in the arts to teach them culture either.
 
That there is no great harm in reexamining and questioning gender roles. You guys are flying off the handle because the Swedes are doing something different and that would only make sense if you thought there was something very valuable about gender roles. There does not seem to be anything of that great of value in them to me. Those that are of true value don't need to be supported by gender pronouns, uniforms or stereotypes.

No one's flying off the handle, just pointing out how ridiculous their attempts are.

And you did argue that gender roles are meaningless in modern society, now you're saying your position is simply that "there is no great harm in reexamining and questioning gender roles." Big difference between your old position and your new position there. No one here, from what I have read so far, has even argued that reexamining or questioning gender roles is harmful. Most are simply pointing out how attempts to neutralize them, such as in the OP, are a waste of time. Not the same thing.

Immersion does not mean they are not being taught. It is just a way of teaching.

Strawman. Notice I said:
It is a form of learning, but most of the language is not specifically taught to them.

You don't have to be specifically taught something by another person to learn something. You can also learn through experience/interaction.

I have seen it and so? You don't have to have a degree in the arts to teach them culture either.

Notice that I've been saying that language and culture are both learned through interaction, not specific teaching? Are you trying to bring up something pertinent or just contradicting yourself?

And when's the last time you saw a preschool-age kid sitting down with a verb conjugation chart memorizing pronouns and correct verb endings? Kids are learning language and culture (and so basic gender roles) before they know how to tie their shoes or wipe their own ass, and it's not because every parent hires a language coach to teach them the rules of grammar, one by one.
 
Last edited:
No one's flying off the handle, just pointing out how ridiculous their attempts are.

And you did argue that gender roles are meaningless in modern society, now you're saying your position is simply that "there is no great harm in reexamining and questioning gender roles." Big difference between your old position and your new position there. No one here, from what I have read so far, has even argued that reexamining or questioning gender roles is harmful. Most are simply pointing out how attempts to neutralize them, such as in the OP, are a waste of time. Not the same thing.

I don't want to split hairs too much but "meaningless" implies that they have no influence. I clearly did not say that, but questioned what valid purpose or good reason existed for them. That is, I questioned their value.

Strawman. Notice I said:

You don't have to be specifically taught something by another person to learn something. You can also learn through experience/interaction.

Now you are splitting hairs. Children learn it from others. They are taught by others and often the interaction is undertaken with the intent of teaching.


Notice that I've been saying that language and culture are both learned through interaction, not specific teaching? Are you trying to bring up something pertinent or just contradicting yourself?

They have classes that teach language and culture in school. I don't even know what sort of point you are trying to make. You seem to think that because we are immersed that the need to transmit information (i.e. to teach) and learn, vanish. It does not, immersion just increases the speed with which the person aquires information.


And when's the last time you saw a preschool-age kid sitting down with a verb conjugation chart memorizing pronouns and correct verb endings? Kids are learning language and culture (and so basic gender roles) before they know how to tie their shoes or wipe their own ass, and it's not because every parent hires a language coach to teach them the rules of grammar, one by one.

Not becasue their children are born with knowledge of the subjects. The children must learn this and they are taught. Immersion just makes every interaction a lesson. It does not eliminate the need for lessons.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to split hairs too much but "meaningless" implies that they have no influence. I clearly did not say that, but questioned what valid purpose or good reason existed for them. That is, I questioned their value.

Alright, alright. Fine. Question their value then.

Now, do you see a difference between simply "questioning their value" and "taking pro-active steps to neutralize them for preschoolers?"

Now you are splitting hairs. Children learn it from others. They are taught by others and often the interaction is undertaken with the intent of teaching.

I'm not splitting hairs. That's how children learn language. Point stands, constant active intervention, as is needed to deprive a child of gendered pronouns, is not needed for a child to learn normal language. The former is engineering, the latter is a normal process.


They have classes that teach language and culture in school. I don't even know what sort of point you are trying to make. You seem to think that because we are immersed that the need to transmit information (i.e. to teach) and learn, vanish. It does not, immersion just increases the speed with which the person aquires information.

See above

Not becasue their children are born with knowledge of the subjects. The children must learn this and they are taught. Immersion just makes every interaction a lesson. It does not eliminate the need for lessons.

There's a difference between normal interaction and a specific lesson. Children can learn languages via normal interaction with the speakers of a language as they develop without the need for specific lessons. They don't have to be specifically taught the use or meaning of gendered pronouns, they only need exposure to their use in normal interactions and they pick them up.

The exceptions, as I already mentioned, are irregular forms and such, but that's not the majority of the language. Proper writing and written grammar are taught with specific lessons as well, because they are learned differently than a spoken language. Humans evolved to speak language at an early age, writing, by comparison, is relative new on the scene.

Much of a culture is learned the same way as spoken language. To suppress a part of it, such as nerfing gender roles altogether, requires active intervention (social engineering).
 
Last edited:
I think gender roles interfere in our ability to relate. Women and men see and relate to the world a bit differently and I do believe that is influenced by gender roles and culture.

Certainly culture differences can inhibit how we relate to each other but being a man I can relate to other men for one reason and to women for another. Perhaps later, once we get to know each other better, we can like or dislike each other for the usual reasons. All cultures have words for stupid, smart, rude, polite, etc. so there are obviously some basics which everyone shares and one of those categories all human beings fall fall into.

I don't see any advantage in being gender neutral, either from a social or Darwinian point of view.

Of course you can try it yourself and see what sort of response you get. It might well be a winner in some circles.
 
The great thing about this is that for now, I can still reinforce gender with my kids at home no matter what happens with school cirriculum. And I will. That's not saying I will enforce antiquated roles of homemaking as female or hunting as male. Only that I will enforce the idea of there being males and females, whom are properly referred to as sir, ma'am, his, her, guy, girl, boy lady, woman, man etc.....

one of the many reasons I pulled my kids from public school.
 
Were your kids Swedes?

no, dey wuz niggas. and sadly they were stereotyped as trouble makers, even though they never caused any trouble. any time anything bad happened, they were the first suspect. that was the primary reason we pulled them. got tired of having to go up and verbally abuse the teacher and admin on a regular basis.
 
Alright, alright. Fine. Question their value then.

Now, do you see a difference between simply "questioning their value" and "taking pro-active steps to neutralize them for preschoolers?"


I'm not splitting hairs. That's how children learn language. Point stands, constant active intervention, as is needed to deprive a child of gendered pronouns, is not needed for a child to learn normal language. The former is engineering, the latter is a normal process.

There is no more constant active interevention. You are just teaching them to use different pronouns. They are being taught in the same way, by example.

We can promote the social norms that we have applied to gender roles or not. Either way, we are just as guilty of indoctrinating, engineering actively teaching or whatever charged word you want use.


There's a difference between normal interaction and a specific lesson. Children can learn languages via normal interaction with the speakers of a language as they develop without the need for specific lessons. They don't have to be specifically taught the use or meaning of gendered pronouns, they only need exposure to their use in normal interactions and they pick them up.

And they only need exposure to different pronouns and they will pick them up.

The exceptions, as I already mentioned, are irregular forms and such, but that's not the majority of the language. Proper writing and written grammar are taught with specific lessons as well, because they are learned differently than a spoken language. Humans evolved to speak language at an early age, writing, by comparison, is relative new on the scene.

Much of a culture is learned the same way as spoken language. To suppress a part of it, such as nerfing gender roles altogether, requires active intervention (social engineering).

You have not shown that passing on a language or culture with gender pronouns and gender assigned roles is any different than passing on one without them. In many other languages they assign gender to all sorts of things. In English we do not. Is that because English is taught with more active intervention?
 
Last edited:
If that would have happened to me, I would come back 20 years later and kill them all. Any parent who does that should have their penis cut off and their vaginas filled with concrete.
 
Yea it's stupid gender experimentation on children.
As if it is wrong for there to be differences between genders.

This is one part of the extreme liberal belief system that I hate.
(Not inditing all liberals here.)

I agree and thats why I loathe the far left...and the far right thier both extreme nutjobs and left to their own designs would destroy this country
 
There is no more constant active interevention. You are just teaching them to use different pronouns. They are being taught in the same way, by example.

it is intervention to avoid using normal language to push an agenda, or to teach anyone to violate any norm, you can't spin it any other way.

We can promote the social norms that we have applied to gender roles or not. Either way, we are just as guilty of indoctrinating, engineering actively teaching or whatever charged word you want use.

no, we're not, and I've already explained the distinction between the two many times.

And they only need exposure to different pronouns and they will pick them up.

glad you agree w/ me now. they only need exposure.

You have not shown that passing on a language or culture with gender pronouns and gender assigned roles is any different than passing on one without them.

Go ahead and name a single culture that has no gender roles. Obviously, intervention/meddling is necesary to prevent them from being picked up. The same is not true to learn them normally.

In many other languages they assign gender to all sorts of things. In English we do not. Is that because English is taught with more active intervention?

No, that's just a feature of our language-- and the fact that we lost the use of gendered nouns happened on its own, not because of active intervention. In 1000 years, English may have them again.
And in any case, gendered nouns, gendered pronouns, and cultural gender roles are not the same thing. You're grasping at everything now aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Gender is a biological thing.

I don't think it is as light as you think.
Experimenting on children is wrong, as well.

How in the world did you come to the conclusion that this is experimentation? Its stupid and silly, sure, but I can't for the life of me figure out how this could possibly harm a child.

In fact, I don't see any reason to go beyond the stance of "why should I care about this at all?"
 
How in the world did you come to the conclusion that this is experimentation? Its stupid and silly, sure, but I can't for the life of me figure out how this could possibly harm a child.

In fact, I don't see any reason to go beyond the stance of "why should I care about this at all?"

It's experimentation because this is typically not done during the child raising period.
The results are, at best, unknown.

Stupid crap like this could spread, when there is no reason for the application.
 
Back
Top Bottom