I've been seeing a growing number of stories about parents raising the children to be "gender neutral". In that the parents do not reveal the sex of their children to anyone. Even the children, who are aware of their own body parts and how they may differ from others, are not taught to associate those body parts with being a boy or girl. If no one knows a child’s sex, these parents theorize, the child can’t be pigeonholed into gender stereotypes.
Have we really gotten to the point where being a boy or a girl is considered a matter of choice?
Looking at this through the eyes of a parent, how can this not be a form of child abuse? You are essentially retarding your child's development, whether it be emotional or sexual. Unless a child is born as a eunuch, they have a specific set of genatalia, which by definition is their gender.
Hell, the children are even referred to as "Theybes" because use of specific pronouns is forbid in those households.
Maybe this is what happens when one starts to get to the "get off my lawn" age, but this just seems fucked up on so many levels.
It wasn't from feeds - it was from the NBC Nightly News and the Charlotte local news
I do believe someone can be one thing on the inside despite being another on the outside, and I don't begrudge anyone who pursues a life of being what they believe they are. I don't think it's fair (as some posters have said) to characterize them as "crazy people."
But I'd guess that 99.99% of people born have the same inward sex that they have outwardly. So I'll be raising my children to be the sex their body represents.
How is that evidence for it not being related to stigma?
Quote:
I don't think it's a terribly controversial point. One such piece from the Human Rights Campaign is linked. The trans homelessness rate has been previously pegged around 1 in 5. Trans folks experience substance abuse disorders at something like twice the rate of the general population. Link - ( New Window )
How is that evidence for it not being related to stigma?
Or furthermore that raising them a different way wouldn't help?
Quote:
I don't think it's a terribly controversial point. One such piece from the Human Rights Campaign is linked. The trans homelessness rate has been previously pegged around 1 in 5. Trans folks experience substance abuse disorders at something like twice the rate of the general population. Link - ( New Window )
How is that evidence for it not being related to stigma?
Sorry I thought you wanted evidence for the negative consequences. The attached is not a definitive argument for no impact (and I'm not making one) as it does identify the positive impact protective factors can have, but it suggests that suicide rates remain extremely high even in places that are tolerant of trans folks and have been for a comparably long time.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14296832 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
I don't think it's a terribly controversial point. One such piece from the Human Rights Campaign is linked. The trans homelessness rate has been previously pegged around 1 in 5. Trans folks experience substance abuse disorders at something like twice the rate of the general population. Link - ( New Window )
How is that evidence for it not being related to stigma?
Sorry I thought you wanted evidence for the negative consequences. The attached is not a definitive argument for no impact (and I'm not making one) as it does identify the positive impact protective factors can have, but it suggests that suicide rates remain extremely high even in places that are tolerant of trans folks and have been for a comparably long time. Link - ( New Window )
Your point, as I read it, was that the stigma is not the reason the problems exist. And the conclusion of the study you linked kinda undercuts your point.
You're right that there can be unintended consequences that we don't know now. But conversely, being accepting of trans folks might prevent a few suicides. And being accepting earlier in life might prevent even more.
Ultimately, identity itself, even, is transitory and temporary, but by focussing on actions as opposed to identity we allow each other, and ourselves, enough fluidity to find our own transcendence or redemption, while avoiding any need to question identity. Avoiding judgement.
It's (such as) the old "argument with the wife" - you discuss an action you don't appreciate (transitory) as opposed to calling her a bitch or a bum, which sound permanent.
People who have been treated by identity may take it as an identity based attack anyway, but it isn't.
That's a narcissistIC trait (action of thought): taking critique of actions as attacks on identity. They aren't.
If certain identity conditions correlate with some particular personality disorders, fine (not saying that they do), but ......BUT.....lack of empathy isn't typically curative for personality disorders.
On the contrary, makes it worse maybe.
As I said above, 'normatives' are also very, very liable to take similar wrong actions!
I love my kids unconditionally...but if they take a wrong -action-.. I say it.
It's as if to say "we fixed stuff so what's YOUR problem".
One of my kids had a classmate change gender. All the kids, the entire community, was super duper loving and supportive and 200% on point. But the kid was still seriously. .majorly.. depressed etc. It didn't seem to help.
But if they are suffering because they are like "I'm in love, and as a loyal true, deep feeling, romantic type it hurts that my lover sees other people" and / or "I grew up without my loving, straight, white dad"
The community is like,
- "what's your problem, get over it, beich"
Quote:
pro-gender neutral sites had this comment:
Quote:
For instance, girls are often valued for their looks, while boys are praised for their intelligence. Girls are told to sit still, while boys are encouraged to participate in the world around them. These gender roles impact children for the rest of their lives and can even have lasting consequences to their health and wellbeing. In order to prevent unfair treatment and potentially even discrimination because of gender, some parents are choosing to raise their children as gender-neutral.
If the supposition that traditional gender roles have lasting consequences to health and wellbeing and avoidance of that is a driver to go gender neutral, I would think those being raised gender neutral will most definitely face unfair treatment and discrimination at a higher rate than if they were raised traditionally.
To me, this is the salient quote and it's applicable to so many of our modern ills. We see a problem and don't directly fix the bad behavior but, rather, go to a weird extreme to side-step the problem. The solution here is not to create or force gender neutrality, but it's to educate and eliminate the sexist behaviors or stereotypes.
My guess is about 1 or 2 people in the building complained/requested this, so a couple of thousands people are affected by the whim of a couple.
In the distant future, man has lost all sexual identity and the idea of procreating in the traditional way has become an ancient curiosity and considered primitive and "animal-like" disgusting.
In the future, babies are grown in a pod from the DNA of existing humans. Eventually the DNA pools become limited, so the future humans use time travel to steal DNA from us. We wouldn't recognize these humans as our species, but they are. The new problem is.....in the future, introducing ancient DNA to maintain reproducibility produces hybrid human/future human species that are less intelligent and look almost like todays humans. The idea of introducing ancient DNA to produce more viably reproducible humans is abhorrent....kind of the way we would feel if somebody tried to introduce monkey DNA into todays humans.
Or so I heard.....
I do believe someone can be one thing on the inside despite being another on the outside, and I don't begrudge anyone who pursues a life of being what they believe they are. I don't think it's fair (as some posters have said) to characterize them as "crazy people."
But I'd guess that 99.99% of people born have the same inward sex that they have outwardly. So I'll be raising my children to be the sex their body represents.
Mike, I did the same thing. But that doesn't account for the many children who are born with ambiguous sexual organs. For those, I'd argue that paying good attention to THEIR sense of self becomes critical, and making sure that an OBGYN or pediatrician doesn't arbitrarily assign a sex type and do surgery to make them "normative" at the time of birth.
As for Duned's points, I am at least ambivalent about issues around bathroom use. I'm not sure I agree with people arbitrarily using whichever bathroom they feel like if they are identifying as trans. At the same time, more and more colleges have coed floors with unisex bathrooms, and seem to do fine with that.
To his point about sex offenders, having worked for years with that population myself, I too am leery about giving them a loophole with which to give them access to potential victims. When I ran sex offender groups at my practice, the offenders knew to wait outside our office until it was group time, so that they weren't even in the same waiting room as minor children. Parole officers certainly also make it clear to them that they can't be in public restrooms in most instances, although it's usually impossible to ensure that they follow such procedures. Predators of course may not. The guys I selected for my groups, however, wouldn't put themselves in a position where they could even be falsely accused of an offense, and thus stayed far away from children unless chaperoned by someone whom met the requirements set out by us and their parole officer.
The second is the group that tries to circumvent their responsibilities and their strictures, that feigns ignorance when reminded of even their most basic responsibilities, that picks up another set of FTR charges while the first one is pending, etc etc.
My guess is about 1 or 2 people in the building complained/requested this, so a couple of thousands people are affected by the whim of a couple.
That's certainly an odd configuration. While I personally wouldn't feel uncomfortable using a urinal, I would certainly avoid them in a work environment. I'd be afraid that a female colleague would walk in and on seeing me at the urinal would feel "uncomfortable" and report me to HR...
IMO, gender neutral bathrooms need to be all stalls.
I've never ever ever met anyone who has raised their kid gender neutral. Like, ever. I've never come across a single person, and I'm the target market (so to speak) of this ire (millennial, and proudly so).
This seems like a boogeyman - anecdotally to me at least.
The second is the group that tries to circumvent their responsibilities and their strictures, that feigns ignorance when reminded of even their most basic responsibilities, that picks up another set of FTR charges while the first one is pending, etc etc.
Yup. It's nice to be in a private practice that can pick and choose who you treat. As a guy with a doctorate, I charged substantially more for group sessions than did a lot of the master's level clinicians, and was know as someone who was strict and expected a lot off work on the part of group members. Those parolees who chose my group despite other choices were a very motivated bunch, and I still vetoed my share of guys who sought entry.
Now, a bunch of the guys I did forensic risk assessments upon were just the type you describe...real predators who were either unwilling or unable to stop their behaviors. Some had Antisocial Personality Disorder, others were so compulsively attached to their sexual addictions that the best thing was to keep them locked up for as long as legally possible. As you know, sex offenders aren't uniform by any means with regard to future risk or past behavior.
There have been some fascinating debates about gender neutrality and pronouns, its effects on free speech, and the clash between science and this type of ideological insanity in the last few years. Especially in Canada, where they passed a law to try and enforce people to use certain pronouns when referring to people.
Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepard have been among the more vocal supporters of free speech and there has been a lot of discussion around the members of the IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) about this,
Here's a link to a lecture Peterson tried to give at McMaster University that got interrupted by protesters.
Link - ( New Window )
The Canada law doesn't enforce people to use certain pronouns
what it does is:
1. Not allow the federal government to discriminate base on gender identy
2. It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
3. Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Especially in Canada, where they passed a law to try and enforce people to use certain pronouns when referring to people.
The Canada law doesn't enforce people to use certain pronouns
what it does is:
1. Not allow the federal government to discriminate base on gender identy
2. It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
3. Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
Link - ( New Window )
The whole problem with all that is that it is subjective. Who gets to decide what the motivation is? The only way to know is if someone is inside of your head and knows what you were thinking.
Quote:
Especially in Canada, where they passed a law to try and enforce people to use certain pronouns when referring to people.
The Canada law doesn't enforce people to use certain pronouns
what it does is:
1. Not allow the federal government to discriminate base on gender identy
2. It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
3. Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
Link - ( New Window )
"Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act
The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.[9] That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federally regulated industry. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement. This prohibition would only apply to matters within federal jurisdiction."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14297600 Mike in Marin said:
Quote:
Especially in Canada, where they passed a law to try and enforce people to use certain pronouns when referring to people.
The Canada law doesn't enforce people to use certain pronouns
what it does is:
1. Not allow the federal government to discriminate base on gender identy
2. It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.
3. Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.
Link - ( New Window )
"Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act
The law amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.[9] That makes it illegal to deny services, employment, accommodation and similar benefits to individuals based on their gender identity or gender expression within a federally regulated industry. A person who denies benefits because of the gender identity or gender expression of another person could be liable to provide monetary reimbursement. This prohibition would only apply to matters within federal jurisdiction." Link - ( New Window )
thats point one above. Sorry I left out businesses when I was typing.
I meet them in the enforcement context, we'll leave it at that.
so assaulting someone genocide are both illegal period. why the need for additional language about gender
suggest listing to Jordan Peterson's take on what is happening in Canada. He is Canadian and has STUDIED their legislation and what it means.
Quote:
so on?
I meet them in the enforcement context, we'll leave it at that.
Got it.
He has toys that are typical for his gender, though he has asked for most of those.
He is more of a nerd preferring to "play" with tech things or do science related things.
He has never expressed any confusion over his gender.
I think a parent who is sensitive to their child will recognize such confusion, and many kids are quite adamant about it.
I don't think its necessary to go to the extremes mentioned in the OP to allow children to develop naturally.
I think all it takes is listening to your kids with an open mind.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
would not fall under that, unless you are doing it advocating their genocide or assaulting them
so assaulting someone genocide are both illegal period. why the need for additional language about gender
suggest listing to Jordan Peterson's take on what is happening in Canada. He is Canadian and has STUDIED their legislation and what it means.
That's a broader issue with hate crime status and not specific to this law.
I mean I don't really see the big deal. As long as when the boy gravitates to traditional boy behavior, toys and clothes, they don't try to suppress that, I don't see the big deal. Same thing for girls obviously.
I mean it definitely comes across as a self serving fart sniffing contest, but I wouldn't call it abuse.
If they were forcing the opposite gender on the kid, that would definitely be abuse.
Quote:
shit and IMO it's not about the child one bit, it's about the parents and the damage it can do to a child psychologically is immeasurable. Link - ( New Window )
I mean I don't really see the big deal. As long as when the boy gravitates to traditional boy behavior, toys and clothes, they don't try to suppress that, I don't see the big deal. Same thing for girls obviously.
I mean it definitely comes across as a self serving fart sniffing contest, but I wouldn't call it abuse.
If they were forcing the opposite gender on the kid, that would definitely be abuse
I'm not sure what is abuse or what is not, but I do think there could be damage done to the child psychologically. Parents should parent, children are not equipped intelligently or mentally to decide what gender they are and leaving them genderless (until what age?) just seems like it could be harmful. I'm not saying force a kid into activities or to play with toys generally specific to a gender, but this extreme seems extreme.
Maybe I have some old fashioned tendencies or beliefs, but I feel like you should support your child if they are confused about their gender. I'm sure that happens and a parent should support their child as they find themself and figure things out.
I just don't see why encouraging the child to not have a gender is in the child's best interest.
Seems like a shitty way for a kid to live and it seems like it's happening unnaturally. to appease the parents.
but I'm clearly not an expert. I have 3 kids and do my best to raise them and constantly make mistakes. If I had it to do over again, I'm still raising them as their biological gender until or if they show signs of struggling with that.
Is the parent supposed to be a pushy asshole and take the "cookery toys and sewing stuff" away from the boy.. if he likes that? Or take the football fro. The girl?
What kind of person would do that?
Maybe I didn't read the link or something.
As mcl said, just be decent and pay a bit of attention...don't hover... and if one of your kids does this, initiates a switch in style, all on their own...so what?
If not? So what? The language stuff is silly since we all love to cook and see and we are manly men....it's a Mish mash.
And that people come in any wide variety of points on a wide wide spectrum...then
...calling a boy a boy isn't going to really be harmful, even if he wears dresses...because some do. He can change his pronoun later if he wants. It's a free country.
Some of my best friends wear dresses. Secrecy and dishonesty and greed sucks..truly.. and anything can be and will be used as an excuse ..but.. Fabrics, plaids, velvet, silk..those are like cutlery or long guns...held by decent honest people those don't suck...guns don't kill, "people with moustaches kill" as the joke goes...and dresses too ...don't cause folks to lie or cheat ..unless we oppress or bully them for being themselves....I think ..not sure but that's my hope.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
I think mcl and Ron Mexico kind of nailed it though.
Just don't be pushy one way or the other regarding identity.
Many folks are messy and just pile the toys together. No big deal
but then, my grandparents had WW2. my parents had the Cold War and race wars.
we have global terrorism and Justin Bieber. i guess the next generation might not be/have it any worse?
I just don't see why encouraging the child to not have a gender is in the child's best interest of the child
From my very limited understanding of this practice, it not about encouraging the child to be gender less. It's about removing gender biased treatment of the kids by others.
The kids are free to identify as what ever ther want, most likely their physical sex, usually by three years old.
Is this really a threat to social norms or the kids? Is there really any substantive evidence this either growing or harmful?
Worth repeating, if anyone is actually interested in learning more about this practice; from the reading and conversation I've had this is about letting kids come to their own gender decisions and most kids quickly get there. It's not about forcing genderless upbringing.
I'd love to see stats about how these children wind up. I'm going to say for the most part these kids don't thrive, at least not in early childhood.
being a kid is hard enough, no idea why parents feel the need to make it harder by giving their child, who is too young to know any differently, pronouns or nuances that will make them stand out as different in their first social settings and interactions.
I've never ever ever met anyone who has raised their kid gender neutral. Like, ever. I've never come across a single person, and I'm the target market (so to speak) of this ire (millennial, and proudly so).
This seems like a boogeyman - anecdotally to me at least.
Same here, never met or heard of anyone through the grapevine ever doing it.
Quote:
so a bunch of my friends have recently or are about to have kids.
I've never ever ever met anyone who has raised their kid gender neutral. Like, ever. I've never come across a single person, and I'm the target market (so to speak) of this ire (millennial, and proudly so).
This seems like a boogeyman - anecdotally to me at least.
Same here, never met or heard of anyone through the grapevine ever doing it.
Out of 300M people, its like 50 parents from liberal areas. Social media makes it sound like its a growing significant trend. This is one of the things I hate about social media. Any 2 fat guys in shorts can come over as a movement or legit company
I'd love to see stats about how these children wind up. I'm going to say for the most part these kids don't thrive, at least not in early childhood.
being a kid is hard enough, no idea why parents feel the need to make it harder by giving their child, who is too young to know any differently, pronouns or nuances that will make them stand out as different in their first social settings and interactions.
I don't know it's "not harmful."
I suspect the movement is very small, and is I noted above, my anecdotal and limited knowledge of this practice, is the kids quickly identify and align with the gender associated with their biology.
Again, I don't think this is a widespread tragedy nor do I think the outcomes are "immeasurable."
As with all things some study and time is required, but I do think it's a little weird to claim a practice is abusive with basically no data to support that assertion.
the most I saw was "a growing trend" which comes directly from the article I linked and FMiC used in his OP.
the commentary is limited to the public cases, which may very well be a handful, to comment against it being widespread (like a few posters have) is introducing a strawman.
the most I saw was "a growing trend" which comes directly from the article I linked and FMiC used in his OP.
the commentary is limited to the public cases, which may very well be a handful, to comment against it being widespread (like a few posters have) is introducing a strawman.
My perspective, unattributed to or aimed at anyone, is that it's not widespread, as supported by the links shared. Glad we can agree on that.
As far as not being a tragic or immeasurable those were aimed at:
a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country.
here's a thought ...
shit and IMO it's not about the child one bit, it's about the parents and the damage it can do to a child psychologically is immeasurable.
At a young age, you can probably convince a kid that he is a head of broccoli if you really want to.