'Genderless' Child Ignites Firestorm in Canada

[Councilman]

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.

'Genderless' Child Ignites Firestorm in Canada - FoxNews.com
A Toronto couple raising their 4-month-old without identifying the child as a boy or a girl have created a media firestorm in Canada, where some have likened the scenario to a "bizarre lab experiment" that seeks to undo thousands of years of social evolution.

Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, are raising their third child, Storm, to be free of societal norms regarding gender. Is Storm male or female? The parents won't say, so no one knows except Storm's older brothers, Jazz and Kio, as well as a close family friend and two midwives who helped deliver the baby, according to the Toronto Star.

 

[Kandahar]

Seems kinda stupid, but I don't really see the harm in it.

 

[Deuce]

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.

Why is this sick, exactly?

 

[rocket88]

Shouldn't they have the freedom to raise their child as they wish? Or should the government tell them what to do?

 

[CriticalThought]

It's a fruitless attempt. Studies have shown that parents inherently speak to their infants in different ways due to perception of their gender. They are socializing a gender into that child whether they are aware of it or not.

I do find it strange that Councilman is so furious. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. They don't tell you not to indoctrinate your children into your religious beliefs and to not socialize them in accordance to how you perceive the male or female gender should behave, so I don't what grounds you have to tell them how to raise their child.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Why does this matter?

Gender expression happens regardless of social training, and doesn't always agree with social training. This is shown clearly by transgender individuals. But if you want to disregard that, it's shown even more clearly by intersexed children who are assigned a gender at birth, and this gender frequently turns out to be incorrect.

What they are basically doing is allowing their child to develop its natural degree of gender identity by trying not to impose it on them from birth. The likelihood of them having a gender identity opposite of their sex is just as low as it would be for someone who had their gender identity imposed at birth. They simply have greater freedom to choose their degree of expression.

I think it's great. *shrug*

 

[Councilman]

Why is this sick, exactly?

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.

 

[CriticalThought]

This is easy. The potential for psychological damage is too great to risk this nonsense on a child.

Wow, you are suddenly a qualified psychologist? Where did you get your degree?

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.

And your evidence to support any of this is what?

Another silly social conservative making completely unsubstantiated assumptions and trying to pass them off as fact. :roll:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

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.

Uh, proof please?

All the evidence I know of says you're wrong. Androgynous parents and upbringing actually encourages success and self-esteem.
http://gozips.uakron.edu/~susan8/parinf.htm

(Please note the difference in categorization between undiffrentiated children and androgynous children.)
The Social Adjustment and Aggression Status of Children Based on Gender Roles

Gender and the way it's expressed is mostly a social construct. Back in FDR's childhood days, boys wore dresses for the first 5 or 6 years of their lives. It was more convenient for the parents. Children were completely androgynous until grade school.

People do have a concept of male or female as applies to them, but the specific societal manifestations of that are constructed. People who are raised with strict gender rolls tend to have limited achievement, more depression, and less confidence. Left to develop naturally, men and women still express gender differently (assuming they conform to their sex, which not everyone does), but the scale isn't as extreme as it is in our culture.

Forcibly telling a child what they should look and act like is not much different from forcibly telling them what they will be when they grow up. It's extremely oppressive.

Children don't go crazy if they don't have limiting, authoritarian gender rolls. They're fine. They're better adjusted, in fact.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Perhaps the OP doesn't realize that a media "firestorm" in Canada means that 5 people read the story, cause I ain't heard a damn thing about it

 

[Your Star]

I don't see the big deal :shrug:

 

[Your Star]

Perhaps the OP doesn't realize that a media "firestorm" in Canada means that 5 people read the story, cause I ain't heard a damn thing about it

To have a media firestorm in Canada you have to have something about the Habs in the story

 

[CriticalThought]

To have a media firestorm in Canada you have to have something about the Habs in the story

If Fox News says there is a media firestorm then clearly there is a media firestorm. Why would Fox News lie about such a thing? I mean, it isn't like they want to generate a media firestorm by claiming that a nonexistent media firestorm exists. That isn't something a "fair and balanced" news organization would do, is it?

 

[Wake]

They do it for attention. The child will reach puberty and society will know. Is the child told by its parents that it has no gender? How would the child feel at puberty?

This issue is exclusive to all other social issues. It's being lied to, if it's being told it has no gender.

They will fail. Their underlying motive/notion will crumble even amongst liberals.

 

[BDBoop]

What about Shiloh Pitt-Jolie? She's a beautiful baby girl who gender identifies male.

But the terror that the preschooler might go all Chaz Bono will not abate. As her famous mother reveals in the new Vanity Fair -- in a nugget promptly and widely disseminated Monday -- Shiloh "dresses like a little dude ... she likes tracksuits, she likes [regular] suits. So it's a suit with a tie and a jacket and slacks, or a tracksuit. She likes to dress like a boy." That we already knew, but oh no! She continues, "She wants to be a boy. So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys' everything. She thinks she's one of the brothers."

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/28/shiloh_jolie_pitt_still_a_boy

According to her dad, she wants to be called 'John'.

Shiloh Jolie-Pitt in Boys' Swim Trunks - Healthy or Harmful? - StyleList

 

[Jetboogieman]

I tell yah, this should not upset you as much as kids being brought up to do this...

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

What about Shiloh Pitt-Jolie? She's a beautiful baby girl who gender identifies male.



Shiloh Jolie-Pitt wants to be a boy! - Broadsheet - Salon.com

According to her dad, she wants to be called 'John'.

Shiloh Jolie-Pitt in Boys' Swim Trunks - Healthy or Harmful? - StyleList

I think it's really cool that they're allowing him (as the child prefers to identify) express that way.

The depression and confusion that transgender people feel is due to not being accepted socially. This child actually has a chance of escaping that with supportive parents. I think that's wonderful.

 

[CriticalThought]

I tell yah, this should not upset you as much as kids being brought up to do this...

Interesting point. Where is Councilman's thread on how those children are being raised?

 

[CriticalThought]

They do it for attention. The child will reach puberty and society will know. Is the child told by its parents that it has no gender? How would the child feel at puberty?

This issue is exclusive to all other social issues. It's being lied to, if it's being told it has no gender.

They will fail. Their underlying motive/notion will crumble even amongst liberals.

What exactly do you think they are trying to do?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

They do it for attention. The child will reach puberty and society will know. Is the child told by its parents that it has no gender? How would the child feel at puberty?

This issue is exclusive to all other social issues. It's being lied to, if it's being told it has no gender.

They will fail. Their underlying motive/notion will crumble even amongst liberals.

Well, a 4-month-old baby isn't being told much of anything.

Gender and sex are different. Sex is the physical presentation of a person. Gender is their internal identity.

The child shouldn't be told what their gender is. Most people have a gender that is consistent with their sex. Some don't. Either way is fine.

 

[roguenuke]

It doesn't bother me at all. I can't think of how this could be an issue unless the child is getting confused. Children generally know that there is a difference between girls and boys. I doubt that the child cares whether he/she is a girl or boy at this age. And it is possible that the child knows anyway. My kid can usually tell me if a person in a picture is a girl or boy by just looking at them. No nakedness needed. And he is only 3.

Also, this reminds me a little bit of that episode of Star Trek: TNG, where the whole planet was genderless but some of them wanted to actually identify as a specific gender. A lot of debates about gender identity and especially those stupid conversion therapies remind me of that episode. It was a great episode.

 

[X Factor]

Well, at they're not doing anything really crazy, like having him (if it's a "him") circumcised.

Seriously, who cares?

 

[Wake]

"To be free of societal norms". That is their motive. Every action has a reason.

What else can be free of societal norms? Naked resorts, man babies, people who permanently ink every inch of their bodies including whites and iris of the eye..

It appears to be a desire for attention.

 

[roguenuke]

"To be free of societal norms". That is their motive. Every action has a reason.

What else can be free of societal norms? Naked resorts, man babies, people who permanently ink every inch of their bodies including whites and iris of the eye..

It appears to be a desire for attention.

It definitely doesn't sound like they are looking for attention. They did an interview with a newspaper (doesn't say if they initiated interview or if someone else pointed the reporter in their direction) but they turned down further interviews specificially saying that they didn't want the attention. We'll see if they do more interviews in the future, but it is too earlier to claim that they are looking for attention without knowing why they did the first interview.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

"To be free of societal norms". That is their motive. Every action has a reason.

What else can be free of societal norms? Naked resorts, man babies, people who permanently ink every inch of their bodies including whites and iris of the eye..

It appears to be a desire for attention.

Sure. Why do you care?

They desire attention by simply having a child without forcing a gender on it? They turned down any further contact or interviews, siting they didn't desire to turn this into a media circus. Oh yeah, they are soooooo looking for attention.