Canadian parent raising child as gender-neutral.

RobbingBandit

Cisgender monsters leave baby it alone, Jebus we live in a ducked up world, a very ducked up world indeed.

mick.oleary

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Cisgender monsters leave baby it alone, Jebus we live in a ducked up world, a very ducked up world indeed.

Blame psychology. F***ed up excuse for a science. It's the application of statistics in order to make excuses for people who are clearly not normal.

Pac1Man

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'm a doctoral candidate.

Good grief! Amongst the backwards views and the upsidedown quotes, you had to pull out the stethoscope card.

Do you hate making friends?

mzungu

gizmo81 wrote: »

Yes, it's called compulsory heterosexuality, defined by Adrienne Rich.

Aye, been a while since I read it. IIRC the view is that women should take on lesbian relationships as opposed to heterosexual as an act of resistance in order to seek liberation. As it stands, in Rich's view, women do not have the choice as heterosexuality has been forced upon them by society. Furthermore, she blames women on women violence on heterosexuality too. The theory is built around her own personal bias IMO.

Needless to say, I don't buy into that line of thinking. Taking Rich's view we would have to accept that most of the women out there that are married to, or dating men, are only doing so because of social conditioning. Not too far off the postmodern trope that sexuality is socially constructed and not biological.

Back on topic, why not assign a gender at birth and then let the child change it a few years down the road if they so wish?

mick.oleary

Pac1Man wrote: »

Good grief! Amongst the backwards views and the upsidedown quotes, you had to pull out the stethoscope card.

Do you hate making friends?

I think he means PhD (i.e. not a real doctor but happily spending your tax euros researching something you have probably never heard of or care about...).

freshpopcorn

The parent looks a little scary to me!

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The parent looks a little scary to me!

You mean monster. This is the new normal, how dare you.

gizmo81

It was revised after initial publication.

Why assign gender in the first place?

mzungu wrote: »

Aye, been a while since I read it. IIRC the view is that women should take on lesbian relationships as opposed to heterosexual as an act of resistance in order to seek liberation. As it stands, in Rich's view, women do not have the choice as heterosexuality has been forced upon them by society. Furthermore, she blames women on women violence on heterosexuality too. The theory is built around her own personal bias.

Needless to say, I don't buy into that line of thinking. Taking Rich's view we would have to accept that most of the women out there that are married to, or dating men, are only doing so because of social conditioning. Not too far off the postmodern trope that sexuality is socially constructed and not biological.

Back on topic, why not assign a gender at birth and then let the child change it a few years down the road if they so wish?

ceadaoin.

There are two sexes. Whatever sex you are is relevant to your development and medical care and obviously should be noted (and, aside from a minuscule amount of people, it is observed and noted, not "assigned") at birth. Anyone who thinks otherwise or that this is somehow oppressive is delusional and probably shouldn't be raising a child tbh!

gizmo81

PSML

mick.oleary wrote: »

I think he means PhD (i.e. not a real doctor but happily spending your tax euros researching something you have probably never heard of or care about...).

Good grief! Amongst the backwards views and the upsidedown quotes, you had to pull out the stethoscope card.

Do you hate making friends?

mdwexford

Gonna be one confused kid. My mammy gave birth to me but has a beard and I have lady parts but I'm being told I can be a male if I want.

Christ.

Grayson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There are two sexes. Whatever sex you are is relevant to your development and medical care and obviously should be noted (and, aside from a minuscule amount of people, it is observed and noted, not "assigned") at birth. Anyone who thinks otherwise or that this is somehow oppressive is delusional and probably shouldn't be raising a child tbh!

So you think trans people shouldn't be raising children. You want the government to take them away or something?

mick.oleary

Grayson wrote: »

So you think trans people shouldn't be raising children. You want the government to take them away or something?

I do.

Pac1Man

It just occurred to me that it takes two to make a baby.

Jesus.

ceadaoin.

Grayson wrote: »

So you think trans people shouldn't be raising children. You want the government to take them away or something?

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my comment?

Besides,does every trans person deny the existence or relevence of biological sex? I don't think so

mzungu

gizmo81 wrote: »

Why assign gender in the first place?

Why not keep records of citizens?

Why should a toddler be used as a pawn in his parents social experiment?

Penny Tration

Grayson wrote: »

So you think trans people shouldn't be raising children. You want the government to take them away or something?

Pretty sure most trans people recognise that there are two genders, given they're born biologically as one, and transition into the one they feel is correct for them.


They don't go around shouting about there being no, or more than two, genders.

gizmo81

You cannot compare records, something tangible to gender, a state of being.

That's just a bizarre comparison.

What's wrong with allowing a child discover their own language to describe their gender identity? What's wrong with allowing a child to choose their path to gender expression?

Can you quote the actual action of the parent that you find objectionable or where the child is being used as a pawn?

mzungu wrote: »

Why not keep records of citizens?

Why should a toddler be used as a pawn in his parents social experiment?

Omackeral

gizmo81 wrote: »

What's wrong with allowing a child discover their own language to describe their gender identity? What's wrong with allowing a child to choose their path to gender expression?

Everything. Why not just raise them normally? A baby boy is a boy and a baby girl is a baby girl. If they wanna change when they're old enough to understand the gravity of that then fair enough. What you're essentially advocating here is making them choose a gender. That's actually a pretty fcuked up to thing to bestow on a child.


''Mammy/Daddy/Zammy, why am I not invited to any birthday parties?'' These will be the questions your kid will be asking you if you go down this road. Get. A. Grip.

Wibbs

DontThankMe wrote: »

Bill Nye explains it well.

What the hell does a TV personality with a degree in engineering know about gender and sexuality? Not enough to use his high profile in the US to promote one notion over another. That's the increasing dumbing down of the media of course. Assume expert in narrow field, but in the public eye, so is an expert on everything. QV Prof Hawking. If I want a physics answer he'd be one of my go to guys, but if he starts talking about subjects much beyond that area, his is an opinion like anybody else's. If I needed advice on the design of engines I'd have no problem asking Mr Nye, on gender? Get off the stage ted.

gizmo81 wrote: »

Yes, it's called compulsory heterosexuality, defined by Adrienne Rich.

Poet and radical feminist?



Another "expert" with an agenda in the mix. It's akin to looking to Trotsky for a balanced view of capitalism.

gizmo81 wrote: »

You are confusing sex and gender.

You completely miss the point of compulsory heterosexuality.

Parents make lots of decisions on behalf that they have no right to. Sexuality, Gender Identity, Religion etc

Jesus. I don't even... It's also more than a little confusing and confused a position. One the one hand you'll hear that being gay is genetically based(which I would believe. It is not a choice), on the other it's "fluid" and is a bit of a cultural choice. The latter being a position homophobes have long taken. Irony all over the place.

Then again irony is no strange bedfellow to the radical Right On. We see the same with modern "feminism", where once suffragettes campaigned for equal treatment and rights as men, their great granddaughters are arguing that women are perpetual victims, delicate of spine and in need of constant protection in law and society(while wanting the non icky rights of men) and a huge disservice to adult women. Basically a 19th century misogynists view of women as the "weaker sex", the poor emotional dears. :rolleyes: You couldn't make it up. Oh wait, they did.

As for these Tumblr nutters made flesh? If you're an adult, go as nuts as you like. Hang out with other nuts, start nut societies, blog about nuts, do what you will. However, when you start bringing newborns and kids into your nuttery, then I take issue.

Penny Tration wrote:

Pretty sure most trans people recognise that there are two genders, given they're born biologically as one, and transition into the one they feel is correct for them.

Indeed. If they thought "gender is a social construct and ultimately meaningless" they'd hardly sign up the years of hormonal treatment and painful surgeries, never mind oft hellish social pressures, to be the gender they don't think really exists.

gizmo81

I love this argument. Also seen as . . .

All Gay people shouldn't adopt because some straight people will be bigoted homophobes.

PMSL

Omackeral wrote: »

Everything. Why not just raise them normally? A baby boy is a boy and a baby girl is a baby girl. If they wanna change when they're old enough to understand the gravity of that then fair enough. What you're essentially advocating here is making them choose a gender. That's actually a pretty fcuked up to thing to bestow on a child.


''Mammy/Daddy/Zammy, why am I not invited to any birthday parties?'' These will be the questions your kid will be asking you if you go down this road. Get. A. Grip.

eyerer

batistuta9 wrote: »

1,000 years from now there will be no guys and no girls, just ****. Sounds great to me.

Mark Renton, 1996

Best post in this thread so far

Omackeral

gizmo81 wrote: »

I love this argument. Also seen as . . .

All Gay people shouldn't adopt because some straight people will be bigoted homophobes.

PMSL

PMSL, is that another gender? Also I didn't mention gay at all did I? Nope. You just cry bigotry when you don't get your own way, quite ironic really. For what it's worth, my brother is gay and both he and his partner are fantastic with our 3 nephews. I'd love to see them have children of their own.

Pac1Man

Wibbs wrote: »

QV Prof Hawking. If I want a physics answer he'd be one of my go to guys, but if he starts talking about subjects much beyond that area, his is an opinion like anybody else's.

Yeah the fekin chatterbox that he is. Always going off on one.

Take a breath Hawking, I can't get a word in!

eyerer

The pseudo-intellect has his high horse and dictionary definition of gender.
Perhaps they should change 'gender' on the birth cert to 'sex'. That would make it simpler..?
Totally agree with the guy that said this will only cause trouble for the kid amongst their peers. Unless they get straight onto a doctoral program where every one is very liberal and metro.

iguana

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I sincerely hope your child is taken from you to save HIM/HER from a life of absolute fücking misery. Hey read a science book you gowl.

Do you really hope the child is taken from it's parent because of this? The odds are the child is deeply loved and will be raised in comfort, well-fed, and will receive a good education. The child will receive emotional support, secure attachment, safety and love. This is just a guess, but I doubt the child will ever be neglected or subject to physical discipline.

I considered my child to be my son as soon as the sonographer told me she could see his penis and I think that's the best way to do things. But this parent is, in all likelihood, raising their child in a way that they wish they had been raised. Kori Doty probably went through all sort of mental torture as a teenager trying to find an identity they were comfortable with, either due to gender dysmorphia, unhappiness with being forced into gender roles they couldn't feel at ease in, physical or mental abuse associated with their sex, etc. And this how they hope to protect their child from experiencing the same. This method may not be how the child would choose to be raised, it may cause the child difficulty and confusion, the child may resent it and rebel by growing up to be the world's most masculine man or feminine woman. But it's ultimately just a parent trying to do what they think is best for their child and I really don't see how taking the child from their parent for doing that is in any way justifiable. It's possibly a bad parenting choice but plenty of perfectly adequate parents make worse decisions.

TheDavester

And they wonder why Trump won

Ficheall

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'm a doctoral candidate.

Might we enquire as to what your phd is in?

mick.oleary

iguana wrote: »

Do you really hope the child is taken from it's parent because of this? The odds are the child is deeply loved and will be raised in comfort, well-fed, and will receive a good education. The child will receive emotional support, secure attachment, safety and love. This is just a guess, but I doubt the child will ever be neglected or subject to physical discipline.

I considered my child to be my son as soon as the sonographer told me she could see his penis and I think that's the best way to do things. But this parent is, in all likelihood, raising their child in a way that they wish they had been raised. Kori Doty probably went through all sort of mental torture as a teenager trying to find an identity they were comfortable with, either due to gender dysmorphia, unhappiness with being forced into gender roles they couldn't feel at ease in, physical or mental abuse associated with their sex, etc. And this how they hope to protect their child from experiencing the same. This method may not be how the child would choose to be raised, it may cause the child difficulty and confusion, the child may resent it and rebel by growing up to be the world's most masculine man or feminine woman. But it's ultimately just a parent trying to do what they think is best for their child and I really don't see how taking the child from their parent for doing that is in any way justifiable. It's possibly a bad parenting choice but plenty of perfectly adequate parents make worse decisions.

I do. Western society is becoming too tolerant of this sort of bullsh**.

mick.oleary

Ficheall wrote: »

Might we enquire as to what your phd is in?

This ought to be good.