quote: While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began.
My own personal opinion is that I have no problem with this. But I know plenty who think it's stupid and some who think it's a form of child abuse.
Your thoughts?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I understand their intent and can appreciate it. However, I don't think it will really work like they want it to. They say they want their children to make their own decisions about who they want to be, which is great, but they're still imparting their views on their children as much as they may not want to admit it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am highly in favor of this, although I do not think it's necessarily the best choice for all parents, for reasons outlined here.
Are they imparting their views on their child? Sure. But letting their child make up their own mind is far less of an imposition that telling them from birth to conform to a huge array of societal standards. The bullying issue is the only area where it actually becomes a problem for Storm erself (damn, I keep typing female pronouns by accident!), and I think it'd be pretty easy, fairly early on, for Storm to decide for erself whether its an issue.
(In my school's film program, I helped produce a documentary about children born with ambiguous genitalia and cosmetic surgery done on them at birth without their consent, often with lasting, harmful effects. In general, society's obsession with children's genitalia is ridiculous.)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think you could continue with this up until the kid started to interact with children outside its family. Then, it would probably start showing its bits to all and sundry (as children do) and be influenced by what the other kids of its gender were doing. This is just not going to work long term.
After all, Storm knows whether it's a girl or a boy.
This is rather extreme, but I don't think there's anything wrong with, for eg. putting little kids in gender neutral clothes, or getting them gender neutral toys for the first few years. But later you just have to let them decide what they want - I think it would be impossible to raise a twelve year old as gender neutral without some form of abuse. But babies, sure.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:But later you just have to let them decide what they want - I think it would be impossible to raise a twelve year old as gender neutral without some form of abuse. But babies, sure.
The point is not to keep the child's gender hidden forever. The point is to let the child decide for erself what er gender is. I'd give 95% odds e decides pretty quickly upon contact with other kids around kindergarden.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Visceral response, here, but I'd have less of a problem with it if the kid wasn't named "Storm." Makes me feel like the parents thought, "How can we stir society up and get everyone to notice us?"
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The bullying issue is the only area where it actually becomes a problem for Storm erself (damn, I keep typing female pronouns by accident!)
You could always use "ze" and "hir". Which brings up the question, what are the parents going to do?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Visceral response, here, but I'd have less of a problem with it if the kid wasn't named "Storm." Makes me feel like the parents thought, "How can we stir society up and get everyone to notice us?"
Yeah, the problem with their plan is that it can only work if you give your kid a douchey name.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I assume they have some set of pronouns picked out, although "what is everyone else in society going to do" is a bigger question.
I have a gender-fluid friend who wishes "what's your pronoun?" would replace "what's your sign?" as a beginning-of-conversation question.
quote:Visceral response, here, but I'd have less of a problem with it if the kid wasn't named "Storm." Makes me feel like the parents thought, "How can we stir society up and get everyone to notice us?"
I admit that does bug me slightly, but how many gender-neutral standard names are there to choose from? Not every gender neutral kid can be Pat, Chris or Alex.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Personally, I liked "Marley"
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think Jesse, Casey or Kelly are good compromise names. I've known both males and females with these names and they sound pretty normal.
Well, for gender neutral, English is great because it has a built in answer - 'it'. The parents may not like this, (the kid sure won't) but that's what people are naturally going to use unless someone can provide a nicer answer. They could just decide to use the child's name all the time until it wears out. 'Storm says that Storm thought that Storm had left Storm's books on Storm's bed...'
Still, in a lot of languages it would be pretty much impossible to even try referring to someone in a gender neutral way, because even the verbs and adjectives etc would have to reflect male or female.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm against it and against what they're trying to accomplish, but I just roll my eyes at those that call it child abuse.
For neutral names, there's a lot of names that started out as male names and have now become more common as, but not exclusively, female names, like Taylor, McKay, and Alice.
quote:Well, for gender neutral, English is great because it has a built in answer - 'it'.
'It' isn't quite gender neutral -- it's genderless. Instead of not saying what the gender is, 'it' says that there is no gender.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Thinking about it today, it's pretty obvious to me that Storm is a girl.
They have two boys who's gender identity they are apparently not worried about. It would make sense that they would change their child raising habits for the new addition if it was different from the first two.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I think people are missing the fact that Storm is 4 months old.
The parents, who, aside from being crazy hippies, aren't entirely deluded about what they're doing, which you will find if you read only what they quote and the actions they have taken, and how the story was picked up, but ignore the two cents that every journalist, etc. has tossed in.
Basically, they sent out the birth announcement and said that they were not going to tell people right away whether their baby was a boy or girl, though, obviously, those who have seen Storm without a diaper know. They didn't say for how long nor that it was going to be a state secret forever. They don't particularly care if Storm runs around and says that Storm has a penis or vagina, but the point is that Storm can't say anything coherent.
Aside from specific treatments geared toward the parts inside a baby's diaper that produce urine, and avoiding getting hit in the face with pee if you have a male child, there is no practical difference between the needs of female and male infants. None. They don't like sitting in their body fluids, they like being fed, they like being held, and they want to learn English. They also want to sleep all night, but they don't know it yet. They have no idea they wanted those nasty shot things, but they do, as it turns out. Don't try to tell me that you would let a male child cry longer to toughen him up, or girl babies need more cuddling because that's just how they are, because that's crap.
Yet as soon as someone knows the gender of the baby, they start treating it differently, even talking to it differently. The fact that people are so bothered by this, that they don't know how to react towards an infant whose gender they do not know is testament to that, don't deny it. But, really, babies only need the stuff I mentioned above. They don't care. They don't have friends. The rest is just dressing up a doll that doesn't talk and hoping that person won't be too mad when the pictures get show to a prom date 17 years later.
Even if you slathered a baby in pink and cooed at it and told it was a girl, the baby still won't know it's a girl until it's old enough to walk and talk. So why shove a bunch of pink or blue kitsch in the baby's face when no one needs to?
[ June 05, 2011, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ugh. I think the parents are fruitbats.
Yes, people treat kids differently. When Tova was little, she didn't have much hair on her head until she was more than 2 years old, and what there was was both very short and very light.
One day, we were at a pizza place with her, and she was wearing overalls. This guy (from a boy scout troop that was there) came over and started talking to us and to her. He was all, "Hey, little man," and sports and stuff. And then we said, "She's a girl." And without a blink, and probably without realizing what he was doing, he instantly shifted to "Aw, what a sweet little princess!"
But so what? I hate the pink and blue aisles at Toys Я Us as much as anyone, but this is just pathetic and in-your-face.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The bullying issue is the only area where it actually becomes a problem for Storm erself (damn, I keep typing female pronouns by accident!)
You could always use "ze" and "hir". Which brings up the question, what are the parents going to do?
A: use female pronouns, because storm's mom is obviously projecting more than she thinks she is in this 'experiment'
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I'm against it and against what they're trying to accomplish, but I just roll my eyes at those that call it child abuse.
Agreed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
when you're against what they're trying to accomplish, what specifically does that mean you're against? I want to know if it's more about gender neutrality stuff, or how these parents specifically are acting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Speaking for myself, not Porter: I happen to think there are hardwired gender differences, even in an infant. (Which have nothing to do with blue or pink.) So I disagree with what it seems to me they are trying to do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I assume you mean hardwired differences in sex — there are, though none of them seem to suffer any detriment from typical gender-neutral raising strategies. Gender identity isn't exactly important to a baby or toddler's well-being, same as it turned out they don't need a mom and dad as parents specifically to be able to 'type' themselves to the appropriate gender role, and 'two moms' or 'two dads' work fine. (cue the sturm und drang from the Family Traditionalists who insist otherwise)
At the same time, what these people are doing is hardly a typical gender neutral strategy. This isn't so much a case of "Let's allow our child to develop their own way" as it is "Let's satisfy our own agendas by experimenting on our child." Storm is an experimental subject for his Poe's Law crazy hippie parents.
Other fun depressing happy time things about this story!
1. Jazz is ALREADY experiencing issues from said experimentation.
quote:Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.” In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”
When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”
well then
2. These kids are also being 'educated' in the most wholly worthless homeschooling system possible! A straight ticket to the most profoundly diminished employment opportunities I can think of, unless you find a middle management position that accepts resumes in the form of interpretive dance or something uhh
quote:Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Gender isn't a pure social construct - there are hardwired traits that generally correlate with particular genders. But they do not always correlate with genitalia, and you can have genitalia and/or genes that do not fall neatly into the male/female spectrum. I think they stated Storm has normal genitalia, but that doesn't mean e's not transgendered, or gender neutral or fluid or whatever.
I suspect the more relevant issue for them is that even if Storm is completely gender typical, that doesn't mean that the heavy socialization children receive from birth is healthy or necessary.
I think it's debatable exactly how society as a whole should treat gender. Assuming Samp's post is accurate (he didn't source anything - he mentioned in another thread he's used to that happening automatically on another forum), I definitely have issues with some of the ways they're raising their children, but the simple act of raising them gender neutral is not one of those things.
The "letting the boy dress in pink and then use that as an excuse to homeschool him" is definitely questionable. I think gender stereotypes are worth breaking down so that boys who genuinely want to wear pink (among various other more significant things) can do so. Attempting to do this has an inherent cost on some children. No, it's not fair to those children. It's also not fair to children today who have to conform. I'm not sure whether I think the cost of changing is worth it.
If you think it isn't, I won't argue with you. But I will argue with you if you claim the current setup doesn't have its own downsides. There are more than two sexes and more than two genders, and there are consequences to the narrow boxes that society shoves them into.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: when you're against what they're trying to accomplish, what specifically does that mean you're against? I want to know if it's more about gender neutrality stuff, or how these parents specifically are acting.
I'm against gender neutrality stuff in general.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What's your reasoning behind that stance?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Assuming Samp's post is accurate (he didn't source anything - he mentioned in another thread he's used to that happening automatically on another forum),
My quotes are from the link in the OP. I sincerely recommend reading the whole thing, because it's just full of eyebrow-raisers like them.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh. I guess I stopped at the first 'break.' Didn't realize how long that was.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I'm less worried about the idea of 'trying to avoid conditioning a child in the normal way' than I am about the fact that these parents seem to be completely daft.
quote: “Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”
Needless to say, the response to this "gotcha" statement is another "gotcha" statement:
"Your child isn't making that choice here. You are."
I mean, it isn't their baby who chose to hide his or her sex.
Anyway, I'm sure there are differences between men and women that are hardwired in. At the same time, I can understand not wanting to force your child into a path they don't want.
There's still social things to keep in mind, and culture is always going to be slightly arbitrary. Still, greasing the wheels of society by going "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not an innately terrible thing either.
Hey, the culture I've grown up with is in many ways completely arbitrary. I follow some of those conventions solely because it's what we as a society have decided upon.
For instance, I write in complete sentences here on Hatrack.
I'm rambling now: The thing is, conformity isn't always bad. There are times when conformity is a very good idea. Many times, when you really think about it. We usually just do it unconsciously.
At the same time, there are things I can agree can be avoided. Rearing a girl so that she focuses solely on stereotypically girly things, when she might actually like math, science and/or physical things like football doesn't seem optimal to me. Rearing a boy so that he shuns "girly" things like poetry, sewing, or I dunno what else (I was reared as a boy with action figures, video games, basketballs and toy cars. I was also an only child. So I'm less intimately familiar with the things girls are given to play with, sorry.) in and of itself isn't necessarily good either.
Pushing a child so that they fit the stereotype of the other sex doesn't help matters, anymore than trying to make them conform to a stereotype of their own sex. And then there's other kids, and learning to deal with other kids, and by extension society at large, is important too. And the parents here don't seem to be doing a good job of imparting those important lessons. Their experiments with their older children give the impression, in the article, of hurting rather than helping.
And how strange that both their older boys seem more feminine than normal. If it was truly just their choice, what would stop at least one of them from being quite masculine? It seems hard for me to believe that two kids in a row are naturally just that feminine.
But then, that last bit is speculation, nothing more...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And how strange that both their older boys seem more feminine than normal. If it was truly just their choice, what would stop at least one of them from being quite masculine? It seems hard for me to believe that two kids in a row are naturally just that feminine.
As I touched on before, it's because the mom's telling herself that she's developing them 'genderless'-ly while overtly impressing feminine choices on them through her 'gender explorer' motivational lessons. 'Help boys do girl things!' is a huge tip-off; might as well be written by the mom as 'you have a minimum quota of girlyness to achieve for me, or you aren't a real gender explorer, you're a filthy normative.'
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Megabyte, this is also just speculation but perhaps ALL boys are naturally more "feminine" than boys today. After all, there's nothing inherently feminine about having long hair and liking bright colours.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I wonder how the perspective would shift if her older children were girls with "masculine" tendencies. Perhaps they preferred short hair and spent their time playing sports and collecting toy cars.
We've come to view once "masculine" features and behaviors as more gender-neutral. We don't care about young girls wearing pants but a boy in a skirt results in a scene.
Maybe the female revolution came first. As a gender, we've enjoyed "Rosie the Riveter" and "Take Your Daughter to Work" day. Maybe its time for guys to get in touch with their softer feminine side. Maybe in ten years, Tommy Hilfiger will be stocking skirts for men without any kind of commotion or judgment.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*nod* It's hard to tell how much superficial femininity and masculinity are imparted by normative parenting, and how much Storm's parents' style is artificially going in the other direction.
I don't feel like I am remotely qualified to critique earnest, well-meaning parenting. I worry - just a bit - about parents who are so invested in their ideals that they are blind to how they affect their children. But no parent is perfect, no system works for everyone, and no answer is always right - probably including "don't push your ideology too hard."
I'm glad enough when kids are born to parents who want them, feed and nourish them, and try to teach them to be good.
IF this is any kind of a problem with social weight, it's so far down the list of problems we need to address that it can wait a good long time.
*I think rigid gender roles and sex+gender identification are probably problems worth present concern. I mean the problem of swinging too far in the other direction is not really something I think we have to worry about at this point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No parent is perfect. But it's sometimes really, really easy to spot when a parent is projecting their fixative causes and beliefs onto their children, to the extent that using the children as an advertised advancement of the ideal is going to come at the detriment of just raising the kid to be functional and happy.
In this case, the focus of the story isn't even really the big thing. Their gender experimentation is just icing on the cake. It's not more important than the fact that these children are going to remain functionally uneducated.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great post theamazeeaz!
My wife and I have decked out our children's rooms in different themes, underwater blue/brown for the boy and flowers white/pink for the girl. But, every single piece of nonblue clothing that was too small for the boy went into the girl's closet. We often give her toys which are his and in male color and themes, because they are easily in reach. Sometimes the boy ends up sleeping with a pink blanket with flowers because the blue underwater one got puked or peed on. And when the boy picks up his sister's soft first dolly doll and totes it around for awhile my wife and I shake our heads and smile...I think he likes the bell in it.
I told my wife before we ever had children, that no mater their gender, once old enough, they are taking two after school classes, one would be self defense and the other would be one of their choosing. If my son wants to do dance, then that's fine, if my daughter wants to play sports, that's fine. They both will be able to defend themselves though.
These parents have made a political statement and are trying to push it into people's faces at the likely detriment of their children, as Samp said, more from lack of education then any gender experiment. I think they are more interested in pushing their views on everyone else then raising their children to be the best most well adjusted adults they can be, and that seems sad to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure how it is worse than parents pushing traditional gender roles onto their children - or any of a number of beliefs or agendas that parents foist onto their children. It is what parents do.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I tried to be less gendered with my daughter. She still got the beautiful dresses but I tried to get toys that were neutral. When picking out toys now, she is into very girly toys. She won't even go down the boy aisles. Her train set was ignored until I got her the pink accessory set. Regardless of what we did, my daughter realizes what a girl should do and since she is a girl, that is what she does. One thing that was really hard for me was soccer. My church did a soccer clinic for kids so we signed her up. Only 2 other girls and like 15 boys showed up. She barely played because there were too many boys and she didn't want to play with them. When we tried the soccer drills at home, she was awesome- better than all the boys. But she wouldn't play with them there. It was the first time I thought, ok, I can understand the girls only preschool. With my daughter, she would be more willing to try new things and experience more in that environment.
I bought a lot of blue and green dresses. My second daughter has amazing blue eyes and so I dress her in blue a lot. She is 7 months old and if there isn't a bow in her head, I am congratulated on my beautiful boy. When I correct people, they say, oh, I saw the blue.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
We've known the gender of each of our children before they were born and acquired clothes accordingly. However, I don't recall ever pushing much of a gender agenda on any of them. Our oldest daughter never played with dolls but quickly took a liking to building things and reading science books. One of our boys gravitated to cars--he really, really likes them. Our other boy never had an interest in cars. They all had the same toys as babies. I suppose we've treated each one differently, but more according to their personalities than to some fixed gender roles in our heads. I'm content to let my kids develop according to their own interests. However, I believe their gender is an important part of who they are, and I'm certainly not going to ignore it or suppress it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's not more important than the fact that these children are going to remain functionally uneducated.
Is this criticism leveled at Jazz or Storm's parents, or at unschoolers in general?
Unschooling can be done well. It depends largely on the child and the person doing the teaching. I don't see it done well frequently; but I have seen a few children and parents for whom it really does work.
EDIT: "Work" being defined as 'producing a young adult capable of competing with and functioning alongside peers in a society that values education, industry, and self-reliance.'
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have seen unschooling work incredibly well, and I've seen it work spectacularly poorly.
But now that I think about it, the same is true of public schooling.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I wonder if:
The kids have a bedtime or if they can stay up as long as they want
The kids have to eat their vegetables before they can leave the table
The kids have to look both ways before crossing the street
The kids are allowed to take candy from the stranger in the green van
The kids are potty trained or if they are able to go wherever they want.
I mean, the parents said they want their kids to choose everything for themselves right?
I'm fine with them not telling anyone what gender their baby is. To be honest it isn't our business. I do think it is stupid though. If the kid has a penis he is a boy, if the kid has a vagina it is a girl. If the kid decides to change that down the road fine, but right now he is one or the other. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This reminds me of a joke...a pair of hippy dippy parents want to challenge gender roles so for Xmas they buy their daughter a tool set and get their son a pair of dollies. After congratulating themselves on breaking through the gender stereotypes they go to check on their children, to see how they are doing with their new toys. The girl is sitting in her room playing with a hammer and a screwdriver. The hippy parents smile, until they hear how she is playing. "Mr. Hammer, would you like more tea?" "Why thank you Miss Screwdriver, I would love some tea." So the parents go to their son's room and are pleased to him playing with the dollies, until they hear how he is playing. "Okay Sergent Barbie, you take the shoe gun and assault the compound, I'll cover you with tea cup grenades."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It gets less funny when the child doesn't happen to fit gender stereotypes his parents and society expect and ends up committing suicide.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure how it is worse than parents pushing traditional gender roles onto their children - or any of a number of beliefs or agendas that parents foist onto their children. It is what parents do.
Well for one, there 5 year old son seems to be having significant social problems and gender identity issues. From the article we learn
quote:Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
And the mother says:
quote:“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,”
How many people, even transgender people, have really intense gender issues before the age of 5?
Its certainly possible that Jazz is one of those rare people who have serious transgender related issues as a child and that parents these parents are struggling to find a way to deal with their oldest sons challenge. But from what is given in the article, it seems more likely to me that the sons gender struggles are being exacerbated by this unusual parenting style. And if their parenting choices are causing difficulties for Jazz, should we expect things will go better with Storm?
I think most people at some point in their life have difficulty finding a balance between their individual desires and interests and societal expectations based on gender. I'm a woman engineering professor so I have some experience in what it means to pursue something that's not gender traditional. I had some difficult times back in my teens trying to balance my natural proclivities against the gender norms of a conservative LDS society. But even with that, I really can't comprehend why anyone would have sex reassignment surgery. I have to presume that the biological and psychological factors involved in transgenderism are something fundamentally different and not just a more extreme of normal struggles.
I understand that gender and genitalia don't always match, but they do an overwhelming majority of the time. It's hard to get good statistics on this. The best I've been able to find is that 1/30,000 men and 1/100,000 women seek sex reassignment surgery. I know that this is just the tip of the iceberg, but even if there are 1000 times as many people struggling with transgender issues, we are still talking about only a couple percent of the total population.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not entirely sure that the problems Jazz has are internal or external. How much of that is due to what people expect a boy to be?
Honestly, I don't know how many people have issues with gender before 5. I know plenty who have issues with it later - all the way from wanting to be a different gender to stifling a love of "boy things" (math, sports, science) because they weren't ladylike. One needn't have gender reassignment to want to flout gender stereotypes. It shouldn't have been a struggle for you to be a woman engineer. You should not have had to work to balance your nature against gender norms. I am sorry that you did, and glad that you prevailed, and sorrier still for the many, many who mightn't have been as strong as you are.
ETA: I should add that I do think that these parents are goofy and that there well may be problems down the line. I have also, though, seen people struggle with (and be terribly damaged by) the "normal" expectations of their parents as well.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
And how strange that both their older boys seem more feminine than normal. If it was truly just their choice, what would stop at least one of them from being quite masculine? It seems hard for me to believe that two kids in a row are naturally just that feminine.
But then, that last bit is speculation, nothing more...
Rather not strange at all, I think. From what I understand little boys (pre-school age) who have interests in girly activities are pushed hard away from them and told "no, you can't, that's for girls" very very harshly.
Anecdotally, my female college roommate was pretty bald until preschool age at which point her mom put her in hair-bows and barrettes constantly. Her little brother asked one day if HE could wear some barrettes to school. The mom was warned her son against it, but he begged for them so she sent him off to preschool with barrette in his hair. They were not there when she picked him up after school. To answer the follow-up question, he grew up to be a frat boy with a girlfriend, last I heard.
I also read a story in this book about another boy who (in the 1960s) insisted on wearing barrettes to preschool. Apparently another boy told him that wearing barrettes made him a girl. The boy replied back that he was a boy because he had a penis. But the anti-barrette boy, though completely wrong, convinced his peer that barrettes made people girls. In conclusion, four-year olds don't always understand gender. By the way, the the book is very good (just read it last week), and I think the most important conclusion that the author is that highly gendered play separates boy children and girl children from each other even more than they already do.
My third anecdote is from a blog post that got a lot of attention a while back. Here's the original post. Basically, pre-schooler wants to be Daphne from Scooby-Doo, but is worried other kids will say stuff. They don't. Their MOTHERS do.
Anyway, my point is that it's not unheard of for little boys raised by "normal" parents to want to play with girly things. In fact, wanting to dress up with shiny, obnoxious stuff is probably more of a pre-schooler trait than a little girl trait. So no, I'm not surprised that when given the chance the boys are looking a bit like little girls. Admit it, who gets more attention, the prince or the princess? In our society, the women are the peacocks, not the peahens. They get all the shinies! But the fact that tomboys are ok and boys who do girl things are not is troubling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It gets less funny when the child doesn't happen to fit gender stereotypes his parents and society expect and ends up committing suicide.
The humor lays in that despite the parents trying to push their ideas onto their children, the children are who they are.
Personally I think we are in a much more forgiving and understanding society then...say...any other time or place in the history of the world.
I think Eddie Izzard is hilarious, dress and all. I think the funniest Monty Python is when the boys throw on a dress and some make up. I have no problem with RuPaul, I think he is scarier when dressed as a male.
My point is that the problems they are creating for their children far out shadow the ones they are trying to overcome in this day and age.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It loses the humour when, instead of children getting to choose, parents choose for them. This is true even when the parents make more stereotypical choices for their kids - trucks and guns for boys, dolls for girls. We just don't notice that or think it is funny.
We are much more open and forgiving, but we still have a long ways to go.
I am not sure how you thinking drag is funny is a good thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I am not entirely sure that the problems Jazz has are internal or external. How much of that is due to what people expect a boy to be?
I don't know either. I doubt anyone could know. But from a purely statistical standpoint, its highly unlikely that Storms biological sex doesn't match his/her psychological gender and its equally highly improbably that pretending there is no relationship (as his/her parents seem to be doing) will be overall beneficial in this child's development.
quote:One needn't have gender reassignment to want to flout gender stereotypes.
I fully agree. I just don't agree that transgenderism is that closely related to the feelings that motivate typical people to flout gender norms.
quote:It shouldn't have been a struggle for you to be a woman engineer. You should not have had to work to balance your nature against gender norms.
I don't know. There are certainly benefits to living in a society that allows greater individual freedom. But at the same time, our human desire to "fit in" is to some degree hard wired. We are by nature social animals and a great deal of our happiness in life is derived from forming bonds with other people. In every human society, grooming and fashion (among other behaviors) have been used to indicate belonging and status. It's naive to believe we can eliminate that aspect of human behavior.
Finding a balance between meeting social expectation and pursuing individual desires is part of being human.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: "Rather not strange at all, I think. From what I understand little boys (pre-school age) who have interests in girly activities are pushed hard away from them and told "no, you can't, that's for girls" very very harshly."
Eh, maybe. Or maybe the mom invests so much emotional energy into the gendered behavior of her sons, that it confuses them and pushes them into adopting attitudes they think will please her. I don't feel I was ever repressed as a child, and I was very much into guy stuff. That's the story you're going to hear for about 98% of people, I imagine- maybe we were pushed into a certain gender role, but for most of us, that "push" was as much a source of comfort and guidance.
I think that's an aspect of gender people don't want to talk about anymore- that for a lot of people, it's comforting and feels very natural to have their families *show* them how to behave in a way that society and peers will expect. Because if most of us fit exactly the gender that we were born into, don't most of us appreciate at least a little help earlier on getting to know what that means to other people? I understand that makes things difficult for the unsure, but many of us are very sure; why make things complicated?
quote: I fully agree. I just don't agree that transgenderism is that closely related to the feelings that motivate typical people to flout gender norms.
Bingo. This is no coincidence. And while the opposite case, of a transgendered person in a conservative traditional environment being stifled and repressed is horrible, this is not the appropriate remedy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It loses the humour when, instead of children getting to choose, parents choose for them.
That is the essence of the joke, the parents attempted to choose for their children, and their children overrode their choice, by being who they are.
quote:We are much more open and forgiving, but we still have a long ways to go.
There is always a "better" state to be achieved, but there are many many way more deserving causes needing improvement in the world, like children dying of hunger, or aids.
quote:I am not sure how you thinking drag is funny is a good thing.
You missed my point, that is, for Eddie Izzard, he isn't in drag, he just likes wearing a dress. He is a he, he is male, and funny, and wearing a dress. For Monty Python, again, it is the content of their humor which is so pleasurable, not the fact that they are in drag.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:but there are many many way more deserving causes needing improvement in the world, like children dying of hunger, or aids
I hate, hate, hate this argument. Just because something isn't the worst problem in the world doesn't mean that it's not worth addressing. Yes, there's such a thing as outrage fatigue, but enthusiasm counts for a lot too. If you care more about fighting aids or hunger, by all means spend your time and effort doing so, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for somebody to spend their time and effort on something else.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I hear you mph...I'm not saying that all other endeavors should be abandoned for these two. But I do think that people make "lessor" concerns out of proportion at times and sometimes a little perspective is helpful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:It loses the humour when, instead of children getting to choose, parents choose for them.
That is the essence of the joke, the parents attempted to choose for their children, and their children overrode their choice, by being who they are.
Right. But "being who they are" is much harder for children who don't fit into usual stereotypes. We have gotten (mostly) used to girls who wear blue jeans, but boys who are drawn to pink and purple are still outcast. Would it hurt us to stop assuming that a kid with braid is female?
It is like those parents and teachers a few generations ago who would insist that children write with their right hand. Not a problem for most people - because most people are inclined to do so anyway. But it could be a big obstacle for lefties.
And I still don't get what point you are making with Eddie Izzard and Monty Python.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My point with Izzard and Python is that society is much more accepting then previously, as they are accepted even outside the normal standard.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Comedy (especially British comedy) has always included and accepted men in drag, men kissing, men in bed with each other. I think there's a huge difference in accepting this when you're supposed to be laughing at it, and, for example, accepting a man in a nice dress reading the evening news.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: "Rather not strange at all, I think. From what I understand little boys (pre-school age) who have interests in girly activities are pushed hard away from them and told "no, you can't, that's for girls" very very harshly."
Eh, maybe. Or maybe the mom invests so much emotional energy into the gendered behavior of her sons, that it confuses them and pushes them into adopting attitudes they think will please her. I don't feel I was ever repressed as a child, and I was very much into guy stuff. That's the story you're going to hear for about 98% of people, I imagine- maybe we were pushed into a certain gender role, but for most of us, that "push" was as much a source of comfort and guidance.
You are making the 98% number up, and you admit as much, but I want to point that out.
Even though the three anecdotes I have provided are preselected, no one tells me how much their little brother liked trucks and hated dolls.
The real question is what percentage of little boys showed any sort of interest in dress-up, dolls, what was considered "girls" colors at the time* that got squashed, hard, just once. You can't ask men this question, you have to ask their mothers and their preschool instructors, if they remember.
As a little girl I had lots of stereotypical girl toys, a giant bucket of barbies and ponies, dress-up clothes (our own old dance costumes) and a kitchen set that I played with with my older sister. My first friend was a boy named Scott, and we played together starting when we were both two. Scott had a kitchen like me, but he also had toys that I didn't, such Lincoln Logs, and a marble run that I think I was most envious of. I only remember going over Scott's place so I don't know what we played at my house. I wasn't much interested in Scott's GI Joes. But I liked puzzles and building things. I did rec sports as an elementary school did, but it didn't work out well because I didn't usually get along with other kids, and I grew up to be a nerd. As it turns out I have spatial, computer and math skills that "boys have".
So what I am saying is that it's not that 98% of boys have no interest in girl stuff or dress up, but many many more would like playing if it were socially acceptable, and well more than 2% have probably tried, and all of them would probably be willing to play dolls, dress-up some along with the regular "boy toy diet" of blocks, catch, marble run and GI Joe
*Fun fact. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, pink was for boys and blue was for girls, one of the reasons Cinderella (1950), Alice (1951) and Wendy (1953) can be seen wearing blue dresses in their movies and Wendy's brother Michael wears pink pajamas.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My little brother loved purple. Still does. A few people gave him a hard time for it, but we never did. We were actually relatively old before we ever even learned that purple was considered girly by some.
quote:*Fun fact. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, pink was for boys and blue was for girls, one of the reasons Cinderella (1950), Alice (1951) and Wendy (1953) can be seen wearing blue dresses in their movies and Wendy's brother Michael wears pink pajamas.
Do you have any sources for this claim, and information about how they swapped?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
mph
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What's your reasoning behind that stance?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you, but no. I am not interested in having that conversation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote:*Fun fact. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, pink was for boys and blue was for girls, one of the reasons Cinderella (1950), Alice (1951) and Wendy (1953) can be seen wearing blue dresses in their movies and Wendy's brother Michael wears pink pajamas.
Do you have any sources for this claim, and information about how they swapped? [/QB]
Although it doesn't support the claims about the Disney films.
Also, it wouldn't be odd today for a woman to wear a blue dress.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You are making the 98% number up, and you admit as much, but I want to point that out.
I didn't make up the 1/30,000 MTF surgery and 1/100,000 FTM surgery numbers. 2% if the population is 1000 times those numbers and I think a reasonable upper limit for the percent of people who have real transgender issues. I should note that 2%, means 1 in 50 people, or about 6 million people in the US. That's not an insignificant number even if it is a small fraction of the population.
I think there is plenty of scientific evidence that transgenderism is something distinctly different from the more typical problems children and adults face with not fitting gender stereotypes. Its a mistake to think of boys who like playing dress up and girls who prefer trucks to dolls as being part of the same spectrum with transgenderism.
[ June 06, 2011, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You are making the 98% number up, and you admit as much, but I want to point that out.
I didn't make up the 1/30,000 MTF surgery and 1/100,000 FTM surgery numbers. 2% if the population is 1000 times those numbers and I think a reasonable upper limit for the percent of people who have real transgender issues. I should note that 2%, means 1 in 50 people, or about 6 million people in the US. That's not an insignificant number even if it is a small fraction of the population.
I think there is plenty of scientific evidence that transgenderism is something distinctly different from the more typical problems children and adults face with not fitting gender stereotypes. Its a mistake to think of boys who like playing dress up and girls who prefer trucks to dolls as being part of the same spectrum with transgenderism.
I wasn't talking about about you. I was talking about Orincoro's statement that he thinks 98% of preschool boys fit society's mold for toys they should play with because they fit the nature of little boys.
I do find it fascinating that three times as many men as women undergo gender reassignment surgery.
[ June 06, 2011, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My little brother loved purple. Still does. A few people gave him a hard time for it, but we never did. We were actually relatively old before we ever even learned that purple was considered girly by some.
quote:*Fun fact. In the earlier parts of the 20th century, pink was for boys and blue was for girls, one of the reasons Cinderella (1950), Alice (1951) and Wendy (1953) can be seen wearing blue dresses in their movies and Wendy's brother Michael wears pink pajamas.
Do you have any sources for this claim, and information about how they swapped?
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QB] I don't feel I was ever repressed as a child, and I was very much into guy stuff. That's the story you're going to hear for about 98% of people, I imagine- maybe we were pushed into a certain gender role, but for most of us, that "push" was as much a source of comfort and guidance.
I think that's an aspect of gender people don't want to talk about anymore- that for a lot of people, it's comforting and feels very natural to have their families *show* them how to behave in a way that society and peers will expect. Because if most of us fit exactly the gender that we were born into, don't most of us appreciate at least a little help earlier on getting to know what that means to other people? I understand that makes things difficult for the unsure, but many of us are very sure; why make things complicated?
Great point Orin. I'm afraid that "socialization" has become too often viewed as a wholly negative process by which people are forced into a mold against their nature. A large part of socialization is simply learning how the other members of society view different behaviors. Being able to understand how other people view our choices is a really important skill. Sharing customs, traditions, values and symbols with other people can create a powerful sense of belonging and connectedness.
Having the freedom to reject a particular tradition or custom is a good thing, but it has consequences because those customs and traditions are part of what binds people together. If you choose not to share in those customs, you won't be as closely connected to other people
For example, there are a lot of girl bonding activities I find wearisome. I find the stereotypical chicks night out where you all get a pedicure while you complain about the men in your lives, gossip about the women who aren't there, talk about your menstrual cycles and tell birthing horror stories, to be torture. I know it would be easier for me to make friends with women if I liked that kind of thing and if worked on liking those things (or at least pretended to) there would be payback in that I would fit in better with other women. It's my choice.
But the thing is, if I were a child who didn't understand social rules, I wouldn't be free to choose between acceptance and doing what I liked. Socialization gives people the chance to make a choice about how much social acceptance means to them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I do find it fascinating that three times as many men as women undergo gender reassignment surgery.
As do I. I wonder to what extent that is reflective of an underlying difference and to what extent it reflects the fact that femininity in men is far less well accepted than masculinity in women, at least in modern western culture.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think you got something there. I know a lot of men who think tomboys are hot, but that "sissy men" are disturbing and go out of their way to avoid them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, I think that it makes a big difference when it comes to the specific rules we socialize into our children. Socializing them to share toys and not hit each other is very different from socializing traits that are not necessarily good or bad. It doesn't hurt any one for a boy to wear pink and play with dolls.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: I think for many progressives the feeling is that by tossing out many of these social norms, you open up many possibilities, that if not good for society at large, are at least better perhaps for the individual.
It's a bit of the essence of liberalism, constatly question, test, try things out. Obviously for me, it, like everything else, can be taken to extremes, but I'm not surprised this has eventually come up.
I expect this experiment with Storm won't really lead to any big revelations other than it's not the optimal way to raise 99.9% of us human beings. It will probably be forgotten, assuming Storm doesn't go on to form some popular cult or do something insane, and down the road somebody else will try it again.
----
Orincoro: I thought your description of why socialization appeals to us was rather excellent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rabbit, I think that it makes a big difference when it comes to the specific rules we socialize into our children. Socializing them to share toys and not hit each other is very different from socializing traits that are not necessarily good or bad. It doesn't hurt any one for a boy to wear pink and play with dolls.
I think you are totally missing my point. Yeah, "culture" isn't something that's right or wrong but sharing a "culture" is something that helps people feel connected to each other. And culture has always included norms about fashion and grooming.
Look around you and you will see that people almost with out exception choose to dress like their friends dress, whether they are anarchists or young republicans. Grooming is a form of self expression, but like all forms of self expression its a language that we learn. There is something about dressing like other people that makes us feel like we belong. It's very likely something that's hard wired, hence even anarchists and hippies have a "uniform".
There is nothing morally wrong with a boy wearing a pink dress and his hair in three long braids, but unless that's what lots of other boys are doing, its a choice that is going to isolate him from other people no matter how much we wish it wouldn't.
Its not black and white. Feeling free to express yourself is a good thing but so is a feeling of belonging.
People aren't born knowing how to "fit in" any more than they are born knowing "English". They need to learn the rules in order to be free to choose whether they want to fit in or not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that we have some mighty bad criteria for deciding who "fits in" to society. I think that we can change that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:People aren't born knowing how to "fit in" any more than they are born knowing "English". They need to learn the rules in order to be free to choose whether they want to fit in or not.
Not only is this true, but what qualifies as fitting in changes wildly from generation to generation, and this is not an accident, it's the way each group can identify its members.
quote:I think that we have some mighty bad criteria for deciding who "fits in" to society. I think that we can change that.
Boots, this seems like a very nebulous statement, care to elaborate?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that we have some mighty bad criteria for deciding who "fits in" to society. I think that we can change that.
"Fits in" where in this society? Why do you suppose that this phenomenon, of people dressing like their peers, is so wide spread? Why do you suppose that it isn't just the mainstream that has a dress code? Do you think you are any more likely to "fit in" with anarchists if you wear a navy blue suit and tie than you are to fit in with the young republicans if you wear a mohawk and a hoody? Do you think this familywould be any better accepted in the Castro District than this couple would be in an Amish church?
Why do clubs (and sometime just groups of friends) get matching t-shirts? Why do sports fans wear the team colors? Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? Why does every town in Austria have its own Tracht? Why do the Crow, the Navajo, the Hopi, the Cherokee, the Apache (and every other tribe) have distinctive tribal costumes?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know that they would be; I think that they - assuming that their intentions are good - should be.
I think that the phenomenon is so widespread because we are afraid of things that are different whether or not those things are harmful.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that we sometimes worry so much about nobody ever feeling excluded that we try to engineer it so that nobody is ever really included.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't understand that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
kmboots, So you think that when a group of drinking buddies decides to get matching t-shirts like this, its because they are afraid of things that are different.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that if they shun or torment someone who doesn't particularly care for that shirt (assuming there is someone and that someone is brave enough to voice a contrary opinion) that has to do with fear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm reminded of the Dropkick Murphy song, "Wicked Sensitive Crew."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kate, What does shunning people or tormenting people have to do with it? I've never seen anyone shunned for failing to wear the club t-shirt. I've seen no evidence that Scotsmen typically shun people who don't wear a kilt on New Years Eve, or Washington Redskins fans shun anyone who doesn't wear red to a game (unless of course they are wearing the colors of the opposing team).
And on those occasions where someone does get harangued because they don't want to go along with the group uniform, I've never sensed it has anything to do with fear.
There is an enormous gulf between being shunned and feeling deeply connected to a group. Culture, including norms about dressing and grooming, have come to exist because they help stimulate the parts of peoples brains that make them feel connected. Even in a society where diversity is valued, almost everyone dresses like their friends dress. Its a choice most people aren't even conscious of making, but we choose our clothes because we like what they say about us to other people. We understand what our clothes say about us to other people because of socialization.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that if they shun or torment someone who doesn't particularly care for that shirt (assuming there is someone and that someone is brave enough to voice a contrary opinion) that has to do with fear.
Not always, sometimes the defence of a fashion choice isn't tied to fear so much as proving to one's self and to others, that when pressed, this aspect of the individual's culture is not just a whim or insignificant. We often celebrate social morays that stand the test of time, such as kilts and bag pipes. There are millions of other social morays that are dead because they were unable to stand the test of time. The only the way survive is if we defend them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sometimes people like to conform, sure. Other times they are pressured to conform either through actual threats or by the expectations of people they want to please. Conformity is not by any means always freely chosen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes people like to conform, sure. Other times they are pressured to conform either through actual threats or by the expectations of people they want to please. Conformity is not by any means always freely chosen.
Of course, but what if for example the two groups criticizing each other's clothing are rival schools?
Do you think all conformity that is brought on by societal pressure is bad?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes people like to conform, sure. Other times they are pressured to conform either through actual threats or by the expectations of people they want to please. Conformity is not by any means always freely chosen.
Nothing is ever "freely chosen". There are always constraints, always trade offs. Choosing one thing always means not choosing something else. When I choose not to go to the "chick party" because I think getting pedicures and talking the menstruating is boring, I'm also choosing not to spend time with those people and to build the bonds of friendship that would be built that way. As an adult, no one is going to shun me or torment me because I don't have my toenails properly painted, but I'm also not going to bond with people if I pooh-pooh the things they value and enjoy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, As I said, it depends on whether or not the behaving being encouraged is beneficial or the behavior being discouraged is harmful. We have (mostly) finally (!) learned that it isn't necessarily bad for a woman to be good at sports or math. There isn't anything inherently harmful about a boy wearing pink or playing with dolls so I don't see why society has a stake in forcing or even encouraging him to change.
Rabbit, should you be pressured to like those "girly" things? Encouraged? Are those women so narrow that manicures are your only opportunity for bonding? Do you want to bond with them instead of with people who share your interests? And who says that you must "pooh pooh" something that you don't happen to like? You can choose something different without being disdainful of the choices of others.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As I said, it depends on whether or not the behaving being encouraged is beneficial or the behavior being discouraged is harmful.
I'm saying that sharing a culture, including norms of grooming and dress, is beneficial because it stimulates the parts of our brains that make us feel connected to each other.
I'm saying I think that is something that is hard wired in most people, so you aren't going to change it by saying it shouldn't be that way.
I'm saying teaching a young child that self expression is more important than connecting with other people, is a very naive, limited and short sited view of what's important about being human.
What these parents are doing goes far beyond saying its OK for girls to build things and boys to play with dolls.
Look at the pictures in that article. Jazz would be teased for his hair style choice even if he were a girl.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And teaching them that who they are is unacceptable unless they conform to be like other people is harmful. There are ways to connect to each other that are not dependent on how we dress or being interested in what someone else chooses for us. Thank goodness. Otherwise, we would al still be dressing like the Pilgrims and you wouldn't have gone to college much less be teaching at one.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Jazz would be teased for his hair style choice even if he were a girl.
Why?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I said, I think those particular parents are goofy but no more harmful than a parent who scolds their son for playing with dolls or insists their daughters won't catch a husband if they are too smart.
And there are a lot more of those parents.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, should you be pressured to like those "girly" things? Encouraged?
No, but I think girls and women should understand that if they choose not to participate in "girly" things, they will have a harder time making friends with "girly girls". I think children should be taught that friendship often means doing things you don't particularly like because you like the people who do them.
And I think they should be taught that the way you dress and groom yourself, communicates certain things to other people. You are free to choose how you will dress, but you aren't free to choose how other people will respond to that.
I think teaching a child that the way they dress and groom themselves will affect the way other people react to them in fairly predictable ways, isn't pressuring them to conform. Its teaching them an important fact of human life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that "girly girls" should be taught to appreciate people who are different.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that "girly girls" should be taught to appreciate people who are different.
Sure. But appreciating people who are different isn't the same as forming a deep connection with them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I'm saying teaching a young child that self expression is more important than connecting with other people, is a very naive, limited and short sited view of what's important about being human.
I can attest to this one first hand, 100% true.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Jazz would be teased for his hair style choice even if he were a girl.
Why?
Have you seen the pictures? Three braids? It reminds me of Alex Doonesbury's hairstyle.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I agree with the statement that tribalism (identifying with a group) is fun, and important for developing relationships. What I wish my parents had told me early on was something like "okay, think of social interactions like a game. There are rules you have to follow, that don't necessarily make sense. Different groups have different rules. Understanding the rules will help you fit in, and you can choose how much you care."
Obviously that is not the best metaphor to use for everyone, but it would have been great for me when I was about ten.
I think the question of "how much should you encourage social norms in your children" is a complicated one depending on many factors and cost/benefit analysis. I am highly suspicious of the notion that the status quo is optimal, and the only way to figure it out is to try variations. Does that mean you're experimenting on kids? Yes. But EVERY child is an experiment. You never know exactly what quirks they'll have that'll render the parenting advice you got useless or harmful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that "girly girls" should be taught to appreciate people who are different.
Sure. But appreciating people who are different isn't the same as forming a deep connection with them.
So maybe you form deep borns with people that share your intersts rather than just your gender.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I think you got something there. I know a lot of men who think tomboys are hot, but that "sissy men" are disturbing and go out of their way to avoid them.
Men generally have less patience with feminine qualities in other men, I've noticed. Particularly, because men bond over accomplishments and technical or physical prowess and competition, they have a harder time relating to effeminate men who are less interested in competing on the same level.
Now as for "tomboys" or slightly more masculine men, men can often easily relate to these types of women because they can express themselves in the same ways that men are comfortable with. Plus, they've got boobs, which is a bonus.
Not being a woman, I don't know how effeminate men rank for them at all. I know a few women who are, as the gays themselves term it: "fag hags," who are part of gay male social circles, but these women don't seem interested in straight but effeminate men sexually. Generally I don't think a lot of men are accepted in gay female social circles, but I may be wrong. My sister-in-law, who is married to my sister, has mostly male friendships of a more "masculine" nature, and I've known a few other gay women who were like that. My sister isn't the same way at all. As for myself, many of my friendships have been with women, but as I get older (and as I suspect the balance of power in relationships tips towards me as a male in my later twenties, whereas earlier it was with the women), I have founds myself in male company much more often. What I mean by balance of power is, I suppose, that in your early twenties or late teens, women can afford to be entirely receptive to male attention, whereas older, more experienced men don't necessarily "chase" women in the same way, or give them as much control over a relationship- even a friendship. I've also found that as I get older, the qualities that other men find admirable and interesting are often the same qualities that make female friendships harder. That, and I think men past their mid-twenties generally have less patience for friendships with women whom they are attracted to. When you're 20, you'll spend days with someone just hoping they'll change their mind about you. When you're 25, you'll tell the girl how you feel, and there might not be a friendship- you're willing to risk that.
I guess ultimately there are no rules to these things- I've given up being surprised by people or even paying much attention to the issue. I just like to spend time with people I enjoy.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:So maybe you form deep borns with people that share your intersts rather than just your gender.
My mother has never felt that she herself was particularly in to "girly girl" stuff and had a hard time passing that on to us, her four daughters. While she certainly taught gender roles, she was very anti-barbie, awkward about us using makeup, and generally not encouraging of super "girly" things. This isn't something that I see as negative, but I can see how it certainly impacted the friendships that I made growing up and continue to make as an adult. I've always hit it off more easily with less super feminine females and had an easier time chatting with a random boy than a random girl.
I moved a few months ago and have recently befriended some very "girly" women that I would typically find intimidating and probably avoid. Sometimes it's like a different world when topics of makeup, fashion, and judgment of other people's appearances come up. But when plenty of other topics come up, I feel right at home and absolutely love their company. There is no question that I've become a bit more concerned about appearance since befriending them though.
Stereotypical female/masculine things are pretty darn shallow, but I think understanding them and feeling a level of comfort with them opens a lot more doors than it closes.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I don't understand what the big deal is and why this is in the news. Are they saying they aren't going to tell their baby what its own sex is, or are they just not telling other people about it? Either way, everyone's going to find out eventually, right?
Studies have already shown that children will grow up to be what they are, genetically. I'm speaking sexually here. I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway. I don't think that's the exact same thing as this is, but it seems to me that if that kid can grow up to still like women, than this one will probably be just fine. Besides, when he/she starts preschool, I'm sure everyone will find out anyway.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Kids can always turn out fine, but these are more likely not to turn out fine. Probably confused, difficult to relate to, and weird. Really weird.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway.
. . . and no one who is a girl likes girls? :blink:. Gender identity and sexual preference are two very different things.
I get what you're saying here, but the assumption of heterosexuality grates.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I don't understand what the big deal is and why this is in the news. Are they saying they aren't going to tell their baby what its own sex is, or are they just not telling other people about it? Either way, everyone's going to find out eventually, right?
Just other people.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Who would do that to their child, tell them they are the wrong gender and only give them clothing and toys of the wrong gender? Seems wrong.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Who would do that to their child, tell them they are the wrong gender and only give them clothing and toys of the wrong gender? Seems wrong.
Assuming he's talking about who I think he is, It was a pair of identical male twins, one of whom had a botched circumcision that left him with no penis. which they then put on female hormone therapy and raised as a girl.
I actually wanted to refer to this story earlier! I'm glad you found it. It's a pretty important (and tragic) case study.
quote:Money argued that a child's gender identity is fluid up to a certain age, after which this gender would become consolidated and more-or-less immutable. This theory was applied in the case of a male child, David Reimer, whose penis was destroyed due to a botched circumcision using an electric cauterizing instrument. This came to be known as the John/Joan case.[10]
The child was subsequently sexually reassigned as female. However, even though David Reimer was raised as a girl and never knew his early history, he behaved in a masculine way appropriate to a boy while he was a young child. Later attempts to socialize him as a girl failed.[1] In 1997, Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson authored a followup of the Reimer case, suggesting that future cases be managed in light of what occurred.[1]
As for Reimer, when he finally reached the age to make his own medical decisions, he was so distressed by Money's demand for further surgery to complete his "female" genitals that his parents decided to reveal his medical history to him. He immediately re-transitioned to a male gender role and later underwent genital reassignment surgery again, in order to complete his male gender identity with male genitalia. He underwent four rounds of reconstructive surgery to facilitate his reappropriation of the male sex. Towards the end of his life he lost his job, was separated from his wife, fell victim to an unscrupulous financial investment, and mourned the death of his twin brother Brian, who died in a drug overdose. He committed suicide on May 5, 2004.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How many people, even transgender people, have really intense gender issues before the age of 5?
You might be surprised. And... I guess it depends on how you're defining "really intense gender issues".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think most people at some point in their life have difficulty finding a balance between their individual desires and interests and societal expectations based on gender. I'm a woman engineering professor so I have some experience in what it means to pursue something that's not gender traditional.
I think you're confusing male/female with masculine/feminine. The two aren't the same. There are males who have feminine traits and females who have masculine traits, but that doesn't mean they have gender issues. A kid who has a boy's body and a female gender identity doesn't necessarily want to play with dolls, except insofar as that may seem like something which represents being female. That kid will look at boys and think "them" and will look at girls and think "us" and be really friggin' confused.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I had some difficult times back in my teens trying to balance my natural proclivities against the gender norms of a conservative LDS society. But even with that, I really can't comprehend why anyone would have sex reassignment surgery. I have to presume that the biological and psychological factors involved in transgenderism are something fundamentally different and not just a more extreme of normal struggles.
That's right. I've met a female-to-male transsexual who performs as a drag queen. I've met a butch biker dyke who grew up as a Hasidic boy in Williamsberg. Female and feminine aren't the same thing, which I think you're aware of, and male and masculine aren't either. Masculine and feminine are societal things. Male and female are visceral. I'm not sure there's any way for someone who isn't trans to really understand that except in a very tenuous intellectual way. It's like describing color to someone who is blind. There are no referents.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I understand that gender and genitalia don't always match, but they do an overwhelming majority of the time. It's hard to get good statistics on this. The best I've been able to find is that 1/30,000 men and 1/100,000 women seek sex reassignment surgery.
It's hard to tell. Back in 1996, Yvon Menard in Montreal used to do 4 operations a week, and he was books a long, long time in advance. And he's just one surgeon in North America (not to mention the rest of the world, like Thailand, where it's much more common).
This paper by Lynn Conway estimates that the prevalence of gender reassignment surgery in the US is on the order of 1 in 2500.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I know that this is just the tip of the iceberg, but even if there are 1000 times as many people struggling with transgender issues, we are still talking about only a couple percent of the total population.
True.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I do find it fascinating that three times as many men as women undergo gender reassignment surgery.
As do I. I wonder to what extent that is reflective of an underlying difference and to what extent it reflects the fact that femininity in men is far less well accepted than masculinity in women, at least in modern western culture.
Um... no. It's because FtM surgery (a) is much, much, much more expensive, and (b) has far less aesthetically pleasing and functional results. If you'll pardon the crudity, the expression I've heard is "it's easier to make a hole than a pole".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I actually wanted to refer to this story earlier! I'm glad you found it. It's a pretty important (and tragic) case study.
quote:Money argued that a child's gender identity is fluid up to a certain age, after which this gender would become consolidated and more-or-less immutable. This theory was applied in the case of a male child, David Reimer, whose penis was destroyed due to a botched circumcision using an electric cauterizing instrument. This came to be known as the John/Joan case.[10]
The child was subsequently sexually reassigned as female. However, even though David Reimer was raised as a girl and never knew his early history, he behaved in a masculine way appropriate to a boy while he was a young child. Later attempts to socialize him as a girl failed.[1] In 1997, Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson authored a followup of the Reimer case, suggesting that future cases be managed in light of what occurred.[1]
As for Reimer, when he finally reached the age to make his own medical decisions, he was so distressed by Money's demand for further surgery to complete his "female" genitals that his parents decided to reveal his medical history to him. He immediately re-transitioned to a male gender role and later underwent genital reassignment surgery again, in order to complete his male gender identity with male genitalia. He underwent four rounds of reconstructive surgery to facilitate his reappropriation of the male sex. Towards the end of his life he lost his job, was separated from his wife, fell victim to an unscrupulous financial investment, and mourned the death of his twin brother Brian, who died in a drug overdose. He committed suicide on May 5, 2004.
The interesting thing about the Reimer case is that Money used it as "proof" of his theory that gender was a social thing. It was sort of like the gender version of Lysenkoism. But what he wound up proving was the opposite. That gender is innate, and that no amount of forcing someone to be one gender is going to work if that isn't who they are inside.
I remember seeing an episode of Nova, or something like Nova, when I was a kid, where they talked about "John/Joan", which was how David was referred to at the time in public. I remember reading about it in Psych 101 in college. Money was an ass. There was an episode of Law & Order SVU based on the story, but with a much better ending. The twins, after they found out what he had done, killed the S.O.B.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...whose penis was destroyed due to a botched circumcision using an electric cauterizing instrument.
Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God!!!!
I will never be able to sleep again.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lisa, Surprisingly I think we a very largely in agreement here. Thanks for confirming my speculation that transgenderism* is something very different from the more ordinary struggles people have with gender stereotypes.
*sorry if that's the wrong word but it seems less judgemental than "transgender disorder".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Stone Wolf, it was a long time ago, and I don't think it's done that way any more.
Rabbit, yes. As far as terminology... I don't know. I don't much like talking about the subject, so I probably use "trans stuff" more than anything else. Transsexuality, gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder... any of those are fine by me, because I think it is a disorder. But one that has a physical, rather than psychological, cure.
I tend to differentiate between transsexual and transgender, though. To my understanding, the term transgender was invented as an umbrella term to include transsexuals, transvestites, drag queens/kings, the "bi-gendered", and pretty much anyone who doesn't seem to fit in the standard two-gender "none shall pass!" framework. While those going from one anatomical sex to another would be transsexuals. But it's probably a losing battle, with Oprah & Co. using transgender exclusively.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway.
. . . and no one who is a girl likes girls? :blink:. Gender identity and sexual preference are two very different things.
I get what you're saying here, but the assumption of heterosexuality grates.
First of all, how is it an assumption? Would you have said the same thing if I had referenced a gay boy who had been raised to be attracted to girls? No, because that happens all the time. The interesting thing about this example was that it was the complete opposite.
Secondly, the point of my referencing the study was to show that "nurture" does not always override a person's "nature", which would apply to this particular situation. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. It's about the fact that people can't be forced into being attracted to a particular sex because eventually their genes will decide it for them. I'm not really sure where you got the anti-homosexual stuff from. If anything, that study should go to prove that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both genetic and not necessarily a choice. By your stance on the subject, it sounds like you should be applauding the end result of the case study. Don't you think so?
[ June 07, 2011, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Jeff C. ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jeff, the parents study was messing with the child's gender not his sexual orientation. Your post conflates the two.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway.
. . . and no one who is a girl likes girls? :blink:. Gender identity and sexual preference are two very different things.
I get what you're saying here, but the assumption of heterosexuality grates.
First of all, how is it an assumption if that is what the guy ended up being? Secondly, the point of my referencing the study was to show that "nurture" does not always override a person's "nature", which would apply to this particular situation. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. It's about the fact that people can't be forced into being attracted to a particular sex because eventually their genes will decide it for them.
Okay, let me try this. I'm going to make a few assumptions of my own: that you're a guy, and you like girls. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But if that is the case, imagine you came across the following statement:
"They let him play with toy trucks and gave him overalls, but he ended up liking girls anyway."
Wouldn't the "but" in that sentence, the implication that the first and second clauses are in conflict, make you blink and double-take?
I am a girl. I played with dolls and wore dresses as a child. I like girls.
When I read "They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway," I get the same dissonance as I imagine you might get for my example, above. I had to read your post multiple times to realize that you meant "he ended up liking girls anyway and identifying as a man." Because the two things are not the same, and I don't assume one will coincide with the other. (On my first read-through, I thought you were saying the young person had grown up to identify as a transgendered lesbian, and you were simply using the wrong pronoun; lots of people do use the wrong pronoun when talking about transgendered people. I couldn't figure out what that had to do with the original post, though, so I eventually worked out I'd misread you.)
When I say "the assumption of heterosexuality," I'm not referring to an assumption made by the child's parents. I'm referring to your assumption, in your phrasing, that liking girls is somehow an opposing state from being a girl/playing in a traditionally feminine manner.
If you had said "I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up identifying as a boy later. I don't think that's the exact same thing as this is, but it seems to me that if that kid can grow up to still feel like a man, than this one will probably be just fine," I would have nodded my head in agreement. We are on basically the same page here. But the original phrasing was jarring to me.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
. . . or, you know, what Kate said, a lot more succinctly. Sorry. Brevity is not my middle name!
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, the parents study was messing with the child's gender not his sexual orientation. Your post conflates the two.
If that's how it appeared, then I guess that's my fault. I was trying to imply that a person's genes dictate who they will like, rather than the way they are raised. Keep in mind that I did not remember the details about the case study (I didn't know they actually changed his sex), so the child's gender change had nothing to do with the original post, only that they had raised him to be a woman (and I assumed from what I remembered, encouraged him to like men, which was where I was coming from originally).
I still stand by what I said about genes, though.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: We are on basically the same page here. But the original phrasing was jarring to me.
So we essentially agree. I'll just take the blame for not wording myself correctly then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
One's an identity (like doing things that are typically masculine or feminine...playing with dolls vs action figures, etc) and the other is what sex you prefer to get down and dirty with. What's not to get?
Anyway, this is getting dragged out a little too much. Let's just move on.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jeff, As long as you are using the term "genetic" to mean "biological" in origin and you get that sexual identity and sexual orientation are not synonymous I'm OK. Genetic means something very specific and a lot of our biological problems, even those we are born with, are not genetic in nature. This very likely true for both transgender disorders and homosexuality.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: If you had said "I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up identifying as a boy later. I don't think that's the exact same thing as this is, but it seems to me that if that kid can grow up to still feel like a man, than this one will probably be just fine," I would have nodded my head in agreement. We are on basically the same page here. But the original phrasing was jarring to me.
Actually, let me revise this. I would also have changed it from "be just fine" to "be able to figure out his own preferred gender identity." Because the original phrasing implies that there's something that isn't fine about being transgendered. And that I would emphatically disagree with.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Jeff, As long as you are using the term "genetic" to mean "biological" in origin and you get that sexual identity and sexual orientation are not synonymous I'm OK.
Yeah that's basically what I was saying.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Actually, let me revise this. I would also have changed it from "be just fine" to "be able to figure out his own preferred gender identity." Because the original phrasing implies that there's something that isn't fine about being transgendered. And that I would emphatically disagree with.
My concern with saying "be just fine" is the implication as long as the kid doesn't end up with gender identity issues no harms been done. There is plenty of evidence that David Reimer wasn't "just fine". He committed suicide for gosh sakes.
Now I have no idea how much of his emotional and psychological problems were due to his parents and shrinks trying to force him to be a girl as a child and how much was due to other factors. I'm just saying that this kind of thing can cause lots of problems besides gender confusion.
I'm a lot more concerned about whether Jazz, Kio and Storm will be able to have normal fulfilling social interactions with people other than their parents and ultimately become well adjusted, productive members of the community than I am about their sexual identity or orientation.
[ June 07, 2011, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
One's an identity (like doing things that are typically masculine or feminine...playing with dolls vs action figures, etc) and the other is what sex you prefer to get down and dirty with. What's not to get?
Well... no. I played with Planet of the Apes action figures. Granted, I switched Zira and Cornelius' clothes, but that's not too surprising. A lot of kids don't like dolls or power tools. There are three things here.
Masculinity/femininity is a social construct. People tend to call it "gender appropriate behavior", but that's the societal bias speaking. A boy who likes dolls or cooking or flowers -- in US society today -- is considered feminine, and might be called a sissy, though that's become less and less socially acceptable, because it's seen as offensive. A girl who wants to be a quarterback and roughhouses and plays with tools -- in US society today -- is considered masculine, and might be called a tomboy, which isn't a term that's seen as offensive.
Male/female is gender. But there are five different things that term is used for. There's gender identity, gender role, gender role identity, gender attribution and gender assignment (link). But gender identity is an innate psychological identity. You can try and insist that someone with one identity behave as though they were the other, but you're likely to wind up with a very troubled or dead teenager or adult.
Gay/Straight/Androphilic/Gynephilic are also innate, but they're on a spectrum, and it's probable that most people are somewhere in the middle, albeit towards one end or another. For people who aren't transsexuals, those four orientations collapse to two. Gay men and straight women are both androphilic, and lesbians and straight men are both gynephilic. The only time it becomes relevant that there are actually four is in the case of transsexuals. If an ostensible male is attracted to women, there's no way to know if the attraction is to women as such, or to the opposite sex. After transition, if she was attracted to women, she'll wind up a lesbian. If she was attracted to the opposite sex, she'll wind up straight. It's just one more thing that's more complicated for transfolk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One of the things that interests me about this story is the mother's comment about Jazz having really intense gender issues when she was pregnant with Storm. I'm not sure what that means. I wonder whether the whole gender explorer thing came before or after these issues arose.
Gender is something kids have to figure out. They aren't born knowing what it means and 4 years is about the time kids start trying to figure it out. My first brother was born when I was 4 and half. I had two sisters. I remember asking my Mom how they would tell if the baby was a boy or a girl since babies all have short hair. (I had short hair at the time so I'm no idea why I thought that was a defining feature of boys) I'm not sure if I'd never seen a little boy naked before my brother was born or just never paid attention, but I was pretty surprised to find out what boys looked like with pants off. My sisters son was 4 years old when was expecting her 4th child. He had two sister and told his Mom they should have a boy this time. When his Mom tried to explain that wasn't a choice, he suggested "Just name it a boy". Even though he'd seen his sisters naked, he figured that it was the name that made the difference. A daughter of one of my friends, at roughly the same age, figured out that boys had a penis (or as she called it a tail) and for several days she would ask her Mom "Does he have a tail?", every time she met a male person (much to her mother's embarrassment).
Anyway, I think its foolish to think you can make any kind of a judgement of people based on what gets reported in newspapers nonetheless I do wonder to what extent this boys gender issues are the result of his parents obsession with raising gender neutral children and to what extent the parents obsession is a reaction (or over reaction) to their sons questions and issues.
[ June 07, 2011, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
One's an identity (like doing things that are typically masculine or feminine...playing with dolls vs action figures, etc) and the other is what sex you prefer to get down and dirty with. What's not to get?
Well... no. I played with Planet of the Apes action figures. Granted, I switched Zira and Cornelius' clothes, but that's not too surprising. A lot of kids don't like dolls or power tools. There are three things here.
Masculinity/femininity is a social construct. People tend to call it "gender appropriate behavior", but that's the societal bias speaking. A boy who likes dolls or cooking or flowers -- in US society today -- is considered feminine, and might be called a sissy, though that's become less and less socially acceptable, because it's seen as offensive. A girl who wants to be a quarterback and roughhouses and plays with tools -- in US society today -- is considered masculine, and might be called a tomboy, which isn't a term that's seen as offensive.
Male/female is gender. But there are five different things that term is used for. There's gender identity, gender role, gender role identity, gender attribution and gender assignment (link). But gender identity is an innate psychological identity. You can try and insist that someone with one identity behave as though they were the other, but you're likely to wind up with a very troubled or dead teenager or adult.
Gay/Straight/Androphilic/Gynephilic are also innate, but they're on a spectrum, and it's probable that most people are somewhere in the middle, albeit towards one end or another. For people who aren't transsexuals, those four orientations collapse to two. Gay men and straight women are both androphilic, and lesbians and straight men are both gynephilic. The only time it becomes relevant that there are actually four is in the case of transsexuals. If an ostensible male is attracted to women, there's no way to know if the attraction is to women as such, or to the opposite sex. After transition, if she was attracted to women, she'll wind up a lesbian. If she was attracted to the opposite sex, she'll wind up straight. It's just one more thing that's more complicated for transfolk.
Really, all this detail isn't necessary. We're starting to get into territory that borders the obscure, debating definitions and the like (and giving five different branches of "gender" definition is just prolonging it). I was using the action figures reference as an off-hand example that I really didn't give much thought to because I was growing tired of discussing it. It wasn't perfect, but who cares. Let's move on and stop dwelling so much.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As soon as you're bothering to talk about a family withholding information about their child's sex, you pretty much have to be getting into this much detail or you're ignoring the issues. These subtleties are all relevant.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:There was an episode of Law & Order SVU based on the story, but with a much better ending. The twins, after they found out what he had done, killed the S.O.B.
... in the episode the therapist was also having the siblings get naked and pretend to have sex with each other. I thought that played a non-insignificant role in their decision to murder him...
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Don't forget that House episode where the kid turns out to have been a boy but something happened and he ended up being a girl and taking hormones. Or something. I forget the specifics.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In the Reimer case, wasn't there some sexually inappropriate behavior in therapy? Like he did have the kids get naked to emphasize one was a boy, one was a girl. It has been a while since I read about that case, but I thought that there was some parts that made me think, uh, that is over the line, even accepting the premise of the experiment.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:There was an episode of Law & Order SVU based on the story, but with a much better ending. The twins, after they found out what he had done, killed the S.O.B.
... in the episode the therapist was also having the siblings get naked and pretend to have sex with each other. I thought that played a non-insignificant role in their decision to murder him...
That was based on real life as well. Money was a sick, sick man.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit:
quote:I'm a lot more concerned about whether Jazz, Kio and Storm will be able to have normal fulfilling social interactions with people other than their parents and ultimately become well adjusted, productive members of the community than I am about their sexual identity or orientation.
This is just a guess but I surmise that because they will be unable to have normal social interactions that will engender resentment towards their parents, and their familial relationships will become dysfunctional as a result.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, let's take bets. Who would honestly be willing to wager that these kids are going to have an easy time of it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well yea sure, but too easy a time and they won't develop any meaningful personality...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't buy that. Childhood doesn't have to be a crucible to forge children into having a personality. An easy, easy childhood doesn't make you bland, which is great news for americans, because our concept of what counts as 'entitlement' and an 'easy childhood' is on a sliding scale that forgets most of the non-modernized world.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You'll still have a personality even if your whole life is ridiculously easy. What you won't have is any perspective.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Don't buy that either! Not having any perspective could be likely, but not guaranteed by an easy life.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Actually, if you look at someone with an easy life, they still find ways to have problems. We're human beings, defined by our personal drama. It's why reality TV is so popular.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have not been following this discussion, but I came across this TED Talk today, some of which may be relevant:
It seems that the more we know scientifically about gender and how it happens, the less distinct the division becomes, just on physical level.
Everything is more complicated than it seems, when you begin to examine it closely.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:What you won't have is any perspective.
How much is perspective worth? If you've gone through a real trauma, I totally get cherishing the silver lining of experience and perspective that you gained from it. But if you can avoid the trauma, I think that is always, always better. Trauma is scarring and most of those scars aren't silver lining.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:That was based on real life as well. Money was a sick, sick man.
Wow. That is horrifying.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: But if you can avoid the trauma, I think that is always, always better. Trauma is scarring and most of those scars aren't silver lining.
True, but without any of that, we wouldn't have the writers and artists we know and love (who drink/drug themselves to death). Just sayin.
For some reason, creativity is born in trauma. I suspect it's because our imaginations kick in to give us a means of escape. That's why Tolkein was so good with wars(he wrote the first line of the Hobbit in a WWI trench), and why Poe was so interesting (even though he died in a gutter). Most authors who write anything truly meaningful have some kind of deep, dark issue that causes their brain's imagination to go into overdrive. It's why Sharon Olds is such a great poet (parental abuse), and also the reason J.K.Rowling was so creative (she was homeless). The same was true for Charles Dickens (his dad was jailed and all their money taken away), Rudyard Kipling (he was reportedly beaten in his foster home on a daily basis, and he was blind), and Jean Walls (had to survive on eating garbage as a child).
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but sometimes traume can be molded into something positive. You just have use it the right way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Most of the extremely creative people I know were life of riley sorts and I can name a few offhand who had no significant source of trauma in their lives.
this is not to say that trauma/hard knocks can't be molded into a creative furnace, it's just not a requirement for creativity, perspective, personality, or any of the other things it's been suggested as.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)