EPTGender Neutral Child revealed to male at age 5 - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
NucNac
Germany64 Posts
| ||
|
Antyee
Hungary1011 Posts
Some monkeys know that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls. EDIT: As a side note, I don't feel like Sasha being a neutral enough name. Probably just the fact that I'm not native English-speaker. And Sasha Grey. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:17 ArchAngelSC wrote: Not true. It says that his mother is intervening, indicating that it is infact his mothers decision for him to wear it, not his. If the kid prefers the blouse, the school is not likely to respect his wishes unless his mother demands that they do so. It's unclear whether or not the kid prefers the blouse. | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:20 Praetorial wrote: This is gonna end really badly, considering the Scarlett/ Miss Universe fiasco that went down a few weeks ago. Ignorant people will begin to talk about sex and gender like they are the same thing and then this thread will become a flamewar. Seriously, who cares what these parents do? They're attention-seekers, as long as they don't harm their child I don't see why there is so much fuss. Thats my issue. I think it will harm the child. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
_Ice_
18 Posts
| ||
|
Cyanocyst
2222 Posts
On May 10 2012 06:14 RoosterSamurai wrote: Sasha dresses in clothes he likes -- be it a hand-me-downs from his sister or his brother. The big no-no's are hyper-masculine outfits like skull-print shirts and cargo pants. In one photo, sent to friends and family, Sasha's dressed in a shiny pink girl's swimsuit. "Children like sparkly things," says Beck. "And if someone thought Sasha was a girl because he was wearing a pink swimming costume, then what effect would that have? " Well ok, then.... Might be me, but something seems off here. Yeah no kidding, very hypocritical of the parents. To act as if they have some greater understanding of gender than most people. Then to set an arbitrary limitation like that, just as typical parents do. Sure its possible that he may not have chose to ware "Hyper-Masculine" things, but to set a restriction seems so contradictory. Wasn't the point to let the child pick its own gender? Any limitation interferes with that. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:22 hypercube wrote: LOL, he's gonna be fine. People are upset because their basic view of the world is challanged, not because they're worried about the kid. If you honestly think this "experiment" challenge's anyone's world view I don't even know what to tell you. On May 10 2012 07:09 Thrasymachus725 wrote: The problem here is that the parents know what sex the infant was (male), and therefore were unconsciously biased against the norm... How stupid and embarassing would their experiment seem if their little boy grew up liking to play with trucks and wear boys clothes? Well they know that, so they would try very hard (even if they were unaware of it) to make this child a social anomaly. Children are very good at picking up on subtle queues from their parents. When the little boy goes to pick out a bathing suit, and looks to mommy for guidance on his choice... and his mom gives a little sqeek of pleasure, or smiles when he goes for the sparkly pink thing, then the kid is going to think it is the "correct choice". In this way, this experiment is flawed from the ground up. Unless they could keep the PARENTS oblivious to the childs gender, this experiment is just a sick joke, where the parents (who obviously have no scientific background or idea of what they are doing) are working real hard to fuck up the childs social life in the future. Good post. These parents obviously want attention and to be proven right. That's not a good thing for the child. | ||
|
politik
409 Posts
| ||
|
KookyMonster
United States311 Posts
As a strong advocate of Kantian ethics, I think that these parents are in direct violation of the Categorical Imperative, which states that we can never use another human being as a means to an end. In this case, they are using their child, Sasha, as a means (experiment) to prove a theory (which in this case, is the "end"). I also feel like this gives no real benefit to the child, and may hurt them with social interactions in the future. So even if one looks at a teleological perspective, rather than Kantian, I don't see how the ends could justify the means either. I am sort of disgusted by the parents, but I guess the world has bigger problems than two people who felt like they needed to prove a point using a human child. | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:22 hypercube wrote: LOL, he's gonna be fine. People are upset because their basic view of the world is challanged, not because they're worried about the kid. Which view? The view that boys must play with trucks and girls with Barbies? Or the view that children who are different get tortured in school? This child will be very different. The most important years of his development have been hindered by his parents desire to "fix the world". I foresee school being difficult for this child, and in the end, this experiment is moot, because it is executed so poorly. It proves nothing, teaches us nothing, and in the end all it did was fuck up the kids development. | ||
|
Snorkels
United States1015 Posts
http://tiltedworld.org/2009/07/22/boy-or-girl-x-a-fabulous-childs-story-by-lois-gould/ It's a 4,000 word short story, nice easy read and particularly relevant to the thread. + Show Spoiler + The story tells the perspective of a hypothetical family who raises a child to be gender-neutral with a bit of fluff thrown in. | ||
|
ArchAngelSC
England706 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:19 Alay wrote: 1: they didn't decide their child was gender neutral, they just didn't tell anyone what their childs sex was to let them impose a gender, and let the kid decide on his own that he was a guy, 2: genitals != gender identity. The child (which may or may not be biologically male) has, apparently from the article, decided his gender. So they went public with it. I still dislike this experiment, but I cannot figure out why. It seems good on paper but, I'm not sure if trying to shield from societal pressures is a good thing--it really shapes how typical members of a gender act in society. I think trying to remove those pressures can hold back social ease, and instead just accepting and supporting a transgender child would be easier if said child decides they aren't their gender assigned at birth--statistically speaking, it's quite unlikely they'll be transgendered anyways. "Laxton was forced to make her son's sex public" orly? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:24 Kurr wrote: If you honestly think this "experiment" challenge's anyone's world view I don't even know what to tell you. I think it makes some people deeply uncomfortable. They want to believe that it will leave some scar on the kid. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:21 NucNac wrote: "Gender neutral" is perhaps one of the most stupid things i have heard of. You should lock the parents up, imo. Reason: excessive stupidity that potentially harms their own children. It would be like locking someone up in a padded cell so he can't hurt himself. More like letting someone out of a padded cell and letting them run free for better and worse. Saying it will ruin the kids childhood is silly, animals are genetically very adaptive and normative. I ran around naked and play with soft animals. I had no concept of gender until I was 8+ now I am social apt and very normal. A lot of kids have a gender neutral early childhood these days sex!=gender. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:30 ArchAngelSC wrote: "Laxton was forced to make her son's sex public" orly? Excuse me for skimming. That really just makes the experiment moot, and totally pointless other than making them semi-famous. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:31 hypercube wrote: I think it makes some people deeply uncomfortable. They want to believe that it will leave some scar on the kid. The fact that he's gender neutral won't. The emotional and possibly physical abuse from his peers will. | ||
|
NexUmbra
Scotland3776 Posts
Here is an article I read recently + Show Spoiler + http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite.html Luckily, all our gender issues were heartily resolved by the 1910s, when it was decided that we'd assign colors to each "team": blue was for girls and pink was for boys. No, that's not a typo: A 1918 editorial from Earnshaw's Infants' Department stated that pink was "a more decided and stronger color ... more suitable for the boy; while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." It makes sense: Pink is the color of a nice, raw, manly steak, or the blood of your enemies splattered on a white uniform. But things had started to switch by 1927, and there was disagreement as to which gender should get which color -- Time magazine even printed a chart showing which stores were advocating each. It wasn't until 1940 that the colors switched and advertisers decided to just go with pink for girls. The kid is <5 years old, he doesn't have any idea of why he is wearing a certain colour or not... | ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
However, getting bullied about stuff like your name, your age, your grades, your ability to spell, whether or not you make mistakes, etc. happens every day in grade school. Whether teachers/parents know it or not. And usually, they don't. This is why although my parents didn't consider this a good way to raise children, they didn't try to shape us into boys or girls much either. Heck, I have some girl toys when I was a tiny baby because my Mom was hoping for a girl. After I became a toddler though they got me more and more boy stuff while still letting me choose what I wanted every once in a while whether it was through circling stuff in a magazine/catalog for them to buy, making a list, or just pointing at stuff in a store. Moral of this story: Don't be these parents. You just make life worst for your children that otherwise might actually have a chance to not get bullied 24/7 and/or have to deal with awkward situations they can't handle. (Heck I couldn't handle learning how to spell when I was in 1st grade some days) edit: @Above I was even bullied about the colors I whore some days because I loved and still love the color red(whore lots of red clothes to actually that I picked out... and when parents tried to get me another color jacket or pants or w/e, I would say "NO I WANT THE YELLOW ONE!!" . Other guys spent weeks just trying to convince me that I should pick a 'manly color' like blue, brown, or green. The other colors were apparently "only colors girls like". Seriously made me the most conflicted kid ever for quite a while. edit2: Also, I'm terrible at socializing now. Wonder why... | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On May 10 2012 07:35 NexUmbra wrote: Why in the name of fuck would the colour of a childs clothes matter? Here is an article I read recently + Show Spoiler + http://www.cracked.com/article_19780_5-gender-stereotypes-that-used-to-be-exact-opposite.html The kid is <5 years old, he doesn't have any idea of why he is wearing a certain colour or not... A childs development is not necessarily a cognitive process... they don't need to think and ponder what is gender identity. It is built, developed and deciphered by the childs brain beyond his own reasoning. Disrupting that process will cause problems, I can almost guarantee. | ||
| ||
