NFT: Raising Kids "Gender Neutral"

With everything going on in the world these people worry about gender identity.

You think this forum can handle this topic.....

Yes its child abuse..but dont be surprised if you turn Into the asshole for saying that.

of this woman who said that parents should ask their babies permission before changing their diapers.
Link - ( New Window )

"In a thousand years, there will be no men and women, just wankers, and that's fine by me.'

were going away, and people would be happy. I really didn't see this coming.

The best was on a recruiting trip to a college a few months ago. There was a gender neutral bathroom, with a very weird symbol that was supposed to indicate it was neutral. I couldn't figure it out, so I asked someone and they said 'this means that all are welcome'.

Couldn't they have just stopped at the sign that said 'Bathroom'?

a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country.
And why subject your kid to bullying and ridicule at school as bad as it is already. Kids are mean. Just gives the evil little devils another avenue to bully.

and points more to a parent seeking attention than actually raising their child. I’m not joking when I say that a lot of this is done for social media. Standing out and going against the norm is now a badge of honor, even if it means harming your child.

My kid can be whatever she wants to be and I’d support it (not blindly, within reason of course). Her sexuality, when the time comes, will be something I support no matter what and will let her figure that out on her own. Stepping in and determining it for her is something I can’t even fathom.

I agree that it’s child abuse.

their children who are gender confused or even feel they've been born into the wrong gender.

Having gone to a bunch of workshops on the topic, I've heard first hand how painful it is for those who have tried to be gender conforming while on another level feeling a fraud.

At one workshop, a West Point lieutenant colonel, a Florida police chief, and a decorated marine all talked about the depression they experienced trying to conform, and how their choices of gender normative roles were their failed attempts to "fit in". Each had gone forward to transitions to becoming female in their 30s-40s after years of struggle...and none of them seemed mentally ill (to this psychologist) as some folks might think.

is more about the parent. Almost like they are trying to make a statement that they are above the laws of nature.

And by that, I don't mean that their sexual preference matters, just that they most definitely are a boy or a girl and there are physical impacts of each of those sexes.

In addition, I wouldn't trust the parents to have the level of intelligence to adequately answer questions that arise.

- Why am I bleeding out of my crotch?
- Why do I have hair on my chin, but other kids don't?
- What are these lumps on my chest?

How do you answer those questions without letting the cat out of the bag? And that's assuming social settings didn't already traumatize the kids.

In comment 14296006 yatqb said:

Quote:

their children who are gender confused or even feel they've been born into the wrong gender. Having gone to a bunch of workshops on the topic, I've heard first hand how painful it is for those who have tried to be gender conforming while on another level feeling a fraud. At one workshop, a West Point lieutenant colonel, a Florida police chief, and a decorated marine all talked about the depression they experienced trying to conform, and how their choices of gender normative roles were their failed attempts to "fit in". Each had gone forward to transitions to becoming female in their 30s-40s after years of struggle...and none of them seemed mentally ill (to this psychologist) as some folks might think.

yat, you're the expert so I'll defer to you, but when does gender confusion set in for these kids? To me it seems like attempting to do this from the jump would preempt any of those feelings.

The gender stereotypes were what needed to be abolished, IMO. It seems like they're trying to introduce the concept of sexuality at an age where kids are just too young to understand it.

By crazy people who want to "boy".

Same crazies are going after boy scouts...

5-10 years ago they would have been institutionalized and their kids protected from their crazy

"Dont want a boy"

sex = male/female
gender = man/woman
sexuality = straight/gay/bi

And these are all different from masculine and feminine behavior.

as opposed to sexuality.

In comment 14296006 yatqb said:

Quote:

their children who are gender confused or even feel they've been born into the wrong gender. Having gone to a bunch of workshops on the topic, I've heard first hand how painful it is for those who have tried to be gender conforming while on another level feeling a fraud. At one workshop, a West Point lieutenant colonel, a Florida police chief, and a decorated marine all talked about the depression they experienced trying to conform, and how their choices of gender normative roles were their failed attempts to "fit in". Each had gone forward to transitions to becoming female in their 30s-40s after years of struggle...and none of them seemed mentally ill (to this psychologist) as some folks might think.

Interesting perspective yat, great post

Some people even think sex is socially constructed (fewer people, more radical people)

Girls = Vagina

Dress how you want but I'm not lying because you are confused...

In comment 14296028 kes722 said:

Quote:

Girls = Vagina Dress how you want but I'm not lying because you are confused...

And you're the token ignoramus who can't do nuance or actually discuss an issue...

In comment 14296006 yatqb said:

Quote:

their children who are gender confused or even feel they've been born into the wrong gender. Having gone to a bunch of workshops on the topic, I've heard first hand how painful it is for those who have tried to be gender conforming while on another level feeling a fraud. At one workshop, a West Point lieutenant colonel, a Florida police chief, and a decorated marine all talked about the depression they experienced trying to conform, and how their choices of gender normative roles were their failed attempts to "fit in". Each had gone forward to transitions to becoming female in their 30s-40s after years of struggle...and none of them seemed mentally ill (to this psychologist) as some folks might think.

That's a great perspective. It would be interesting to see if raising a child gender neutral makes them more apt to be gender confused. If so, and knowing what gender confused people go through, that is terrible.

I'm just not sure the parents doing this have the proper training or intelligence to be able to avoid gender confusion, and this method of parenting, at least to me, would seem to be more likely for gender confusion to happen later in life. And then I wonder what happens when part of that confusion leads to backlash against the way they were raised and if families become fractured.

then people think.

When this happens the doctors end up making their best guess and construct the rest of the genitalia and form one or the other.

It's pretty easy to see why people can sometimes get confused or be confused.
Mayo Clinic - ( New Window )

It's a case of a parent purposefully confusing their child's gender.

Even debate.

This isn’t one.

Some people are fucked in the head. And as my grandfather used to like to say, “We’re going to hell in a handbasket.”

Which I always wondered about the size of a hand basket and everyone? Going to hell in it? That kind of fucked me up as a kid. Good thing my parents told me I was male. Shit, Even that was hard enough to figure out. Try that with persistent acne at 14-15. Damn.

Anyhow. Back to the thread.

In comment 14296005 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

and points more to a parent seeking attention than actually raising their child. I’m not joking when I say that a lot of this is done for social media. Standing out and going against the norm is now a badge of honor, even if it means harming your child. My kid can be whatever she wants to be and I’d support it (not blindly, within reason of course). Her sexuality, when the time comes, will be something I support no matter what and will let her figure that out on her own. Stepping in and determining it for her is something I can’t even fathom. I agree that it’s child abuse.

I 100% agree that social media plays a huge part in this.

In comment 14296006 yatqb said:

Quote:

their children who are gender confused or even feel they've been born into the wrong gender. Having gone to a bunch of workshops on the topic, I've heard first hand how painful it is for those who have tried to be gender conforming while on another level feeling a fraud. At one workshop, a West Point lieutenant colonel, a Florida police chief, and a decorated marine all talked about the depression they experienced trying to conform, and how their choices of gender normative roles were their failed attempts to "fit in". Each had gone forward to transitions to becoming female in their 30s-40s after years of struggle...and none of them seemed mentally ill (to this psychologist) as some folks might think.

There is a huge difference to being open and caring if your childhas gender identity issues vs. raising them to be gender neutral for no good reason.

not less.

I agree. I also wonder what it will do for the social skills and interaction these kids will have

They are determined by their chromosomes.

Anything contrary is liberal anti-science bullshit.

Same with anti-vaxxers.

Fuck these people.

(putting aside ambiguous genitalia - that's a whole other ball of wax.)
However, I can provide a few "old timer" observations:
- We could reduce the "alphabet of sexes" if we did not confound biological gender with sexual preference. I can be a biological man and be attracted to another man; that does NOT define a new gender; I am still a man. (If I swing both ways, that is not a separate gender either.)
- Psychologists tell us true instances of gender confusion make up a very small portion of our population. (I agree with others that being "transgender" has become a fad in many social groups. It is no longer "cool" to be Goth in our local HS.) Intervening (including being "gender neutral" to your little girl) before it is identified as a problem can only create more confusion in a very young child.
- Doing ANYTHING permanent to the child before they reach sexual maturity is irresponsible. (OK, that was an opinion.)
Parents, please pick another cause if you want to virtue signal.

and this is one of them. The "empowerment" of every loud voice crying out in agony is simply more than most of us want to be subjected to.

I raise in accordance with science and common sense. I really think the majority of parents do the same. They don't insist on making their parenting choices as publicly available as possible.

In comment 14296076 Bockman said:

Quote:

They are determined by their chromosomes. Anything contrary is liberal anti-science bullshit. Same with anti-vaxxers. Fuck these people.

XX and XY isn't an exhaustive list of the possible genetic "genders" as you say. There are other possibilities, though rare.

original discussion (about which I disagree) and trans folks, who (unlike what Beezer believes) do not display mentally illness at a rate above the rest of the population.

jcn, gender identification (as opposed to confusion) can emerge very early in life, and I believe is related to biological factors. As Down the Shore has mentioned, lots of kids are born with ambiguous genitalia, and pediatricians have only lately been encouraged to NOT choose for the child (transforming the child's genitals to conform with one gender) but to let gender identity emerge in the child and only then perform surgery.

But there are hypothesized to be many other factors besides ambiguous genitalia that play a role in gender identity. John Money, for example, pointed to delayed androgen bath in kids with XY chromosomes (which leads in animals to perform a variety of functions, such as urinating, in gender-nonconformative ways -- e.g., squatting as opposed to raising one leg). Lots is still unknown, but I absolutely believe that socialization cannot override these biological determinants without a great deal of struggle on the part of the individual.

it is because their parents are making them confused. Their son plays with a doll at 2 yrs old and they think he may really be a girl. Then, start asking him if he feels like a girl. It is basically child abuse.

on a related topic...
this calling people by the pronouns they prefer is also getting on my last nerve.

.

My gosh some are damaging our children by this dribble

pure crap.

In comment 14296125 yatqb said:

Quote:

.

If it doesn't happen to some people, they just can't grasp it. I wish empathy was more common.

gender neutral, I would have received a scholarship to play for Pat Summitt at UT.

I know she really liked stand still shooters. And despite being a 6'2" slow white guy, I could shoot.

Unfortunately, I struggled with bigger, stronger, faster people of my gender...

You would have to figure it's not real.

I would assume that well over 95% of parents who choose this are just attention whores begging to be talked about.

One day a lot of these people are going to be older and look at a lot of their attention seeking actions and say to themselves "what have I done".

Inevitable regret.

In comment 14296003 section125 said:

Quote:

a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. And why subject your kid to bullying and ridicule at school as bad as it is already. Kids are mean. Just gives the evil little devils another avenue to bully.

is this really happening though? 99.9999% of the population is just fine and raising their kids in a normal fashion. I feel bad for the kids with wacko parents doing this, but is it any different than kids with alcoholic, drug addicted or abusive parents?

In comment 14296097 yatqb said:

Quote:

original discussion (about which I disagree) and trans folks, who (unlike what Beezer believes) do not display mentally illness at a rate above the rest of the population. jcn, gender identification (as opposed to confusion) can emerge very early in life, and I believe is related to biological factors. As Down the Shore has mentioned, lots of kids are born with ambiguous genitalia, and pediatricians have only lately been encouraged to NOT choose for the child (transforming the child's genitals to conform with one gender) but to let gender identity emerge in the child and only then perform surgery. But there are hypothesized to be many other factors besides ambiguous genitalia that play a role in gender identity. John Money, for example, pointed to delayed androgen bath in kids with XY chromosomes (which leads in animals to perform a variety of functions, such as urinating, in gender-nonconformative ways -- e.g., squatting as opposed to raising one leg). Lots is still unknown, but I absolutely believe that socialization cannot override these biological determinants without a great deal of struggle on the part of the individual.

You can't fight biology. If a boy is a homosexual boy, let him be that. He was born a boy, regardless of his sexuality.

Let these poor children be what they become, and on their own.

In comment 14296112 EricJ said:

Quote:

it is because their parents are making them confused. Their son plays with a doll at 2 yrs old and they think he may really be a girl. Then, start asking him if he feels like a girl. It is basically child abuse. on a related topic... this calling people by the pronouns they prefer is also getting on my last nerve.

I disagree with this. Gender confusion is a real thing. I know a family that has two sons and one has this. The other is normal. They definitely didn't push it on him and take measures to hide it from the other kids. But completely invalidating and suppressing how the kid feels is just another type of abuse.

From 11/18 (long, but worth a read)

Gender Dysphoria in Children

Quote:

Might gender identity be genetically determined? Behavior geneticists have known for decades that while genes influence behavior, they do not hard-wire a person to think, feel, or behave in a particular way. The science of epigenetics has established that genes are not analogous to rigid “blueprints” for behavior. Rather, humans “develop traits through the dynamic process of gene-environment interaction… [genes alone] don’t determine who we are.”18 Regarding the etiology of transgenderism, twin studies of adult transsexuals prove definitively that genetic influence is far less than that of environmental factors.

Tim Pool (Journalist, Occupy Wallstreet) had an interesting video about "rapid onset gender dysphoria." In effect, is peer pressure in college affecting the decision to go Trans?

Study: Kids are TransGender Because its Trendy, Is it True?

This is NOT to say Trans does not exist, but it is a matter of concern if your daughter...who never expressed interest in a sex change operation...comes back from college as a guy. Or visa versa.

And it's not like there isn't peer pressure in college, or wanting to "fit in". Like it or not, that does exist, and many Colleges do facilitate this without having to consult parents Fox News: Oregon allowing 15-year-olds to get state-subsidized sex-change operations

I guess there are some situations where going Trans has huge advantages, though. As in the following meme:

But it’s not necessarily child abuse, a lot of these parents are loving and caring; though misguided in ensuring their kids do not need to conform to traditional gender stereotypes (misguided because it ignores biological realities). it’s not like they are hitting , neglecting, molesting or verbally berating them. Just like parents who raise their kids in strictly religious households teaching them that it is a sin to watch movies, masturbate, date outside the faith etc is not abuse but misguided.

I have a 5 year old girl and she is all about princesses dressing up baking etc and a 3 year old boy who loves Spider-Man construction toys and rough play. We didn’t force them into those preferences they just naturally gravitated.

Pre-Internet people would pay a few sheckels and see a freak show with curiosities, some real, some phony In a show that would travel from town to town.

Now the freak show is free and at your keyboard. It’s just an entertainment same as always- nothing to take seriously

In comment 14296187 Les in TO said:

Quote:

But it’s not necessarily child abuse, a lot of these parents are loving and caring; though misguided in ensuring their kids do not need to conform to traditional gender stereotypes (misguided because it ignores biological realities). it’s not like they are hitting , neglecting, molesting or verbally berating them. Just like parents who raise their kids in strictly religious households teaching them that it is a sin to watch movies, masturbate, date outside the faith etc is not abuse but misguided. I have a 5 year old girl and she is all about princesses dressing up baking etc and a 3 year old boy who loves Spider-Man construction toys and rough play. We didn’t force them into those preferences they just naturally gravitated.

you can be absolutely be loving and caring and still abusive and damaging beyond repair.

Genitalia determines sex, not gender.

In comment 14296173 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 14296112 EricJ said: Quote: it is because their parents are making them confused. Their son plays with a doll at 2 yrs old and they think he may really be a girl. Then, start asking him if he feels like a girl. It is basically child abuse. on a related topic... this calling people by the pronouns they prefer is also getting on my last nerve. I disagree with this. Gender confusion is a real thing. I know a family that has two sons and one has this. The other is normal. They definitely didn't push it on him and take measures to hide it from the other kids. But completely invalidating and suppressing how the kid feels is just another type of abuse.

I did not say that it does not exist. I am saying that parents today are confusing kids and making them question themselves even when they never thought about it before.

You also don't invalidate it but instead you take him or her to a therapist because it is a mental issue that needs to be dealt with.

Absolutely- but i don’t see what these parents are doing as abuse, just strange. Anti vaxxers/anti traditional medicine parents are far more abusive because they prevent their kids from getting necessary health care.

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.

In comment 14296207 Mr. Bungle said:

Quote:

Genitalia determines sex, not gender.

only when changing definitions for political reasons.

In comment 14296215 Les in TO said:

Quote:

Absolutely- but i don’t see what these parents are doing as abuse, just strange. Anti vaxxers/anti traditional medicine parents are far more abusive because they prevent their kids from getting necessary health care.

I disagree for obvious reasons.

"obvious reasons"??

I would think exposing a child to a potential deadly virus, while also endangering the public around for no proven reason is indeed a form of abuse. Or at the very least neglect

here's a thought, teach our young how to treat everyone with respect and not limit who or what they can be simply because they are male or female. Apparently that is too simple and we have to complicate things and make exceptions for the few (in context of world population) who feel that they do not fit in.

In comment 14296225 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

"obvious reasons"?? I would think exposing a child to a potential deadly virus, while also endangering the public around for no proven reason is indeed a form of abuse. Or at the very least neglect

I wasn't referring to that. You should vaccinate your children.

In comment 14296217 madgiantscow009 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296207 Mr. Bungle said: Quote: Genitalia determines sex, not gender. only when changing definitions for political reasons.

Yup...

Gender has always been defined by your sex then a bunch of bat shit crazy liberals decided to change it and now in the UK a woman was just arrested for "misgendering" someone.

Bat shit fucking crazy

You started this thread with familiarity through 'stories'. Do you actually know such families? Even families with a child who is transitioning?

That might change how 'strange' or 'wrong' that feels.

In comment 14296217 madgiantscow009 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296207 Mr. Bungle said: Quote: Genitalia determines sex, not gender. only when changing definitions for political reasons.

Um, no.

Oy.

FMiC -- genuine request; could you point us to these growing number if stories?

The source and frequency will very much help contextualize the issue. Thanks in advance.

which is not to say that people are born without a sex or a certain pigmentation.

Understanding that there is a mental component to all aspects of identity is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea.

Its just that social media, and the media in general, allows it to seem like its a lot more

In comment 14296003 section125 said:

Quote:

a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. .

Let's not get carried away here. How many people are actually doing this? It's likely to remain a fringe movement that will do nothing material to the country at large, like a cult.

an epidemic, and I don't expect this to spread like wildfire to other parents and schools. And like everything else in this world, social media and the internet helps spread the message and inflating a topic that a majority would disagree with.

sure of the numbers. I happened to see a local story yesterday and the week prior one that was national. I'm sure it is a fringe thing - and it looks to be more popular in Sweden.

Quote:

A Facebook group called “Parenting Theybies: using they/them/their pronouns for kids from the start” is creating a community for parents who are raising their kids outside of the gender binary. The group has been around since 2015 and currently has about 750 members.

Quote:

A study published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology found that kids enrolled in the Sweden's gender-neutral kindergarten system, which has been in place since 2005 and has educated over 5,000 gender neutral children, had access to more opportunities, which the researchers predicted would equate to more success as adults.

In comment 14296244 kes722 said:

Quote:

Gender has always been defined by your sex then a bunch of bat shit crazy liberals decided to change it and now in the UK a woman was just arrested for "misgendering" someone. Bat shit fucking crazy

It really is bat shit crazy...

You have a boy who may want to be identified as a girl. Meanwhile, this confused mother fucker still looks more like a boy than a girl. As a result, people call him a HE or HIM because for a few thousand years, humans could tell the difference between a boy and a girl just like we can tell between a cat and a dog.

In the end, if this confused boy wants to be called a girl and does not want people to call him what he really is... then maybe he can do a better job or playing the role and actually LOOKING like how he would prefer to be identified.

They should take a look at all of the trans gender guys in Thailand. Even Stu got fooled by this guy.. or girl in the link below.
This guy does not care what pronoun you use - ( New Window )

In comment 14296076 Bockman said:

Quote:

They are determined by their chromosomes. Anything contrary is liberal anti-science bullshit. Same with anti-vaxxers. Fuck these people.

At the risk of leaning too far toward the political side, I'm not sure I've seen "liberal" alongside "anti-science."

Parents just don't want to do there jobs anymore they would rather just be friends.

In comment 14296356 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 14296076 Bockman said: Quote: They are determined by their chromosomes. Anything contrary is liberal anti-science bullshit. Same with anti-vaxxers. Fuck these people. At the risk of leaning too far toward the political side, I'm not sure I've seen "liberal" alongside "anti-science."

The Anti vaxxers and anti GMO crowd are largely populated by liberals

if we were just tolerant of differences and encourage people to be good human beings rather than fit into norms. You have a penis, wear dresses and have a mohawk but treat people with kindness and compassion. Great. All that matters is the last part. If we focus on the last part I'm not sure the rest is a big issue.

But I understand, as I enter my 40's, that I am old and likely don't understand the issue as well as I should.

among some young parents in the age of social media to treat kids as accessories and as bullhorns to demonstrate their own consciousness. You can teach your kid to be kind and tolerant without making his life a social experiment.

I'd suspect nothing tragic ensues from a small group of parents raising their kids an unconventional way.

Gender as has been pointed out in this thread can be far less tidy, both physically and emotionally, than many think.

In the limited reading I've done the spirit of the movement is to let kids come to identify their gender on their own, not deny gender, and unsurprisingly most kids come to a pretty quick conclusion. But I'm far from an expert, maybe there's something more cooky going down?

Who knows - not long ago the conventional approach to signs of ambiguous sexuality in kids was to shock it out them - so maybe the conventional approach on these topics can progress?

Somehow figure out how to have children.

In comment 14296377 christian said:

Quote:

In the limited reading I've done the spirit of the movement is to let kids come to identify their gender on their own,

right there is the problem. To even suggest to them that they can identify their gender is ridiculous. They are born with their gender...period. I suspect a group of "woke" parents sit them down and actually tell the kids they need to "decide".

Absolutely ridiculous and it makes about as much sense as you or anyone else deciding that they want to be a grizzly bear.

by the media attention it's received.

It would seem to me, however, that it's less harmful than forcing a gender stereotype on someone for whom it does not fit. The kids who have gender identity issues have very high suicide rates in part because they're pressured to be something that they aren't naturally. It's easy to be outraged or mock this approach, but can we say for sure it's not a safer way to bring up a kid?

Harassment and stigma alone don't really provide sufficient explanation.

In comment 14296286 santacruzom said:

Quote:

In comment 14296003 section125 said: Quote: a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. . Let's not get carried away here. How many people are actually doing this? It's likely to remain a fringe movement that will do nothing material to the country at large, like a cult.

Yes, my exact point. A small group will force everyone else to do what the small group wants or be sued, arrested, or bullied on social media. IIRC, The state of Washington has a similar law so now we have firepersons, police persons, etc. They are trying to weed out the use of "man" so the jobs are gender neutral. They want to ban the use of he and she...

In comment 14296361 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 14296356 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 14296076 Bockman said: Quote: They are determined by their chromosomes. Anything contrary is liberal anti-science bullshit. Same with anti-vaxxers. Fuck these people. At the risk of leaning too far toward the political side, I'm not sure I've seen "liberal" alongside "anti-science." The Anti vaxxers and anti GMO crowd are largely populated by liberals

I think that the anti-vaxxers cut across many lines. I've read of liberals, conservatives, religious, conspiracists, and the hopelessly gullible all being coutned among the anti-vaxx groups.

Now, anti-GMO or gluten-free is probably a different story.

In comment 14296216 FatMan in Charlotte said:

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.

In comment 14296393 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296286 santacruzom said: Quote: In comment 14296003 section125 said: Quote: a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. . Let's not get carried away here. How many people are actually doing this? It's likely to remain a fringe movement that will do nothing material to the country at large, like a cult. Yes, my exact point. A small group will force everyone else to do what the small group wants or be sued, arrested, or bullied on social media. IIRC, The state of Washington has a similar law so now we have firepersons, police persons, etc. They are trying to weed out the use of "man" so the jobs are gender neutral. They want to ban the use of he and she...

I dont think this is a real thing.

I quick search of WA gov website refer to them as fire fighters and police officers. If you have a problem with those labels, I dont know what to tell you.

because the jobs don't change. They are gender neutral (or not) because of their intrinsic nature and not what name is used for them.

In comment 14296411 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 14296393 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14296286 santacruzom said: Quote: In comment 14296003 section125 said: Quote: a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. . Let's not get carried away here. How many people are actually doing this? It's likely to remain a fringe movement that will do nothing material to the country at large, like a cult. Yes, my exact point. A small group will force everyone else to do what the small group wants or be sued, arrested, or bullied on social media. IIRC, The state of Washington has a similar law so now we have firepersons, police persons, etc. They are trying to weed out the use of "man" so the jobs are gender neutral. They want to ban the use of he and she... I dont think this is a real thing. I quick search of WA gov website refer to them as fire fighters and police officers. If you have a problem with those labels, I dont know what to tell you.

No those are fine, but it does not end there - go a little further and see if there are fines for using ...man, etc. And I believe it goes further than just renaming positions...
But you are nitpicking my terms, I am is still technically correct - no more fireman, policeman. And why is it necessary for a gov agency to pass a law to tell people what to call jobs?
It goes with my point of small groups requiring others to conform to them.

Quote:

The suicide rates have been sky-high even in quite tolerant societies Dunedin81 : 9:14 am : link : reply Harassment and stigma alone don't really provide sufficient explanation.

Hell, I'd hazard a guess the environment plays a larger part in the suicide rates than gender. From the accounts I've seen, Sweden is on the cutting edge of this and they are one of the leading suicide rate countries in the world.

In comment 14296391 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

Harassment and stigma alone don't really provide sufficient explanation.

That's probably fair - cause and effect is always dicey with mental health issues. I guess I look at this a little personally. I have a close friend who's son said he didn't want to be Daniel anymore - that he was truly a girl. We had a long talk about it. He did a lot of research about how difficult it is for transgender to fit in society and how much greater the mental health risks are for them and they decided to be supportive of his (now) daughter.

I guess I'm saying that it's easy to sit back and criticize. Neither of my kids have expressed any gender/sexuality issues so far. But that conversation was pretty fucking real for me and we should probably consider if the one size fits all model of child rearing is not always the best approach.

In comment 14296424 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296411 ron mexico said: Quote: In comment 14296393 section125 said: Quote: In comment 14296286 santacruzom said: Quote: In comment 14296003 section125 said: Quote: a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. . Let's not get carried away here. How many people are actually doing this? It's likely to remain a fringe movement that will do nothing material to the country at large, like a cult. Yes, my exact point. A small group will force everyone else to do what the small group wants or be sued, arrested, or bullied on social media. IIRC, The state of Washington has a similar law so now we have firepersons, police persons, etc. They are trying to weed out the use of "man" so the jobs are gender neutral. They want to ban the use of he and she... I dont think this is a real thing. I quick search of WA gov website refer to them as fire fighters and police officers. If you have a problem with those labels, I dont know what to tell you. No those are fine, but it does not end there - go a little further and see if there are fines for using ...man, etc. And I believe it goes further than just renaming positions... But you are nitpicking my terms, I am is still technically correct - no more fireman, policeman. And why is it necessary for a gov agency to pass a law to tell people what to call jobs? It goes with my point of small groups requiring others to conform to them.

Again, I don't think that exists. I don't think there is a law telling people what to label jobs. I think its fear mongering fake news.

If you have evidence showing people are getting fined for using "man" I will reconsider.

In comment 14296428 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

Quote: The suicide rates have been sky-high even in quite tolerant societies Dunedin81 : 9:14 am : link : reply Harassment and stigma alone don't really provide sufficient explanation. Hell, I'd hazard a guess the environment plays a larger part in the suicide rates than gender. From the accounts I've seen, Sweden is on the cutting edge of this and they are one of the leading suicide rate countries in the world.

Individuals who want to identify as something else have some deep rooted mental issues that are also leading to suicide. The radicals will have you believe that the suicides are happening because these people are not accepted into society.

The statistics show that if society decides to "accept" these other genders as normal, that will not result in a decrease in the suicide rates.

The ACA is mandatory and the plan will cover psychotherapy. I would recommend that people who feel confused should take that step first before heading over to the plastic surgeon.

In comment 14296431 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

In comment 14296391 Dunedin81 said: Quote: Harassment and stigma alone don't really provide sufficient explanation. That's probably fair - cause and effect is always dicey with mental health issues. I guess I look at this a little personally. I have a close friend who's son said he didn't want to be Daniel anymore - that he was truly a girl. We had a long talk about it. He did a lot of research about how difficult it is for transgender to fit in society and how much greater the mental health risks are for them and they decided to be supportive of his (now) daughter. I guess I'm saying that it's easy to sit back and criticize. Neither of my kids have expressed any gender/sexuality issues so far. But that conversation was pretty fucking real for me and we should probably consider if the one size fits all model of child rearing is not always the best approach.

good post.

trying to eliminate gender-based bias and/or roles. Seems to me that a parent making such a choice early on isn't as much concerned that their child might eventually experience gender dysphoria as they are concerned that traditional gender roles might limit their child's opportunities in life.

I only know of one person who appears to be doing her best to raise her child gender neutral. She's a workplace acquaintance, and I can't remember what gender the baby (now two) is biologically, and all she ever dresses them up in is browns, greens, grays, etc. As a result, its easy for me to use non-gender specific pronouns because I can't tell if I should be saying him or her.

Beautiful kid too, but I basically avoid any interactions because I don't want to offend - and this lady seems to be the type who will definitely take offense.

Numbers are sometimes associated with colors. Are they also possibly associated with sexual identity? Is Seven more a boy? Girl? Something else completely? (Although I don't know what the fuck something else completely would be, unless it's a cheetah, maybe a falcon.)

In comment 14296393 section125 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296286 santacruzom said: Quote: In comment 14296003 section125 said: Quote: a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country. . Let's not get carried away here. How many people are actually doing this? It's likely to remain a fringe movement that will do nothing material to the country at large, like a cult. Yes, my exact point. A small group will force everyone else to do what the small group wants or be sued, arrested, or bullied on social media. IIRC, The state of Washington has a similar law so now we have firepersons, police persons, etc. They are trying to weed out the use of "man" so the jobs are gender neutral. They want to ban the use of he and she...

Well, good luck to them. They'll fail, and the only thing of consequence will be reading about their existence and getting a little annoyed.

...I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist Congregation - if this stuff were happening ANYWHERE, it would be there.

And it's not.

We have transgender members, people who have flipped one way or the other, and the topic is VERY much in the open there, but this stuff about raising kids 'neutral' - no, this is the first I've heard of it.

In this one thread. It's really hard to have a great discussion as it's so broad.

That said, its obviously possible to live ones children unconditionally, as they are, without being too pushy one way or the other.

For example, in 7th grade, my daughter announced that she had 'married her girlfriend during lunch'.

My response? "Welcome to the family, have you done your homework?"

That's the important thing. Do the damn homework! It's how schools work nowadays and you can't fall behind!

Live... love...

In comment 14296583 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

In this one thread. It's really hard to have a great discussion as it's so broad. That said, its obviously possible to live ones children unconditionally, as they are, without being too pushy one way or the other. For example, in 7th grade, my daughter announced that she had 'married her girlfriend during lunch'. My response? "Welcome to the family, have you done your homework?" That's the important thing. Do the damn homework! It's how schools work nowadays and you can't fall behind!

Are they still together?

In comment 14296586 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

Live... love...

Eat

Be true to your friends.

Be honest.

Work hard at what you love.

Try to go to college, if you can, and or join the U.S. Navy.

Don't be promiscuous. Stay away from grownups if they are innappropriate.

Don't use drugs or drink.

THIS :

It's really no problem if you.. or a friend wants to wear a dress or whatever. Who cares?

Just. House rules are:

no violence, no weed, no booze, hopefully no sex but let's get real.

And do the god damn homework for once in your life.

Last I heard - love triangle with another girl.

My girl is true blue, big, country heart (although she doesn't understand) stuck in a cold city world.

She's suffering. But I attribute that more to environment than to sexuality. They are all everything or what have you.

It's a very diverse and open school but it's not the deep River....it's hard to explain. But we are not haters of any kind.

and Girls have a vagina

'how things were'.

Let's say, 1860....or...1940...

Whereas there may have been less tolerance in the public square,(as opposed to today) there was probably far - more - respect for privacy and the sanctity of your home.

So. If two men who you knew (in your home town since first grade) lived together, say, 1935.. 1945. .nobody really questioned it in your home town. Privacy...nothing is new under the sun...and lives were led.

Not to condone intolerance, in other ways back then. Not at all.

But it's far more complex than we pretend.

For example, the first British Governor of New York wore a dress openly. Nobody said shit, he was the authority.

Or....1890s....cross dressers ..most folks wouldn't notice or conceive that there was another gender under the apparel.

Women served 'as men' in the Civil War, for example.

If it's really promiscuity you are against...me too...or egoism, or narcissistic world views..me too, those suck ...or...identity based rackets and insular or self dealing habits..me too, those things truly do suck.

But break out those issues as separate issues as separate issues... that straights obviously do also....

have become yet another sacred cow that people either accept uncritically - smiting even the lukewarm as 'phobic' - or dismiss wholesale as PC nonsense. It's difficult to chart out a middle ground that accepts gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon but understands that this, like many other social trends before it, is 'chic' and imitative and thus not everyone who identifies as "non-binary" suffers from gender dysphoria or would remotely benefit from hormonal or surgical intervention. And there are legitimate questions about the age at which such interventions would be appropriate. Likewise, the notion that normalization would cure the problems that impact those who suffer from gender dysphoria is fanciful, and people who ask whether it is appropriate to make systemic changes to society to better accommodate the very small number of trans folks are not inherently bigoted.

Not identities.

You can fully accept people's identity without randomly condoning - anyone's - particular actions in any given moment.

Anyone can BE anyone.

But one cannot condone theft, for example, rackets, selfishness, greed, cheating, lieing, self worship, never. ending. bullshit, utter, rampant Hypocrisy, what have you..

...regardless OF identity.

"Straight", "normative" "white" isn't the point really.

Like the Liliputians in Gulliver's Travel's:

Fighting over which end of the egg is the top.

Folks band together in identity groups to defend from rackets and self dealers,...and...within days they are setting up rackets and self dealing for themselves.

Same old shit new names

In comment 14296673 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

have become yet another sacred cow that people either accept uncritically - smiting even the lukewarm as 'phobic' - or dismiss wholesale as PC nonsense. It's difficult to chart out a middle ground that accepts gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon but understands that this, like many other social trends before it, is 'chic' and imitative and thus not everyone who identifies as "non-binary" suffers from gender dysphoria or would remotely benefit from hormonal or surgical intervention. And there are legitimate questions about the age at which such interventions would be appropriate. Likewise, the notion that normalization would cure the problems that impact those who suffer from gender dysphoria is fanciful, and people who ask whether it is appropriate to make systemic changes to society to better accommodate the very small number of trans folks are not inherently bigoted.

Declaring something fanciful doesn't make it fanciful. I agree there are legitimate questions about when and how to intervene in these situations. But to hold any changes to the standard of "cure the problems" is ridiculous. Things can be worthwhile to do to ameliorate these issues without the requirement that they are solved completely.

In comment 14296343 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

sure of the numbers. I happened to see a local story yesterday and the week prior one that was national. I'm sure it is a fringe thing - and it looks to be more popular in Sweden. Quote: A Facebook group called “Parenting Theybies: using they/them/their pronouns for kids from the start” is creating a community for parents who are raising their kids outside of the gender binary. The group has been around since 2015 and currently has about 750 members. Quote: A study published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology found that kids enrolled in the Sweden's gender-neutral kindergarten system, which has been in place since 2005 and has educated over 5,000 gender neutral children, had access to more opportunities, which the researchers predicted would equate to more success as adults.

I encourage you to watch Brexit on HBO. It might help you understand why this story is showing up in one of your feeds.

In comment 14296708 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

In comment 14296673 Dunedin81 said: Quote: have become yet another sacred cow that people either accept uncritically - smiting even the lukewarm as 'phobic' - or dismiss wholesale as PC nonsense. It's difficult to chart out a middle ground that accepts gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon but understands that this, like many other social trends before it, is 'chic' and imitative and thus not everyone who identifies as "non-binary" suffers from gender dysphoria or would remotely benefit from hormonal or surgical intervention. And there are legitimate questions about the age at which such interventions would be appropriate. Likewise, the notion that normalization would cure the problems that impact those who suffer from gender dysphoria is fanciful, and people who ask whether it is appropriate to make systemic changes to society to better accommodate the very small number of trans folks are not inherently bigoted. Declaring something fanciful doesn't make it fanciful. I agree there are legitimate questions about when and how to intervene in these situations. But to hold any changes to the standard of "cure the problems" is ridiculous. Things can be worthwhile to do to ameliorate these issues without the requirement that they are solved completely.

another good post.

In comment 14296708 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

In comment 14296673 Dunedin81 said: Quote: have become yet another sacred cow that people either accept uncritically - smiting even the lukewarm as 'phobic' - or dismiss wholesale as PC nonsense. It's difficult to chart out a middle ground that accepts gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon but understands that this, like many other social trends before it, is 'chic' and imitative and thus not everyone who identifies as "non-binary" suffers from gender dysphoria or would remotely benefit from hormonal or surgical intervention. And there are legitimate questions about the age at which such interventions would be appropriate. Likewise, the notion that normalization would cure the problems that impact those who suffer from gender dysphoria is fanciful, and people who ask whether it is appropriate to make systemic changes to society to better accommodate the very small number of trans folks are not inherently bigoted. Declaring something fanciful doesn't make it fanciful. I agree there are legitimate questions about when and how to intervene in these situations. But to hold any changes to the standard of "cure the problems" is ridiculous. Things can be worthwhile to do to ameliorate these issues without the requirement that they are solved completely.

That's not a reasonable standard, no. But people who suffer from gender dysphoria are at much greater risk for umpteen additional problems, from substance abuse to suicide attempts to homelessness, and while they and everyone else are deserving of sympathy and tolerance my point is that stigma is not the reason those problems exist.

In comment 14296764 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296708 Heisenberg said: Quote: In comment 14296673 Dunedin81 said: Quote: have become yet another sacred cow that people either accept uncritically - smiting even the lukewarm as 'phobic' - or dismiss wholesale as PC nonsense. It's difficult to chart out a middle ground that accepts gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon but understands that this, like many other social trends before it, is 'chic' and imitative and thus not everyone who identifies as "non-binary" suffers from gender dysphoria or would remotely benefit from hormonal or surgical intervention. And there are legitimate questions about the age at which such interventions would be appropriate. Likewise, the notion that normalization would cure the problems that impact those who suffer from gender dysphoria is fanciful, and people who ask whether it is appropriate to make systemic changes to society to better accommodate the very small number of trans folks are not inherently bigoted. Declaring something fanciful doesn't make it fanciful. I agree there are legitimate questions about when and how to intervene in these situations. But to hold any changes to the standard of "cure the problems" is ridiculous. Things can be worthwhile to do to ameliorate these issues without the requirement that they are solved completely. That's not a reasonable standard, no. But people who suffer from gender dysphoria are at much greater risk for umpteen additional problems, from substance abuse to suicide attempts to homelessness, and while they and everyone else are deserving of sympathy and tolerance my point is that stigma is not the reason those problems exist.

you dont think its a contributing factor?

But as a preponderate or even a major factor? Debatable. Take the "Ma'am" video that has been memed to death. That trans woman was a lunatic, with a significant criminal history. Was the problem on that day that she was inadvertently addressed as a man, or was that it she's fucking crazy and she just happened to go off with a camera running?

That people should be judged on their actions, not their identity.

That "Ma'am" woman was clearly out of line and unhinged.

But if we can make minor changes to our society that have no real life impact to 99.9999% of the population that make those people feel more accepted I think that is a good thing. Maybe we will have less instances of the Ma'am indecent in the future if these people get the help and support they need when they are the most vulnerable.

The bathroom controversy has been demagogued to death, but I frequently send my daughters (the younger two aged 4 and 9) into public restrooms alone. I am not generally concerned that a trans woman is going to do something to harm them. I do however deal with sex offenders on a regular basis professionally and I am concerned that a non-trans pervert may abuse our unwillingness to place limits on bathroom use. I've encountered at least one pervert who did just that professionally.

Does the one interest outweigh the other? Maybe not. But there is at least a debate to be had, and it doesn't make the question "transphobic".

In comment 14296764 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296708 Heisenberg said: Quote: In comment 14296673 Dunedin81 said: Quote: have become yet another sacred cow that people either accept uncritically - smiting even the lukewarm as 'phobic' - or dismiss wholesale as PC nonsense. It's difficult to chart out a middle ground that accepts gender dysphoria as a real phenomenon but understands that this, like many other social trends before it, is 'chic' and imitative and thus not everyone who identifies as "non-binary" suffers from gender dysphoria or would remotely benefit from hormonal or surgical intervention. And there are legitimate questions about the age at which such interventions would be appropriate. Likewise, the notion that normalization would cure the problems that impact those who suffer from gender dysphoria is fanciful, and people who ask whether it is appropriate to make systemic changes to society to better accommodate the very small number of trans folks are not inherently bigoted. Declaring something fanciful doesn't make it fanciful. I agree there are legitimate questions about when and how to intervene in these situations. But to hold any changes to the standard of "cure the problems" is ridiculous. Things can be worthwhile to do to ameliorate these issues without the requirement that they are solved completely. That's not a reasonable standard, no. But people who suffer from gender dysphoria are at much greater risk for umpteen additional problems, from substance abuse to suicide attempts to homelessness, and while they and everyone else are deserving of sympathy and tolerance my point is that stigma is not the reason those problems exist.

Do you have any evidence for that point?

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 )

In comment 14296815 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

The bathroom controversy has been demagogued to death, but I frequently send my daughters (the younger two aged 4 and 9) into public restrooms alone. I am not generally concerned that a trans woman is going to do something to harm them. I do however deal with sex offenders on a regular basis professionally and I am concerned that a non-trans pervert may abuse our unwillingness to place limits on bathroom use. I've encountered at least one pervert who did just that professionally. Does the one interest outweigh the other? Maybe not. But there is at least a debate to be had, and it doesn't make the question "transphobic".

I definitely agree it deserves a debate. I would hope that debate is done on both sides with open mindedness and facts, not fear and hate. But thats probably overly idealistic

sure where this applies:

Quote:

I encourage you to watch Brexit on HBO. It might help you understand why this story is showing up in one of your feeds

It wasn't from feeds - it was from the NBC Nightly News and the Charlotte local news

If when they're older, they feel they aren't what their body image says they are, I'd support their decision (this isn't to say I'd handle it well internally).

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.

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?

In comment 14296859 Heisenberg said:

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?

Or furthermore that raising them a different way wouldn't help?

In comment 14296859 Heisenberg said:

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 )

why are the people arguing for the status quo, or simply against systemic change, obligated to prove the negative? Why should the state of affairs be reordered because, speculatively, it might improve the psyches of a very small percentage of the population? Why are we certain that there wouldn't be unintentional negative consequences, and that those negative consequences (whatever they might be) wouldn't be more widespread?

In comment 14296869 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 14296859 Heisenberg said: 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.

Quote:

Conclusions: Our findings show that suicidality is directly correlated with trans-related victimization. Preventing targeted victimization is, therefore, a key preventive intervention against this elevated suicidality.

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.

The thing about -actions- is that they are temporary and transitory.

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.

I'm not going to make some half-assed connection between the particular social changes associated with the LBTQ community (which I have largely supported) and that, but I will say that our social fabric is frayed and fraying, and posit that maybe we should put more thought into social changes than just saying "well maybe it will be beneficial to this group, and maybe it will have no significant negative consequences for anyone else".

Is that, as the identity battles have gone on, the formerly known as 'there to help', empathic adults, educators, social workers, therapists, seem less and less empathetic,less tuned in, less available.

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.

And their problem matches one of the known narratives, they get love and support from the community.

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"

In comment 14296410 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 14296216 FatMan in Charlotte said: 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.

Very well said.

recently "converted" a men's room to a gender neutral bathroom (I think that is how they phrased it). Last week was the first time I was in the building since that announcement. I needed to piss and that was the closest bathroom. Outside was the sign with the male and female figures you see on a lot of single bathrooms. Inside, the bathroom was completely unchanged. So, I'm staring at the urinals and just didn't feel comfortable pissing there knowing anyone could walk in. I know others also feel uncomfortable there.

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.

it's just so obvious -

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.....

In comment 14296857 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

If when they're older, they feel they aren't what their body image says they are, I'd support their decision (this isn't to say I'd handle it well internally). 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.

one is the group that accepts that they fucked up, that their lives are forever altered, that seeks to participate in treatment, and that tries to make the best of their lot. If all were like that, I wouldn't worry all that much.

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.

In comment 14297139 Matt M. said:

Quote:

recently "converted" a men's room to a gender neutral bathroom (I think that is how they phrased it). Last week was the first time I was in the building since that announcement. I needed to piss and that was the closest bathroom. Outside was the sign with the male and female figures you see on a lot of single bathrooms. Inside, the bathroom was completely unchanged. So, I'm staring at the urinals and just didn't feel comfortable pissing there knowing anyone could walk in. I know others also feel uncomfortable there. 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.

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.

In comment 14297546 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

one is the group that accepts that they fucked up, that their lives are forever altered, that seeks to participate in treatment, and that tries to make the best of their lot. If all were like that, I wouldn't worry all that much. 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.

so on?

just the overly vocal factions from the post-modernist, neo-marxists that dominate college campuses in north america.

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 )

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 )

In comment 14297611 ron mexico said:

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 )

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.

In comment 14297611 ron mexico said:

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 )

when they are advocating genocide

In comment 14297682 Mike in Marin said:

Quote:

In comment 14297611 ron mexico said: 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.

would not fall under that, unless you are doing it advocating their genocide or assaulting them

In comment 14297591 yatqb said:

Quote:

so on?

I meet them in the enforcement context, we'll leave it at that.

Very absurd to say the least. I'm all for equal rights for all and people deciding who they are but we are going too far to the crazy here.

In comment 14297693 ron mexico said:

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.

In comment 14297695 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 14297591 yatqb said: Quote: so on? I meet them in the enforcement context, we'll leave it at that.

Got it.

Who my wife and I have raised in a fairly liberal manner.

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.

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 )

In comment 14297711 EricJ said:

Quote:

In comment 14297693 ron mexico said: 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.

In comment 14298096 pjcas18 said:

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.

In comment 14298483 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 14298096 pjcas18 said: 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.

For example. If you have a girl and a boy of about the same age, and if you are fortunate enough to be able to buy lots of toys, you will have a variety.

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.

Once you realize that some straight men (like me) love babies and doggies and are basically everyone's grandmother's in spirit...and once you see that some straight females could easily kick most of y'all's asses.

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.

of toys representing traditional toys for both genders means you are raising your child gender neutral then probably 75% of all kids are raised gender neutral.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I don't have much patience for the linguistics games and didn't read any links..

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

and likely won't be around to see what the world is like in another 50 years.

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?

Quote:

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.

Seems like there is small community, with a very minor amount of attention, raising their kids in an unorthodox manner.

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.

Have you read about the reasons parents do this?

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.

In comment 14297573 Sonic Youth said:

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.

In comment 14298767 Ssanders9816 said:

Quote:

In comment 14297573 Sonic Youth said: 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

In comment 14298755 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

Have you read about the reasons parents do this? 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.

claim this situation is widespread or an epidemic.

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.

In comment 14298791 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

claim this situation is widespread or an epidemic. 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:

Quote:

It is amazing to me that a handful of people can screw up the entire population of a country.

Quote:

The Continued Downfall of Society here's a thought ...

Quote:

This is some scary 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.

and we have seen how kids are impacted when they are exposed to violence, lack of discipline, drugs, and other things that can impact a child mentally.

At a young age, you can probably convince a kid that he is a head of broccoli if you really want to.