• 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

Yes they are different, I don't think no one is suggesting otherwise, but societal gender norms, are just that, derived from society, and not biology.

And, somehow, they're going to be able to negate those societal norms the child's whole life? What happens when the kid is old enough to express "itself" in a gender specific way? Should the parents still insist "it" remain gender nuetral?
 
I do think gender is innate, but the way one expresses their gender is up to them, what defines being female gendered? What defines being male gendered?

Female gender is the aggregate of what females do.
Male gender is the aggregate of what males do.

Transgender people typically act in common practice with the gender they identify with.
Leads me to believe that gender is biological.
 
Adding "ze" or whatever has practically 0 effect on the development of the kid.
Similarly to saying She/he.

It serves no purpose.

I would agree with this, I think the more powerful thing would be letting the child do whatever they want with regards to activities that are usually associated with the other gender. LIke if it's a girl, and she wants to play sports, or wear a little suit instead of a dress then they should be supportive of this, and not push societies roles with regards to gender that way, instead of just making a big fit about being not knowing the child's sex.
 
Adding "ze" or whatever has practically 0 effect on the development of the kid.
Similarly to saying She/he.

It serves no purpose.

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.
 
And, somehow, they're going to be able to negate those societal norms the child's whole life? What happens when the kid is old enough to express "itself" in a gender specific way? Should the parents still insist "it" remain gender nuetral?

The parents should support whatever the child wants to do with regards to gender identity.
 
Try this one out.

If gender were a social construct, then why do transgender people exist?

...everyone is now blown away.
clint.gif

Because society establishes that someone born in a certain sex, i.e. man/penis/XY chromosome, woman/vagina/XX chromosome, should dress a certain way, talk a certain way, walk a certain way, like certain things, shave certain areas, not shave certain areas, etc. Biology doesn't establish what clothes a person should wear, society does. Biology doesn't really establish how sensitive a person should be, society does. 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.

Transgendered people feel that they fit better in the gender role that society has said does not fit with their physical sex. It isn't that hard to figure out. That is why most professionals who talk about sex and gender do not use them interchangebly, from what I have observed. Sex is used to describe a person's physical features that make them a man or woman, while gender is generally used to describe the person in relation to whether they fit into society's description of how a man or a woman should act, dress, feel, think, etc.
 
I would agree with this, I think the more powerful thing would be letting the child do whatever they want with regards to activities that are usually associated with the other gender. LIke if it's a girl, and she wants to play sports, or wear a little suit instead of a dress then they should be supportive of this, and not push societies roles with regards to gender that way, instead of just making a big fit about being not knowing the child's sex.

They shouldn't be supportive, they should be completely neutral then.
Any support could be falsely identified as support for a gender role.
 
So they'e experimenting with their own baby. That concept is a bit sick to me but I also think it's pointless because it's not a scientific experiment. The parents are not impartial scientists. They have their own biases (I would say "issues", but, whatever). They are perfectly happy that their older son picked out a pink dress for himself and he has long braids. They're keeping him out of kindergarden because he doesn't want to be called a girl. I would say that right there is proof that they're encouraging something that is harmful to one of their children. Disclaimer: please note I'm not saying I think pink is harmful for a boy but this boy is obviously uncomfortable being called a girl to the extent he has supposedly asked not to go to school.
The middle son is often mistaken for a girl.
It seems like they are the type to encourage differences from the norm. Whatever happens with this baby isn't going to prove that raising him/her gender neutral "works". The only thing it will prove is what we can already observe right now and it's all about the parents, imo.
Also, I'd like to know how this "keeping Storm's gender a secret from the grandparents" thing works. Does this mean the grandparents are banned from ever babysitting the baby?
 
They are stupid and will likely fail.
I'm pretty well convinced that gender is biological.

They may fail, but I do not think that is because there is any biological basis for it since I have seen no evidence to suggest there is such a basis. Rather, they simply cannot prevent the child from being exposed to the psychological pressures regarding gender the rest of society will bring to bear. It is very easy to feel compelled to embrace the more dominant cultural attitude.

Still, I applaud and encourage the effort to counter that abusive attitude. In my opinion the very idea of "psychological gender" is devoid of meaning and only inhibits our potential growth as human beings.

Once upon a time when a girl were pants she was considered a gender-bending hedonist but the feminist movement soundly destroyed that notion. There are still many psychological and social stereotypes being propagated about the female gender, but it is far more limited than it once was. However, stereotypes about men remain in tact and as long as this remains it will inherently lead to a false contrast between the two genders.
 
And, somehow, they're going to be able to negate those societal norms the child's whole life? What happens when the kid is old enough to express "itself" in a gender specific way? Should the parents still insist "it" remain gender nuetral?

Nothing we have seen so far suggests that. If the child gets old enough to start expressing their gender and the parents suppress it, then we have grounds upon which to look at that argument. But right now, we don't.

Right now, all we know is that they are trying to reduce that influence on their infant. If this develops into them suppressing their gender expression, then we can have that debate. If it develops into them allowing whatever gender expression the child winds up desiring, then we can have that debate.

We just have no evidence they are trying to permanently eliminate gender from their child's world.
 
Female gender is the aggregate of what females do.
Male gender is the aggregate of what males do.

Transgender people typically act in common practice with the gender they identify with.
Leads me to believe that gender is biological.

I would disagree, some of what I do doesn't fit with the aggregate of what females do, some does. Does that make me any less female? I am biologically a female, my gender identity is female, but do some of the activities I engage in make me any less female, even if I feel female 100% of the time?
 
Female gender is the aggregate of what females do.
Male gender is the aggregate of what males do.

Transgender people typically act in common practice with the gender they identify with.
Leads me to believe that gender is biological.

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.
 
Because society establishes that someone born in a certain sex, i.e. man/penis/XY chromosome, woman/vagina/XX chromosome, should dress a certain way, talk a certain way, walk a certain way, like certain things, shave certain areas, not shave certain areas, etc. Biology doesn't establish what clothes a person should wear, society does. Biology doesn't really establish how sensitive a person should be, society does. 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.

Transgendered people feel that they fit better in the gender role that society has said does not fit with their physical sex. It isn't that hard to figure out. That is why most professionals who talk about sex and gender do not use them interchangebly, from what I have observed. Sex is used to describe a person's physical features that make them a man or woman, while gender is generally used to describe the person in relation to whether they fit into society's description of how a man or a woman should act, dress, feel, think, etc.

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.
 
They shouldn't be supportive, they should be completely neutral then.
Any support could be falsely identified as support for a gender role.

The gender role the child wants to live in, I think the parents should be supportive of that.
 
I actually learned a bit about this in Psych 101. The extremes of the gender roles tend to be less extreme in children raised gender-neutral. This doesn't seem to impair their functioning or mental state, nor does it seem to encourage transgenderism. It just moves men and women a little closer together. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But they're not raising Storm gender-neutral. They're raising Storm genderless.

Clinton Anderson, director of the American Psychological Association's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, told FoxNews.com that while the organization supports gender nondiscrimination, there is no research available regarding potential harms or benefits to raising a so-called genderless child.
Read more: 'Genderless' Child Ignites Firestorm in Canada - FoxNews.com
 
Last edited:
The gender role the child wants to live in, I think the parents should be supportive of that.

What would the child think its parents want, Your Star? Are not children apt to do as it is influenced?
 
I would disagree, some of what I do doesn't fit with the aggregate of what females do, some does. Does that make me any less female? I am biologically a female, my gender identity is female, but do some of the activities I engage in make me any less female, even if I feel female 100% of the time?

Of course, most everyone will not perfectly fit in an aggregate measurement.

The point is that you would likely highlight enough points to where a person, not knowing your gender, could identify it based on your behavior.
 
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.

It's not that I'm uncomfortable with saying "it", it just seems strange that these parents would prefer "it" over he/she. Apparently objectification is not something they're concerned about their child internalizing.
 
The gender role the child wants to live in, I think the parents should be supportive of that.

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.
 
Last edited:
But they're not raising Storm gender-neutral. They're raising Storm genderless.

Clinton Anderson, director of the American Psychological Association's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, told FoxNews.com that while the organization supports gender nondiscrimination, there is no research available regarding potential harms or benefits to raising a so-called genderless child.
Read more: 'Genderless' Child Ignites Firestorm in Canada - FoxNews.com

What is the difference between tenderness and gender-neutral, Dix?
 
Of course, most everyone will not perfectly fit in an aggregate measurement.

The point is that you would likely highlight enough points to where a person, not knowing your gender, could identify it based on your behavior.

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.
 
What is the difference between tenderness and gender-neutral, Dix?

I've never hear the term "tenderness" with regards to gender issues. What does it mean?
 
It's not that I'm uncomfortable with saying "it", it just seems strange that these parents would prefer "it" over he/she. Apparently objectification is not something they're concerned about their child internalizing.

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.
 
What is the difference between tenderness and gender-neutral, Dix?

No one is even allowed to know the sex of this baby vs. buying gender neutral toys, clothes etc. for your little BOY or GIRL.
 
Back
Top Bottom