• 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!

'Genderless' Child Ignites Firestorm in Canada

The point is though, that they would have to be neither supportive nor, not supportive because it could be perceived by the child as support for a specific gender role.

That's why this entire experiment is asinine.

Oh, I agree, all parents should let their kid identify themselves, and be supportive of who they want to be, and this "experiment" seems pointless.
 
What my point is, that gender identity is in the mind, and while there are certain activities that would point to one gender identity or another, how one identifies themselves, is the most important.

That's perfectly fine with me.

I just don't think this genderless baby experiment will yield anything.
Most boys act like boys because they are boys, most girls act like girls because they are girls.

Sometimes, some people don't and that's fine but I don't think we should change minor social norms in language because of it.
There are languages that use less gender references than ours and there are some that use more, yet there is no big difference in gender practices around the world.
 
I do not like the term "IT" either. Reminds me of the book a Child Called It and we all know the horror that was:(

Call the child a child or by their name. Not IT.

It's the parents, though, who have consigned this child to referred to at "it".
 
If it were a social construct, the environment that the child was originally raised in is what they would identify their gender as.

It's all chemistry in the brain, both during and after birth.
I'm not saying transgender is wrong.

I'm saying these people are moronic to do, what they're doing.
It serves no purpose.

It depends on where they end it. They could succeed in ensuring that if their child might suffer from GID, that the child would more easily accept that they can choose to live the role of the the gender that is not the same as the sex they were born as.

Many transgendered people suffer from GID because they don't understand why they want to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex or act like a person of the opposite sex, especially men. Many men hide the fact that they would rather be like women. Some women might too, but, as was earlier pointed out, it is much easier for a woman to be socially accepted for living a man's life than it is for a man to be socially accepted for living a woman's life, even to the point where most people just assume that any crossdressing man must be a submissive homosexual (eventhough this is not true, especially since a good percentage of male crossdressers and transgenders are attracted to women). Most people are raised in a manner that set up expectations for how they were supposed to dress and act, and even for what they were supposed to like, because of the sex they were born as.

For example, I never liked Barbies. My Barbie dolls always became conscripted soldiers in the wars that my brother and I would play in. I begged my parents for GI Joes growing up, but they always went to my brothers because even my parents would tend to forget that I had asked for some when they bought them for my brothers for Christmas. It probably wasn't even a conscious choice to not give me any of the GI Joes, but rather something that stemmed from it being more normal for boys to ask for Joes than girls. By the time I was 9, I was only asking my parents for books and clothes, but no toys because I knew that I wouldn't get what I wanted anyway, which was boys' toys.

And I know that my father is embarrassed that he likes to wear women's night gowns. I'm pretty sure that my father has no desire to actually be a woman, but he does like to wear some women's clothes and he is ashamed of this because of the way that he feels that some people would judge him for wearing them.

That is where much of GID comes from, especially for those who do not feel a need to actually change their physical sex. There disorder stems from them not being able to figure out why they want to look like or act like the opposite sex that they were born as, adopt those characteristics that society reserves for the opposite gender.

Someone who is raised without feeling that it is necessary to like pink or wear suits or dresses, but not the other, is less likely to have such feelings of dismay if they decide that they would prefer to wear dresses over suits or only wear pink or they would rather be involved with aggressive sports than do dance or theater than someone who was raised in a specific gender role.
 
That's perfectly fine with me.

I just don't think this genderless baby experiment will yield anything.
Most boys act like boys because they are boys, most girls act like girls because they are girls.

Sometimes, some people don't and that's fine but I don't think we should change minor social norms in language because of it.
There are languages that use less gender references than ours and there are some that use more, yet there is no big difference in gender practices around the world.

Oh I agree, this experiment wont' do anything really but shock other people. The only problem I could see is if the child wants to express his/her gender and the parents suppress it.

Oh, and speaking of language, I remember getting into an argument one time with a feminist who spelled woman, womyn, because having man in woman was degrading :doh Now that is delusional :lol:
 
That's perfectly fine with me.

I just don't think this genderless baby experiment will yield anything.
Most boys act like boys because they are boys, most girls act like girls because they are girls.

Sometimes, some people don't and that's fine but I don't think we should change minor social norms in language because of it.
There are languages that use less gender references than ours and there are some that use more, yet there is no big difference in gender practices around the world.

I don't know why you are calling it an "experiment". All the parents have done is chosen not to reveal to other people what the sex of their child is. They hope the child will express its natural gender without having to impose it via socialization, which if you are right, will be the gender that matches its sex.
 
It depends on where they end it. They could succeed in ensuring that if their child might suffer from GID, that the child would more easily accept that they can choose to live the role of the the gender that is not the same as the sex they were born as.

Many transgendered people suffer from GID because they don't understand why they want to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex or act like a person of the opposite sex, especially men. Many men hide the fact that they would rather be like women. Some women might too, but, as was earlier pointed out, it is much easier for a woman to be socially accepted for living a man's life than it is for a man to be socially accepted for living a woman's life, even to the point where most people just assume that any crossdressing man must be a submissive homosexual (eventhough this is not true, especially since a good percentage of male crossdressers and transgenders are attracted to women). Most people are raised in a manner that set up expectations for how they were supposed to dress and act, and even for what they were supposed to like, because of the sex they were born as.

For example, I never liked Barbies. My Barbie dolls always became conscripted soldiers in the wars that my brother and I would play in. I begged my parents for GI Joes growing up, but they always went to my brothers because even my parents would tend to forget that I had asked for some when they bought them for my brothers for Christmas. It probably wasn't even a conscious choice to not give me any of the GI Joes, but rather something that stemmed from it being more normal for boys to ask for Joes than girls. By the time I was 9, I was only asking my parents for books and clothes, but no toys because I knew that I wouldn't get what I wanted anyway, which was boys' toys.

And I know that my father is embarrassed that he likes to wear women's night gowns. I'm pretty sure that my father has no desire to actually be a woman, but he does like to wear some women's clothes and he is ashamed of this because of the way that he feels that some people would judge him for wearing them.

That is where much of GID comes from, especially for those who do not feel a need to actually change their physical sex. There disorder stems from them not being able to figure out why they want to look like or act like the opposite sex that they were born as, adopt those characteristics that society reserves for the opposite gender.

Someone who is raised without feeling that it is necessary to like pink or wear suits or dresses, but not the other, is less likely to have such feelings of dismay if they decide that they would prefer to wear dresses over suits or only wear pink or they would rather be involved with aggressive sports than do dance or theater than someone who was raised in a specific gender role.

If that were the case, then that would be great but I don't believe that there is any early detection method of identifying GID.

Doing so, when the probability is less than 1% of a chance occurrence seems not wise.
 
I don't know why you are calling it an "experiment". All the parents have done is chosen not to reveal to other people what the sex of their child is. They hope the child will express its natural gender without having to impose it via socialization, which if you are right, will be the gender that matches its sex.

It is an experiment.
They have no real idea that it will do anything, it's only based of their believe that gender is a social construct.
 
You're right. I simply presented it as an option for someone who said they were uncomfortable saying "it," since they don't know the sex or gender of the child. Its purpose is for the sake of conversation.

Plus it is useful to have a gender-neutral pronoun that does not dehumanize someone. I tire of saying "him or her" and I am too conscientious about proper grammar to use "them" all of the time.

GID.info | Gender Identity Disorder Information

Transsexual differences caught on brain scan - life - 26 January 2011 - New Scientist

The second link in particular talks about brain differences in men and women, and how these difference coincides with the desired gender of a transsexual.

I have seen the arguments before and read them well enough to realize the conclusions amount to fallacious "correlation equals causation" arguments.

This is a really excellent point. Transgendered people act in a way commonly expected of the opposite sex, they don't challenge gender roles, they a actually conform to them. Bravo. I've learned something.

Exactly. While any act against gender roles is a slight to the most hardline sexist it is more acceptable for an effeminate man to be a homosexual or to lop off his penis than embrace "femininity" while remaining straight. A cross-dressing homosexual is not really rocking the boat. A heterosexual cross-dresser destroys everything society dictates is the proper order of things.

Biology puts in place how certain clothes look on certain people and how sensitive certain people are, but there is nothing in nature that says that every person of a certain sex should wear only certain clothes or that every person of a certain sex should be at this X amount of sensitivity. Society sets those limits.

You really shouldn't say that because it leads people to the mistaken believe that presence in nature is the same as being innate. Animals have social constructs too. Someone who has ever spent much time with more than one dog can tell you they have their own unique personalities and society is nothing more than the coalescence of numerous individual personalities into a single collective personality.
 
If that were the case, then that would be great but I don't believe that there is any early detection method of identifying GID.

Doing so, when the probability is less than 1% of a chance occurrence seems not wise.

But there isn't anything to indicate that these parents are going to do anything that will hurt their child's gender identity. It seems like they are trying to see which identity the child naturally identifies with, while influencing that as little as possible.

I am the first person to admit that I do tend to focus my boys' identity to being boys, including buying them cars and trucks and other toys that are for boys and not buying them dolls or toys that are meant for girls. I don't feel that I am hurting my boys in doing this but it could give them a false sense that if they would prefer to play with dolls or other "girl" toys, that I might not approve of their choice. Hopefully, my husband and I both are willing to accept that it isn't a big deal if our boys want to own/play with dolls. But I also can see these parents as having a much easier time in dealing with whatever toys their child wishes to play with, no matter which sex the child is or what gender the toys are meant for.
 
This is easy. The potential for psychological damage is too great to risk this nonsense on a child.

If it's a boy and is treated like a girl of vise versa, or if they are dressed like David Bowie there is a risk of a gender identity crisis.

What sociological damage?
 
1. Let the parents do what they want so long as the child is not being harmed (which I doubt it is)
2. The kid is going to figure out sooner or later what he or she is.
3. This is stupid.
 
But there isn't anything to indicate that these parents are going to do anything that will hurt their child's gender identity. It seems like they are trying to see which identity the child naturally identifies with, while influencing that as little as possible.

As in your brothers example, he wasn't coached, that is who he really was.
All the prompting to be more boyish was for naught.


I am the first person to admit that I do tend to focus my boys' identity to being boys, including buying them cars and trucks and other toys that are for boys and not buying them dolls or toys that are meant for girls. I don't feel that I am hurting my boys in doing this but it could give them a false sense that if they would prefer to play with dolls or other "girl" toys, that I might not approve of their choice. Hopefully, my husband and I both are willing to accept that it isn't a big deal if our boys want to own/play with dolls. But I also can see these parents as having a much easier time in dealing with whatever toys their child wishes to play with, no matter which sex the child is or what gender the toys are meant for.

I'm convinced that you're a good parent and that if your child didn't want trucks or what have you, you'd be more than understanding in providing some toys he does want.

Which is what I think most parents should do.
Expect your kids to act their gender.
If they don't, be understanding and accommodate them.
 
It is an experiment.
They have no real idea that it will do anything, it's only based of their believe that gender is a social construct.

I don't think they said anything about gender being a social construct. Could you point out exactly where they made that argument?
 
Well, it is and it isn't. Gender is inborn, but the way societies typecast being a given gender is mostly constructed.

Within that there are common trends - generally true things about the way the genders behave - but that girls wear pink and boys wear blue is a construct.

In others words, gender itself is not a construct. But what a given society thinks that means is.

Demon of Light,

You don't think it's interesting that transsexuals specifically have opposite-sex brain markers? It isn't really claiming to know the cause - just that we see this in transsexual people.

Chromosomal males with adrogen insensitivity may have a partially or completely female physical presentation, depending on their degree of insensitivity. But even when the insensitivity is only partial, and they may have ambiguous physical sex, they almost always have a female gender identity regardless of whether they were assigned physically male at birth.
 
This is just plain sick, and disturbing. These people must trying to get attention while claiming their not. I can think of no logical explaination, for this.

I have to wonder if there may some long term damage to the child that might come from this.

By the way, it looks like a little boy to me.

Reminds me of something done in colonial New England. The community at large pretty much had to know what the gender of this adult individual was, as this person switched roles from time to time, and place to place. They had a trial and everything. Interesting to look at, really.
 
Last edited:
Their actions lead me to believe as such.

Their words indicate that they are simply allowing their child to develop naturally without social constraints. I don't think I have read anything to the extent that they believe gender is purely a social construction. That is simply your uninformed assumption.
 
Their words indicate that they are simply allowing their child to develop naturally without social constraints. I don't think I have read anything to the extent that they believe gender is purely a social construction. That is simply your uninformed assumption.

The use of "naturally" is dubious.
English developed the gender modifiers "naturally" therefor it is natural.
It is my assumption based on their actions.

Gender exists because of the division of labor, that has brought humanity to were it is.
For some reason, I just don't think it's wrong. ;)
 
I believe that this is the point. However, at what point does raising a child as one wishes conflict with the rights that the child has under the Constitution? I believe that the discussion should be centered around this point. Where is the line to be drawn? I would say that, as long as the child is not deprived of his / her inherent Constitutional rights, then the parents are not breaking any laws.

We frown on parents that abuse their children for all sorts of different things, whether real or imagined. I see no difference here. Whether one thinks it is abusive is a matter of opinion, and generally people that attempt to muddy the waters with talk of gender/sex... sex/gender usually have a dog in the race.. Gender may not be something easily defined, but I sure as hell know it when I see it; the lack of a clear definition for gender should not be a barr to reason.


Tim-
 
The wise speak because they have something to say; fools because they have got to say something.

Having something to say doesn't mean you're saying much. :shrug:
 
But there isn't anything to indicate that these parents are going to do anything that will hurt their child's gender identity. It seems like they are trying to see which identity the child naturally identifies with, while influencing that as little as possible.

Storm's oldest brother wears a pink dress and long pigtails and the 2nd oldest brother is often mistaken for a girl. I would call that "influence".
 
pat-snl1.jpeg
 
Back
Top Bottom