Canadian parent raising child as gender-neutral.

gizmo81 · 03-07-2017 11:50PM

You are trying to demean a poster you perceive to be male by emasculating him and equating him with a menstruating woman.

Text book misogyny. Remember women can be misogynists too . . .

mick.oleary wrote: »

You don't seem to know what misogyny means.

iguana · 03-07-2017 11:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My argument would be that gender is a purely physical thing, and that "what the child likes and dislikes" should be completely and totally independent of and irrelevant to sex/gender. In other words, "gender" just shouldn't be a thing beyond whether you have a weiner or a vajayjay.

In that context, these people are doing more harm than good, in my view. They're unwittingly reinforcing the idea that gender, as a societal set of rules as opposed to merely a physical attribute, should continue to be a thing that exists.

I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't think that what this parent is doing, going to the absolute extremes of gender neutral, is as bad as parents who push their children into certain categories based on their sex. And few people fervently hope that the latter type of parent have their children taken from them. But denying your daughter boxing lessons or making your son feel like shít for dressing up in his sister's Elsa dress is still pretty commonplace and often done by otherwise good parents.

03-07-2017 11:51PM

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

No bother with transgender people but this child is not old enough to tell anyone that it is trans. How about you just assign the child the gender that is associated with its genitals and if the child expresses an issue with it in the future then deal with it then! Christ. I wouldn't be advocating taking the child away either, though the parent does sound like a bit of an idiot alright.

I'm not picking on your post in particular, but it's fairly representative of a lot of the narrative here: I don't have a problem with transgender people, but for God's sake assign this child the a gender associated with their sex, or else you're damaging them.

That position appears to assume there is something harmful about not being raised in a particular gender.

Why should that be harmful? It seems just as spurious, to my mind, as the argument that every child needs a male and a female parent.

I wouldn't be surprised if children who are raised without gender constraints actually end up happier, more well-rounded, and more open-minded as individuals, without feeling any of the gender constraints that most of us (male or female, but especially female) have felt at some stage.

I don't see any evidence of harm. I do see a great positive potential here. No child should be reared in a gender strait-jacket in this day and age.

mick.oleary · 03-07-2017 11:55PM

gizmo81 wrote: »

You are trying to demean a poster you perceive to be male by emasculating him and equating him with a menstruating woman.

Text book misogyny. Remember women can be misogynists too . . .

Actually I am not equating him to anything or demeaning him. I am using reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that men and women have gender specific roles.

Ficheall · 03-07-2017 11:56PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not picking on your post in particular, but it's fairly representative of a lot of the narrative here: I don't have a problem with transgender people, but for God's sake assign this child the a gender associated with their sex, or else you're damaging them.

That position appears to assume there is something harmful about not being raised in a particular gender.

Why should that be harmful? It seems just as spurious, to my mind, as the argument that every child needs a male and a female parent.

I wouldn't be surprised if children who are raised without gender constraints actually end up happier, more well-rounded, and more open-minded as individuals, without feeling any of the gender constraints that most of us (male or female, but especially female) have felt at some stage.

I don't see any evidence of harm. I do see a great positive potential here. No child should be reared in a gender strait-jacket in this day and age.

In an ideal world, perhaps, but kids are horrible. What does this child say when Little Timmy asks zem "Are you a boy or a girl?"
How happy do you think their schooldays will be?

Will I Am Not · 03-07-2017 11:58PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not picking on your post in particular, but it's fairly representative of a lot of the narrative here: I don't have a problem with transgender people, but for God's sake assign this child the a gender associated with their sex, or else you're damaging them.

That position appears to assume there is something harmful about not being raised in a particular gender.

Why should that be harmful? It seems just as spurious, to my mind, as the argument that every child needs a male and a female parent.

I wouldn't be surprised if children who are raised without gender constraints actually end up happier, more well-rounded, and more open-minded as individuals, without feeling any of the gender constraints that most of us (male or female, but especially female) have felt at some stage.

I don't see any evidence of harm. I do see a great positive potential here. No child should be reared in a gender strait-jacket in this day and age.

Red hair, glasses, fat...
Kids will use anything to get at other kids. There will be other red heads, bespectacled and fat kids.
You will be different from everyone if you've no gender.

Nermal · 03-07-2017 11:58PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No child should be reared in a gender strait-jacket in this day and age.

"O Lord, please remove me from this gender strait-jacket".

"Yes the same one that we've had since we became multi-cellular organisms, that one".

The Backwards Man · 04-07-2017 12:00AM

There's people who are arseholes and there are people that are a bit of an arsehole.

After that, who gives a fcuk?

take everything · 04-07-2017 12:00AM

Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor in Toronto got into trouble with slow-minded SJWs over this stuff.
Peterson is a rock of sense and a beautiful searing intellect who nearly lost his job from the fallout from shrieking leftists about this issue.

Ballstein · 04-07-2017 12:00AM

gizmo81 wrote: »

Dig beneath the homophobia and transphobia and voila, Misogyny.

I was reading your posts and was sure you were a really good troll.

04-07-2017 12:03AM

Ficheall wrote: »

In an ideal world, perhaps, but kids are horrible. What does this child say when Little Timmy asks zem "Are you a boy or a girl?"
How happy do you think their schooldays will be?

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You will be different from everyone if you've no gender.

This is why I conflated the issue to same-gender parents. Because the thought thats you guys have expressed, is exactly the same which is stated by those who oppose same-gender parents.

"But they'll be bullied!"

Anyone can be bullied, for even the most spurious of reasons.

You don't raise kids to be the kind of people that bullies would like everyone to be. You raise your kids to be good, open-minded, compassionate people; not to be 'popular'. To do otherwise is actually bad parenting.

AnGaelach · 04-07-2017 12:04AM

DontThankMe wrote: »

Bill Nye explains it well.

Correct, he does it quite splendidly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCR6gS8QQjk

mdwexford · 04-07-2017 12:07AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if children who are raised without gender constraints actually end up happier, more well-rounded, and more open-minded as individuals, without feeling any of the gender constraints that most of us (male or female, but especially female) have felt at some stage.

I don't see any evidence of harm. I do see a great positive potential here. No child should be reared in a gender strait-jacket in this day and age.

Gender constraints.

Gender strait-jacket.

What planet are we living on at this stage.

04-07-2017 12:10AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is why I conflated the issue to same-gender parents. Because the thought thats you guys have expressed, is exactly the same which is stated by those who oppose same-gender parents.

"But they'll be bullied!"

Anyone can be bullied, for even the most spurious of reasons.

You don't raise kids to be the kind of people that bullies would like everyone to be. You raise your kids to be good, open-minded, compassionate people; not to be 'popular'. To do otherwise is actually bad parenting.

aren't you the one wondering why it beastiallity was illegal or what the issue with it was

Ficheall · 04-07-2017 12:11AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is why I conflated the issue to same-gender parents. Because the thought thats you guys have expressed, is exactly the same which is stated by those who oppose same-gender parents.

"But they'll be bullied!"

Anyone can be bullied, for even the most spurious of reasons.

You don't raise kids to be the kind of people that bullies would like everyone to be. That is quite obviously ridiculous.

I think there's a paper on this by Cash - he studied the effects of assigning a male child a female name, expecting initial hardships to lead to a strength of character which his son would value. However, while the son acknowledged the benefits of the harsh upbringing, he asserted that he would not adopt the same strategy with his own offspring.

Your children are, to some extent, your experiments. Some experiments are unnecessarily cruel, even if you have good intentions.

Will I Am Not · 04-07-2017 12:11AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is why I conflated the issue to same-gender parents. Because the thought thats you guys have expressed, is exactly the same which is stated by those who oppose same-gender parents.

"But they'll be bullied!"

Anyone can be bullied, for even the most spurious of reasons.

You don't raise kids to be the kind of people that bullies would like everyone to be. You raise your kids to be good, open-minded, compassionate people; not to be 'popular'. To do otherwise is actually bad parenting.

Anyone can be bullied but you may as well stick a sandwich board with 'bully me' written on it as do this.

iguana · 04-07-2017 12:11AM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

I'd consider it worse than anything you mentioned in your first paragraph.

You really consider not letting your child do something they love because they are the "wrong" gender worse than being over-zealous in your quest to let them choose their likes and identity for themselves. Really? Maybe even denying them something that could be their passion and lucrative career because it doesn't fit your idea of what boys or girls should do. Forbidding Baryshnikov from dancing or Katy Taylor from boxing would be better than just being really, really extreme about letting the child choose for themselves?

Why list a load of stuff you think bad to try make it sound better anyway?

Because posters are choosing this example of questionable parenting to wish the child be removed from it's parent and that's a bit messed up considering all of the other equally shíte parenting decisions that are accepted as normal.

mick.oleary wrote: »

Boys should not be playing with Barbie dolls. If you want to raise your kid to be some sissy then go ahead but I won't be giving out to my son for laughing at yours and his Barbie.

Any kid that comes into my son's room, where he does keep his Barbie - and his My Little Ponies, tend to be mostly just blown away by the epic collection of superhero, Star Wars, Transformer, dinosaur and space toys he has. That's after they finish drooling over the automated Hot Wheels tracks mounted on the walls. And when they realise that he has 'girl's' toys in amongst what has to be the coolest toy collection owned by a non-professional youtube toy reviewer, (because that's just his bedroom - he also has a playroom and an outbuilding stuffed with toys) they start to resent the idiot parents that have denied them access to half the toyshop.:P

gizmo81 · 04-07-2017 12:15AM

+100

Why only play with half the box of toys . . .

iguana wrote: »

they start to resent the idiot parents that have denied them access to half the toyshop.:P

04-07-2017 12:15AM

mdwexford wrote: »

Gender constraints.

Gender strait-jacket.

What planet are we living on at this stage.

I'm not sure if you ever look around you, or read the statistics on gender inequality; but yes, gender constraints do exist, especially when it comes to incomes and family obligations.

And by gender strait-jackets, I'm talking about people imposing gender-based rules upon their children or their pupils ... most five-year-olds have learned that dolls are for girls and tractors are for boys. Thankfully, this trend is now diminishing, and cases like that stated in the OP are at the vanguard of that trend.

bubbles o hara · 04-07-2017 12:18AM

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

Oh sweetie, make yourself a cuppa' and dunk a Jaffa cake in the mug. You must be a barrel of laughs on a night out.

Yourself isit · 04-07-2017 12:18AM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Red hair, glasses, fat...
Kids will use anything to get at other kids. There will be other red heads, bespectacled and fat kids.
You will be different from everyone if you've no gender.

The minute the child goes to school she will more than likely self declare as her sex (or his - I don't know the actual sex) .

That's because sex and gender are largely the same.

Every so often theres a blank slate hysteria. Particularly on gender. Then it dies off and people feel embarrassed.

LLMMLL · 04-07-2017 12:18AM

I don't see how sex/gender is relevant on a birth cert. I'd happily get rid of it. The child will be fine.

Yourself isit · 04-07-2017 12:19AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not sure if you ever look around you, or read the statistics on gender inequality; but yes, gender constraints do exist, especially when it comes to incomes and family obligations.

And by gender strait-jackets, I'm talking about people imposing gender-based rules upon their children or their pupils ... most five-year-olds have learned that dolls are for girls and tractors are for boys. Thankfully, this trend is now diminishing, and cases like that stated in the OP are at the vanguard of that trend.

Most children in fact will adopt gender rolls without parental influence.

04-07-2017 12:20AM

Winston Hissing Racism wrote: »

aren't you the one wondering why it beastiallity was illegal or what the issue with it was

I was yeah.

I know why I have problems with bestiality, it churns my stomach. But my gastric fragility is hardly a reason to ban something.

Why are you digging that up here? Do you have no logical point to advance, or is that thread somehow relevant here?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Most children in fact will adopt gender rolls without parental influence.

Grand. Lets assume you're correct: what's the problem here, so?

Professor Moriarty · 04-07-2017 12:21AM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Anyone can be bullied but you may as well stick a sandwich board with 'bully me' written on it as do this.

So he/she should raise their kids to be bad, narrow-minded and insensitive people who compromise themselves in order to be liked?

mdwexford · 04-07-2017 12:22AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not sure if you ever look around you, or read the statistics on gender inequality; but yes, gender constraints do exist, especially when it comes to incomes and family obligations.

And by gender strait-jackets, I'm talking about people imposing gender-based rules upon their children or their pupils ... most five-year-olds have learned that dolls are for girls and tractors are for boys. Thankfully, this trend is now diminishing, and cases like that stated in the OP are at the vanguard of that trend.

So you are talking nonsense. Thanked by a person talking absolute tripe.

The case in the OP is of a deranged human using their child. With a lawyer who doesn't use capital fcuking letters to boot.

How Soon Is Now · 04-07-2017 12:23AM

God I miss the days when men where men and women where women....

Now I dunno what the **** is going on half the time!

Simpler times I guess.

SterlingArcher · 04-07-2017 12:23AM

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?

Is that a rabbit hole you would go down?

Ok so now the child gets to decide what path it takes to its gender expression. Goody goody. When the child is 13-15 and full of this knowledge of you have bestowed upon it. The child tells you it does not fit their biological body and wants to be a male or female. it wants an operation to correct that. How do you proceed gizmo81? I mean you did say a child gets to choose right?

Hotei · 04-07-2017 12:23AM

Ficheall wrote: »

I think there's a paper on this by Cash - he studied the effects of assigning a male child a female name, expecting initial hardships to lead to a strength of character which his son would value. However, while the son acknowledged the benefits of the harsh upbringing, he asserted that he would not adopt the same strategy with his own offspring.

Your children are, to some extent, your experiments. Some experiments are unnecessarily cruel, even if you have good intentions.

Noveight · 04-07-2017 12:24AM

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't see how sex/gender is relevant on a birth cert. I'd happily get rid of it. The child will be fine.

It's one of the most fundamental parameters by which someone can be identified. It's completely relevant on a birth certificate.

Canadian parent raising child as gender-neutral.

Comments