Parents keep child’s gender under wraps

[Esper]

The parents and the baby's brothers all know what the baby's parts are and the parents have said the parts are unambiguous. The only thing they're doing is keeping the information private within the family. The baby will know exact what its parts are and what that means (i.e., "You have boy parts/girl parts.") when it's old enough to know. They just want to give their kid the chance to say how it wants to be treated by other people and how it wants to express itself when it comes to things that normally gendered like clothes. That's not damaging. They seem like they're good parents and all the publicity about it seems to be from people outraged by what they're doing. I don't think they contacted the media about this or else we would have heard about it four months ago when the baby was born. They only told family and friends that when their kid was born they weren't disclosing the information since they probably didn't want to answer dozens of calls saying "Congratulations, but is it a boy or a girl?"

 

[Dawn]

They just want to give their kid the chance to say how it wants to be treated by other people and how it wants to express itself when it comes to things that normally gendered like clothes.

They are not giving their kid a choice in any way shape or form. They are setting him up to be treated a certain way, just like every other kid. Only their way is different and if anything, will just cause additional problems in the future. If they were giving him/her a choice, they wouldn't be the ones making the decisions. All they're doing is impairing his ability to make choices in the future. There is no way a person can make an informed choice of which gender they feel like if they aren't given a chance to develop a gender in the first place. Much less which sex they feel like.

They deserve the outrage they're getting. They tried to make a political statement out of their own child at the risk of it's psychological health, and they got a disgusted response by the media. Cause and effect, yes?

Raising your child under the assumption that it is not sexually confused works fine as long as the parents have open minds to deal with complications if they do arise.

 

[Merzbau]

They are not giving their kid a choice in any way shape or form. They are setting him up to be treated a certain way, just like every other kid. Only their way is different and if anything, will just cause additional problems in the future. If they were giving him/her a choice, they wouldn't be the ones making the decisions. All they're doing is impairing his ability to make choices in the future. There is no way a person can make an informed choice of which gender they feel like if they aren't given a chance to develop a gender in the first place. Much less which sex they feel like.

They deserve the outrage they're getting. They tried to make a political statement out of their own child at the risk of it's psychological health, and they got a disgusted response by the media. Cause and effect, yes?

Raising your child under the assumption that it is not sexually confused works fine as long as the parents have open minds to deal with complications if they do arise.

How does not forcing a child into some stereotyped social construction equate to controlling them and damaging their psychological health? How does giving a child a choice mean they're not giving their child a choice?

They're doing what they're doing because they want to give their child a choice about how they get to grow up. That's all.

On that latter note, where has it ever been found that growing up just as a kid, and not in some rigid, confined space like "boy" or "girl," gives a child any psychological damage? Why would this be the case? Leaving something personal up to the person, and staying out of their business, is harmful? This sounds like busybody pop psychology, if you ask me. It doesn't even follow in common sense logic.

Here's my main question: if the parents aren't hurting their kid in some way (and they're not: see above), then why is it anyone else's business? I'm not the parenting police. I mean, I think some parents are dolts, but these parents at least seem to speaking of good intentions, which is more than some parents are giving. Why do we assume that these people, who are trying to be good parents to their child, have to be making "a political statement" - do we just not believe in good parents with good intentions anymore? Why do we have to assume the worst in these people?

By the way, I assume when you said "under the assumption that it is not sexually confused," you meant "raising a child you assume is cisgender." Thus, I assume that your statement is downright disgusting. A transgender person is not "sexually confused," whatsoever. Here's the trans* hate I was talking about!

 

[Dawn]

How does not forcing a child into some stereotyped social construction equate to controlling them and damaging their psychological health? How does giving a child a choice mean they're not giving their child a choice?[

I'm... sorry.

You can disagree with me all you want, but you didn't provide any arguments in your entire post against mine. You quoted my argument, but I can't tell if you even read it because you failed to acknowledge and argue against /any/ of my points. <___>; My quoted argument literally answers your questions.

Here, take your pick pick of quotes.

Spoiler:

They are not giving their kid a choice in any way shape or form. They are setting him up to be treated a certain way, just like every other kid. Only their way is different and if anything, will just cause additional problems in the future. If they were giving him/her a choice, they wouldn't be the ones making the decisions. All they're doing is impairing his ability to make choices in the future. There is no way a person can make an informed choice of which gender they feel like if they aren't given a chance to develop a gender in the first place. Much less which sex they feel like.

How will it know which gender it is if it is never given a chance to figure out which gender it isn't?

The parents are doing it wrong...

The message they think they're sending: Gender doesn't matter

The message they are actually sending: Having a gender is wrong.

I'd ask what they were thinking but I'm pretty sure I know. Their message is sick but their intentions are merely misguided. They clearly haven't given their views enough thought. Needless to say, this is very, very bad parenting and they should really stop playing games with their child's psychology before the poor kid grows up with a warped understanding of the world around him.

After all, genders are a perfectly natural part of being human beings. Repressing them is not going to lead anywhere good. That and if you teach him they're wrong it's just going to bother and upset him that the rest of the world doesn't care as he grows up. You can shelter and force them to learn it, but when they step out into the real world... boom. Your kid now needs mental therapy.

Edit: Oh hey, look at that. I unconsciously referred to the child as a he! Clearly that is me not respecting the parent's decision. That is also what the rest of the world is going to do to that kid if they try and force him to not have a gender.

By the way, I assume when you said "under the assumption that it is not sexually confused," you meant "raising a child you assume is cisgender." Thus, I assume that your statement is downright disgusting. A transgender person is not "sexually confused," whatsoever. Here's the trans* hate I was talking about!

Seriously, it's called a misnomer. Name calling is the only hate going on here. =|

 

[twocows]

There is a lot of trans* hate in this thread.

Let's look at one little fact, alright? One in 100 children are born with errors in development of chromosomally-appropriate sex organs. This is not to say that one out of every hundred ends up with "opposite-sex" organs, but this is the rate of ambiguous genitalia. Why should parents arbitrarily pick something so important to the lives that their child is going to live? Why should parents chance damaging their kids by assigning them a gender that might be totally wrong for them?

Gender identity is a personal understanding, but gender roles are a social construction. They don't actually exist. There is no "right way" to be a boy, a girl, a man, a woman - these are all just made-up categories created by the human brain in its ceaseless attempts to categorize things it wishes to make simpler. The brain of a child as early as two years old can comprehend these constructions and decides which category they feel they belong to, whether or not the parents agree with the child's assessment.

Why should anyone else be bothering this kid? Storm's "real gender" is the one that Storm believes ends up feeling is right. It isn't the parents' job to tell their kid who they are.

I applaud these parents for not coercively assigning their child a gender that might not be right for them.

Keep your itching curiosities out of this kid's pants and let one child grow up in peace.

That's a nice straw man you've been arguing with. Nobody's hating on transsexuals. The argument people are making is against bad parenting, not against transsexuals.

As for me, I don't really have an opinion on the topic at this point in time. I'm against using the kid as an experiment, which they're doing, but it's possible it might turn out all right. I haven't heard of this thing being done before. I tell you what, though, the kids in school are definitely going to give the kid a hard time. Kids are merciless as it is, they'll jump all over any sort of difference.

 

[Alex]

lol they would be from Toronto...

This is kind of retarded. What they're trying to express is that the child has freedom to express his gender through his personality. His actual, physical gender is something that can't be changed, or at least it wouldn't be for many, many years, at the child's own discretion. Keeping someone in the dark about their gender is pretty pointless in my opinion.

First of all, you have a 50/50 shot of getting it right. So..it's not much of a challenge. I personally think it's a boy, based on the picture who I assume is of the little newborn.

I'm all for Storm grow up as he/she wants to be. But this is a stupid stunt on behalf of the parents, trying to be all avante-garde unpredictable types, ohhh we're not gonna tell you our child's gender because we don't want to lock it down. It's a baby for God's sake, it wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between masculine or feminine actions!

 

[Esper]

This is kind of retarded. What they're trying to express is that the child has freedom to express his gender through his personality. His actual, physical gender is something that can't be changed, or at least it wouldn't be for many, many years, at the child's own discretion. Keeping someone in the dark about their gender is pretty pointless in my opinion.

I hate having to repeat myself but the parents are not keeping the child's sex a secret. They're keeping it private. The immediate family knows. Little Storm will know as soon as s/he is old enough to understand, but will be able to decide what to do about it.

 

[Masqueraine]

I hate having to repeat myself but the parents are not keeping the child's sex a secret. They're keeping it private. The immediate family knows. Little Storm will know as soon as s/he is old enough to understand, but will be able to decide what to do about it.

Oh, did you just get off the telly with the family? XD

 

[Dawn]

Little Storm will know as soon as s/he is old enough to understand, but will be able to decide what to do about it.

How old do you have to be to understand? What are his choices? How old does he have to be to make an informed decision about these choices?

He's a child, not our intellectual equal. Not our equal in /anything/ really. He deserves to be protected, not given a bunch of choices. Even if he were a prodigy, you're talking a 16-18 year wait. Meanwhile he will not be able to hide his sex that long and the rest of the world will either mock his naivety (See: They will bully him.) or flat out not care about his parents silly little political statement and treat him like they do everyone else.

So basically they're letting a bunch of other little kids push his gender around. Yeah. I know, it sounds completely safe and not at all likely to cause any problems whatsoever. <_____>

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Well that's interesting...but eventually the kid would reveal it him/herself when he/she grows up.
Also yeah Sex doesn't equal gender, Sex is your biological parts, and gender is what you identify yourself as.

 

[Oryx]

I hate having to repeat myself but the parents are not keeping the child's sex a secret. They're keeping it private. The immediate family knows. Little Storm will know as soon as s/he is old enough to understand, but will be able to decide what to do about it.

And until then, all people will know him/her as is "that kid who's hiding its gender", not who s/he actually is. Because they're trying to make their child "different" from everyone else, that child will be raised with other people coming to him/her only caring about what sex they are, and nothing else. S/he will be raised under the impression that that's the most important part, not who s/he actually is. Not by the parents, mind you, I'm sure the parents aren't going to make a big deal out of the situation, but everyone else will, and it will become the point that his/her life will revolve around.

I think they're doing much better with the older children; letting them know that it's alright to not feel the same gender as their sex. Although honestly, I half think that the boys wear dresses just because they're easier to move in, not because they feel like girls. They could at such a young age, but I feel like it's unlikely given the relatively low prevalence of it, and it's much more likely that the kids just like wearing them, lol.

 

[Åzurε]

Not to open a can of worms here but what's the deal with gender, exactly? This... model where you have a mental gender that could stand in contrast to your physical sex strikes me as illogical and inconsistent. You're born a girl or a boy, and generally that encourages a set of masculine or feminine traits, which vary in expression and intensity, and everything is a person's own choice to embrace or deny. Why say "I feel like a boy" or "I feel like a girl"? Why categorize the mentality of a person that way? Couldn't it just be enough to accept yourself as you are and move along without misplaced physical labels?

 

[Dawn]

Not to open a can of worms here but what's the deal with gender, exactly? This... model where you have a mental gender that could stand in contrast to your physical sex strikes me as illogical and inconsistent. You're born a girl or a boy, and generally that encourages a set of masculine or feminine traits, which vary in expression and intensity, and everything is a person's own choice to embrace or deny. Why say "I feel like a boy" or "I feel like a girl"? Why categorize the mentality of a person that way? Couldn't it just be enough to accept yourself as you are and move along without misplaced physical labels?

A lot of people seem to wish that we lived in a world where one's sex does not contribute to their "gender". I agree that it sounds illogical, and really I think some people are just trying way too hard to insert equality into places it was never intended to be by nature. I mean sure some people have serious problems relating to their sexual identities, but problems are meant to be solved not accepted. (Not at all implying how one would go about solving them. That would be a case by case basis as far as I'm concerned.)

Although honestly, I half think that the boys wear dresses just because they're easier to move in, not because they feel like girls. They could at such a young age, but I feel like it's unlikely given the relatively low prevalence of it, and it's much more likely that the kids just like wearing them, lol.

Am I the only one who finds this notion terrifying and not funny at all? Those kids are going to get hated on for not understanding sexual boundaries...

Why are they encouraging the kids to rebel against such things if the kids haven't demonstrated any sort of problem with their current sex?

 

[Oryx]

Am I the only one who finds this notion terrifying and not funny at all? Those kids are going to get hated on for not understanding sexual boundaries...

Why are they encouraging the kids to rebel against such things if the kids haven't demonstrated any sort of problem with their current sex?

I don't find it terrifying at all. When I was 5 or 6, I used to run around my house without a shirt on, because that's what my daddy did, and proclaimed to the world that now I was just like him. Is that terrifying to you? I don't find it particularly frightening in any way that a little boy may prefer a dress or long hair. One of the things I found interesting is that in another article, it mentioned that one of the boys enjoys three braids in their hair. As far as I know, that's not a popular style for girls, is it? That points to him not doing it because he wants to be a girl, and just doing it because he's a little kid and wants to.

The thing is, kids are going to do a lot of things that make them "different" if they want to. Storm's parents probably alleviate bullying by the homeschooling, and there's a point in which the child should be taught that just because other kids may not like it doesn't necessarily mean that it's something wrong to do. There's a point in which you're protecting your child, and a point in which you're just being overprotective. If they get bullied a bit and end up disliking wearing dresses because of that, I highly doubt the parents are going to force them into dresses for their own vendetta. If they say they want it, they can have it. If they decide that the teasing from other kids isn't worth wearing a dress, they can choose to not wear them.

 

[Dawn]

I don't find it terrifying at all. When I was 5 or 6, I used to run around my house without a shirt on, because that's what my daddy did, and proclaimed to the world that now I was just like him. Is that terrifying to you?

Problem. It's acceptable in society for women to wear shirts. (And I can't remember a time it ever wasn't) It's not acceptable for men to wear dresses. The comparison is moot.

The thing is, kids are going to do a lot of things that make them "different" if they want to. Storm's parents probably alleviate bullying by the homeschooling, and there's a point in which the child should be taught that just because other kids may not like it doesn't necessarily mean that it's something wrong to do. There's a point in which you're protecting your child, and a point in which you're just being overprotective.

Oh, so they can just shield their kids away from society just so they can make their stupid political statements and claim that's functional, but they aren't allowed to be protected from simple things such as knowing enough about what is and is not acceptable to be reasonably functional in a social situation? That's... kind of hypocritical. My previous point stands.

 

[Esper]

Not to open a can of worms here but what's the deal with gender, exactly? This... model where you have a mental gender that could stand in contrast to your physical sex strikes me as illogical and inconsistent. You're born a girl or a boy, and generally that encourages a set of masculine or feminine traits, which vary in expression and intensity, and everything is a person's own choice to embrace or deny. Why say "I feel like a boy" or "I feel like a girl"? Why categorize the mentality of a person that way? Couldn't it just be enough to accept yourself as you are and move along without misplaced physical labels?

It might strike you as illogical, but it's a fact of life for some people. It's something of a necessity to explain to people who aren't necessarily sympathetic or accepting. You gotta say: "physically I'm ______ but mentally I feel I'm ______" for some people to accept you and even then a lot won't.

A lot of people seem to wish that we lived in a world where one's sex does not contribute to their "gender". I agree that it sounds illogical, and really I think some people are just trying way too hard to insert equality into places it was never intended to be by nature. I mean sure some people have serious problems relating to their sexual identities, but problems are meant to be solved not accepted. (Not at all implying how one would go about solving them. That would be a case by case basis as far as I'm concerned.)

I'd be wary of invoking nature for something like gender roles. Gender roles are societal constructs, not natural ones.

Am I the only one who finds this notion terrifying and not funny at all? Those kids are going to get hated on for not understanding sexual boundaries...

Why are they encouraging the kids to rebel against such things if the kids haven't demonstrated any sort of problem with their current sex?

You're mixing sex and gender. It's a baby and doesn't really have a discernible gender yet.

 

[Oryx]

Problem. It's acceptable in society for women to wear shirts. (And I can't remember a time it ever wasn't) It's not acceptable for men to wear dresses. The comparison is moot.

You misread. I said "without a shirt". It is never acceptable for a woman to go around shirtless (outside of topless beaches?), while it can be for men.

Oh, so they can just shield their kids away from society just so they can make their stupid political statements and claim that's functional, but they aren't allowed to be protected from simple things such as knowing enough about what is and is not acceptable to be reasonably functional in a social situation? That's... kind of hypocritical. My previous point stands.

Homeschooling is a valid concept, and while I don't believe the way they're doing it is the right way to go about it, homeschooling itself isn't a huge problem. I just can't imagine what I would be like if my mother never let me do things that might have made kids tease me - for example, in third grade when I stood up for a black girl that was being teased because I lived in a racist area, and got bullied and shunned for it. Should she have told me to just go with the crowd because it's less painful to be in the majority than it is to be right?

Their oldest child is 5, barely old enough to attend kindergarten. What they're trying to do is instill in their children that it's okay to be who they want to be without judgement, while they're still young enough to take it to heart easily. I don't feel like that's a bad thing to teach a child at all. Just like my mother taught me not to be racist and to stand up if someone needs a friend, so that's what I did. I was bullied but I never regretted that decision. I'm sure they've had discussions with the boys (at least the older one) about why people don't like what they wear, and have given them the choice to not wear it anymore. The fact that they're still wearing them reflects on their choice. If they ever get enrolled in a public school, the parents will probably discuss what they might expect when they get there based on their way of dress, and give them the decision to wear something else if they so choose.

It's not like homeschooling shelters them completely from others' expectations, and what is acceptable. At some point they'll probably notice that no boys on television wear dresses, no boys in picture books, no boys in the neighborhood. When they get old enough to start caring about how they look to other people, they'll notice and have the choice not to wear them if they don't want to anymore.

 

[Dawn]

You misread. I said "without a shirt". It is never acceptable for a woman to go around shirtless (outside of topless beaches?), while it can be for men.

I guess I did misread that. However, it's still not a valid comparison because, well, women's chest growth frankly hasn't started at that age, and so it's kind of a grey area in which not many people care all that much, so long as the grey area isn't being exploited by sickos. Heck. I know parents who allowed their younger daughters to do that, but once said daughters turned 13 (or rather, entered puberty, to be more exact), said it was no longer acceptable.

Homeschooling is a valid concept

The problem is not homeschooling's validity, but that it's being taken advantage of for less than admirable reasons.

It's not like homeschooling shelters them completely from others' expectations, and what is acceptable.

That's a nice implied euphemism right there. In the context, they're sheltering them pretty much 95% of the way. It doesn't exactly make much of a difference. Television is nothing like interacting with other human beings. What that is is blatantly protecting their children from having to hear what the rest of the world thinks. Television is also an awful thing for people to base their views of reality on in the first place.

Let's be honest here, the situation you're describing is pretty much brainwashing. TV is not going to open the kid's eyes to the outside world. The parents have way more control over the children's psychology than some people on a TV set with no knowledge of the kids watching them. Their parents are forcing them to remain naive so that they can conform to the parent's ideals. After all, why wouldn't they conform to the parent's ideals? It's all they're being taught to know.

It might strike you as illogical, but it's a fact of life for some people. It's something of a necessity to explain to people who aren't necessarily sympathetic or accepting. You gotta say: "physically I'm ______ but mentally I feel I'm ______" for some people to accept you and even then a lot won't.

Um. You seem to be under the impression that trans do not in fact want their physical and mental selves to align, and just want to be stuck with them conflicting. Ever... think they might want to solve their dilemma instead of just accepting it and expecting others to accept it?

I'd be wary of invoking nature for something like gender roles. Gender roles are societal constructs, not natural ones.

Not all societal constructs are unnatural.

Gender has existed since the first sprouts of society sprung up. It is not the least bit fabricated or forced, but formed completely naturally. It's as natural as it gets, I'm afraid. Society itself is natural. We as humans are just really darn good at it compared to other species. Nice try demonizing it though.

You're mixing sex and gender. It's a baby and doesn't really have a discernible gender yet.

Um. No. I meant what I said.
The fact that it's looked down upon for men to wear dresses is based on their sex, not their gender. =| If it were based on their gender, society would not look down on feminine men wearing dresses.

 

[.Fenris]

Lawlz on the walls in your halls, this is beyond stupid. What does hiding a kid's gender provide for the kid?

 

[Dawn]

Lawlz on the walls in your halls, this is beyond stupid. What does hiding a kid's gender provide for the kid?

Well... erm, I'm sure one of the many others that have posted in this thread could make the argument sound better than I, since I have difficulty making arguments I don't honestly believe on some level or another. I know for a fact people tried answering that question earlier in the thread, so I recommend reading up for a better argument than mine.

But the general idea supporting this sort of thing seems to be that it supposedly gives the kid some sort of gender choice, to put it in a nutshell.

A few others seem to believe that it's harmless, not needing further justification.