It's a boy! And he's five. Beck Laxton, 46, and partner Kieran Cooper, 44, have spent half the decade concealing the gender of their son, Sasha.
"I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping," Laxton said in an interview with the Cambridge News. "Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?"
Laxton, a UK-based web editor, and her partner, Cooper, decided to keep Sasha's sex a secret when he was still in the womb. The birth announcement stated the gender-neutral name of their child, but skipped the big reveal. Up until recently, the couple only told a few close friends and family members that Sasha was a boy and managed to keep the rest of the world in the dark. But now that he's starting school the secret's out.
For years, Becks has been referring to her child, the youngest of three, as "the infant" on her personal blog. But guarding the public from her son's gender was only part of her quest to let her kid just be a kid.
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? "
Sasha's also not short on dolls, though Barbie is also off limits. "She's banned because she's horrible," Laxton says in the Cambridge interview.
On a macro level she hopes her son sets an example for other parents and makes them reconsider buying their own sons trucks or forcing their daughters into tights. She's seen how those consumer trappings affect how and who kids play with in the sandbox.
But the sandbox is just a precursor to the classroom. When Sasha turned five and headed to school, Laxton was forced to make her son's sex public. That meant Sasha would have to get used to being a boy in the eyes of his peers. Still, his mom is intervening. While the school requires different uniforms for boys and girls, Sasha wears a girl's blouse with his pants.
"I don't think I'd do it if I thought it was going to make him unhappy, but at the moment he's not really bothered either way. We haven't had any difficult scenarios yet."
Last year another couple, Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, of Toronto made a similar decision when they had their baby, Storm. At the time, certain psychiatric experts voiced concern over their decision. "To have a sense of self and personal identity is a critical part of normal healthy development," Dr. Eugene Beresin, director of training in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, told ABC News. "This blocks that and sets the child up for bullying, scapegoating and marginalization."
But as parents well know, bullying is hard for any child to avoid. It's more important to raise someone who's confident enough in himself to overcome peer pressure. It's also important to have his parents have his back (remember the mom who defended her son's choice in a Halloween costume?) Maybe Sasha's early years will be character building, maybe he'll have a higher emotional quotient being raised with dual perspectives on gender. Or the reverse could be true: Sasha may have less of a formed identity because of his upbringing, and feel angry at his mom for dressing him in flowery shirts and telling the world about it. Then again, maybe he'll get over it.
As for Laxton, she says she's open to her son pursing any career or sexual preference he chooses as he matures. "As long as he has good relationships and good friends," she says, "then nothing else matters, does it?"
It seems this gender neutral children experiment is getting more popular. I dont think anyone thought there would be problems before school age, I think this is a pretty bad experiment that will end poorly.
The whole idea was weird and to be honest I suspect the kids parents are deeply, deeply tiresome people. Yeah you wanna avoid stereotypes shaping who your child becomes, want him to just be a kid? I mean, there's no way going 'Hey! Hey everybody! My kid is gender neutral! I'm not telling you if it's a boy or a girl! Hey! Hey look how fucking open minded we are!' is gonna affect the child's upbringing. Nope. Definitely not.
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.
It will really depend on how far into his school years this will go... There's a difference between what a child in kindergarten will do/say vs someone approaching middle school. At the same time, I've noticed that my niece (five) blatantly ignores children she doesn't connect with and outright refuses to play/do anything with them.
"To have a sense of self and personal identity is a critical part of normal healthy development," Too many people believe that gender/sex are the same as personal identity. There's so much more to a person.
This seems like a plan with good intentions that will end up causing a great deal of unnecessary confusion for children raised this way. It just seems like a such a strange idea.
The experiment will stop in school when the peers exercise greater influence than the parents. If it doesn't adapt cause the parents taught him so, the child will have an adaptation problem.
I think breaking down gender stereotypes is a good thing, and starting a public dialogue about gender is a good thing, I'm just not entirely set on the actions of the parents. In a way, I'm torn, part of me thinks they should just stick with the status quo, but another part of me recognises that maintaining the status quo is much a decision as allowing your child to be gender neutral'
It has been well documented that gender identity is by far and large decided in the womb.
However, I don't see how this 'experiment' is to the benefit of the child. From 2-6 children develop a lot of their brains, which will basically establish their character for the rest of their lives. I hope the child doesn't experience any adverse effects later in life.
This is completely fine and not a big deal at all. Let little kids dress and act however they want, it absolutely does not matter. The parents are a bit weird for making such a big deal out of it... there are many other parents who also raise their kids without gender specific dress or expectations.
However, I take issue with this-
While the school requires different uniforms for boys and girls, Sasha wears a girl's blouse with his pants.
This is an act of specifically excluding your child from the normal patterns that are followed by everyone else. This is a harmful act towards your child that will potentially exclude him from social groups.
So he can pick what he likes to wear and play with so long as it's not too "boyish" or "girlish". It's like hipsters are having children or something.
It just seems like they are so content to have a child raised without bias that they put the biases of themselves on the child in some convoluted manner to make themselves feel better. If the child was like somehow really into a barbie(oh how horrid!) or shirt with a toy truck on it would it really be so bad? I don't get it.
On May 10 2012 06:19 Doctorbeat wrote: It has been well documented that gender identity is by far and large decided in the womb.
However, I don't see how this 'experiment' is to the benefit of the child. From 2-6 children develop a lot of their brains, which will basically establish their character for the rest of their lives. I hope the child doesn't experience any adverse effects later in life.
What documentation is there to argue that gender identity is decided in the womb?
So how are skull shirts and cargo pants too boyish, but pink swimsuits aren't too girlish. The parents aren't teaching the kid to be gender neutral; rather, they are teaching him to be feminine.
On May 10 2012 06:19 Parnage wrote: So he can pick what he likes to wear and play with so long as it's not too "boyish" or "girlish". It's like hipsters are having children or something.
It just seems like they are so content to have a child raised without bias that they put the biases of themselves on the child in some convoluted manner to make themselves feel better. If the child was like somehow really into a barbie(oh how horrid!) or shirt with a toy truck on it would it really be so bad? I don't get it.
No, the street just goes one way. It can be as girly as he wants, but it can't be too boyish.
This won't last long. The kid will cry his way home one day when kids star making fun of him for wearing a dress and his parents will over compensate by forcing him to continue. Overcompensation is inevitable if the parents want to continue, and if the parents want to stop then this "experiment" would be totally pointless in the long run.
Why is this a thread? Hell, why is this a news article on Yahoo! Oh, wait.
I remember this couple. They had another kid back then who they did the same thing to - even child psychologists were saying it's not natural. I won't even bother arguing why this is wrong, because I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks it's off. It's not cool, it's not chic. It gets attention though - and that's exactly what they're after: attention. 15 minutes given, bye bye now.
I'm still struggling with how the clothes a child wears has any significant impact on what kind of person he or she becomes. The social roles still exist even if you try to raise your child to be ignorant of them, and he is going to decide he belongs to one or the other or neither based on his own feelings, not on what he wore while swimming between ages 0 and 5. What you can do is educate and talk to your child to help him understand it's okay for him to be one way or the other. These parents are just attention whores who turned their child into a science project for their own amusement.
You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
On May 10 2012 06:19 Doctorbeat wrote: It has been well documented that gender identity is by far and large decided in the womb.
However, I don't see how this 'experiment' is to the benefit of the child. From 2-6 children develop a lot of their brains, which will basically establish their character for the rest of their lives. I hope the child doesn't experience any adverse effects later in life.
What documentation is there to argue that gender identity is decided in the womb?
I have to agree with this. I would highly doubt that it is "well documented" that it is decided in the womb. I wouldnt be surprised if it was, however I would be very interested in an experiment proving gender identity is decided that early.
Note for the uninformed--gender identity is how one perceives themselves to be as opposed to how they are physically. IE generally mentioned when discussing transgenders as their physical body does not match their own perception of what they believe themselves to be
On May 10 2012 06:30 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
So you're saying that a pink, girls swimsuit, is NOT feminine and/or gender specific?
On May 10 2012 06:19 Doctorbeat wrote: It has been well documented that gender identity is by far and large decided in the womb.
However, I don't see how this 'experiment' is to the benefit of the child. From 2-6 children develop a lot of their brains, which will basically establish their character for the rest of their lives. I hope the child doesn't experience any adverse effects later in life.
What documentation is there to argue that gender identity is decided in the womb?
All data suggests that gender problems originate in the womb. Small changes have been found in genes that involve the effect of hormones on the development of the brain, that increase the chance of transsexuality. Abnormal hormone levels of the child in the womb and medicine that disrupt the breakdown of sex hormones taken by the mother during pregnancy can increase the chance of transsexuality. The sexual differentiation of our genitalia occurs in the first months of pregnancy and the sexual differentiation of the brain in the second half of pregnancy. As these two processes happen in different periods during pregnancy, the theory is that these processes have been influenced independently of eachother with transsexuality. If that is true we would expect MtF (Male to Female) transsexuals to have female structures in their brains and the other way around. In 1995 we have indeed found such a reversal of the gender difference in a small structure in the brains of deceased donors. We published that in Nature. This area was the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis (BST), a small brain structure that is involved in many aspects of sexual behaviour. The central part of this area, is twice as big for men and contains twice as many neurons. In MtF transsexuals we found a female Bed Nucleus. The few FtM transsexuals we could study did indeed have a male Bed Nucleus. We could as such rule out that the reversal of the gender difference in transsexuals has been caused by changing hormone levels in adulthood. The reversal has to have happened during development of the brain.
On May 10 2012 06:19 Doctorbeat wrote: It has been well documented that gender identity is by far and large decided in the womb.
However, I don't see how this 'experiment' is to the benefit of the child. From 2-6 children develop a lot of their brains, which will basically establish their character for the rest of their lives. I hope the child doesn't experience any adverse effects later in life.
What documentation is there to argue that gender identity is decided in the womb?
I have to agree with this. I would highly doubt that it is "well documented" that it is decided in the womb. I wouldnt be surprised if it was, however I would be very interested in an experiment proving gender identity is decided that early.
Note for the uninformed--gender identity is how one perceives themselves to be as opposed to how they are physically. IE generally mentioned when discussing transgenders as their physical body does not match their own perception of what they believe themselves to be
Studies of italian hermaphrodite children that were raised as the opposite sex from what they were genetically, almost always asserted their desire to associate with the other gender. Most spontaneously proclaimed they were a boy, before the age of 5, if they were raised a girl, and vice-versa. There is plenty of other evidence that gender, aswell as sex, has a large biological component.
I don't think this way of raising a child does much harm, but its kind of stupid and unnecessary.
On May 10 2012 06:30 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
So you're saying that a pink, girls swimsuit, is NOT feminine and/or gender specific?
Pink used to be a male colour, blue for girls (not that colours need to have gender association) and there's nothing really wrong with a girls swimsuit if you don't associate it with girls.
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
It's one thing to do that experiment when he's just an infant. He'll be able to play with things he really likes instead of stereotypical things and such, but then again there are a lot of kids who can do that. At my house we used to just have a toy box with all different toys in it and we weren't forced to play with any one type...
But to make the kid where a blouse when the school has a dress code stating what each kid is to wear is going to far. It's just clothes there's no reason to force him to wear a blouse just to make a point, not to mention all the other kids will notice this right away since they're all wearing the same things. Then he'll end up getting lots of questions from his teachers and peers, questions that he probably won't know how to answer.
On May 10 2012 06:30 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
So you're saying that a pink, girls swimsuit, is NOT feminine and/or gender specific?
Pink used to be a male colour, blue for girls (not that colours need to have gender association) and there's nothing really wrong with a girls swimsuit if you don't associate it with girls.
What? As far as I can remember blue has ALWAYS been associated with baby boys and pink baby girls. As for the "experiment" (which in itself is disgusting, experimenting with your child's life, who depends on you for protection) having male clothes and female clothes in itself is limiting him to choosing one or the other, if they really wanted to give the opportunity for gender neutral, they ought to have ever type of clothing one could ask for so he can make his own decision. Instead they give him either girl or boy clothes.
I personally think the idea of experimenting with your own child in such a way that could easily remove him from a normal (or even tolerable) life revolting as bullying seems to only getting worse and I'll be the first to say that it is not my decision, but it should NOT be these parents' decision either.
Their kid is going to love them when he grows up. Intentionally isolating from all of his peers because they want to make a point? Basically sacrificing their son's social life. 5 bucks says this family relationship crashes and burns sometime into his teens, if this continues.
On May 10 2012 06:30 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
So you're saying that a pink, girls swimsuit, is NOT feminine and/or gender specific?
Pink used to be a male colour, blue for girls (not that colours need to have gender association) and there's nothing really wrong with a girls swimsuit if you don't associate it with girls.
What? As far as I can remember blue has ALWAYS been associated with baby boys and pink baby girls.
If I'm correct, pink used to be the boys' color because it was seen more as a light red. When you see it as a red (which, I assume was darker farther back in time), it makes a lot more sense considering our societal beliefs on pink/light colors and masculinity.
On May 10 2012 06:30 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
So you're saying that a pink, girls swimsuit, is NOT feminine and/or gender specific?
Pink used to be a male colour, blue for girls (not that colours need to have gender association) and there's nothing really wrong with a girls swimsuit if you don't associate it with girls.
What? As far as I can remember blue has ALWAYS been associated with baby boys and pink baby girls. As for the "experiment" (which in itself is disgusting, experimenting with your child's life, who depends on you for protection) having male clothes and female clothes in itself is limiting him to choosing one or the other, if they really wanted to give the opportunity for gender neutral, they ought to have ever type of clothing one could ask for so he can make his own decision. Instead they give him either girl or boy clothes.
I personally think the idea of experimenting with your own child in such a way that could easily remove him from a normal (or even tolerable) life revolting as bullying seems to only getting worse and I'll be the first to say that it is not my decision, but it should NOT be these parents' decision either.
As far as you can remember, yes, but at least according to QI pink used to be (I mean like maybe everything before 100 years ago) a boys colour since it was associated with red and white which were strong bright colours and blue used to be girls because its a softer colour (virgin mary was always painted in blue for example)
edit lol the guy above me posted that exact episode of QI haha.
On May 10 2012 06:30 ddrddrddrddr wrote: You can't really argue that they're making him too feminine or too masculine, that actually carries the assumption that certain clothes are masculine and others are feminine in the first place. You can't make someone gender neutral by restricting them from things that are considered gender specific because nothing is inherently gender specific (except chasity belts... maybe). So this entire experience is flawed from the start.
So you're saying that a pink, girls swimsuit, is NOT feminine and/or gender specific?
Pink used to be a male colour, blue for girls (not that colours need to have gender association) and there's nothing really wrong with a girls swimsuit if you don't associate it with girls.
Yeah I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a boy wearing pink, even I wear pink shirts. But he's saying you can't even call it a girls swimsuit because that would be labelling it as gender specific. Which is dumb because female swimsuits are quite obviously, for females lol ;D
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
"But the sandbox is just a precursor to the classroom. When Sasha turned five and headed to school, Laxton was forced to make her son's sex public. That meant Sasha would have to get used to being a boy in the eyes of his peers. Still, his mom is intervening. While the school requires different uniforms for boys and girls, Sasha wears a girl's blouse with his pants. "
Absolutely forced him into this situation. There's no excuse for this type of poor parenting IMO. Going out of their way to make their kid an outcast. Yes, even small things like this matter to children. He's different, that's bad for him.
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...
Sasha's also not short on dolls, though Barbie is also off limits. "She's banned because she's horrible," Laxton says in the Cambridge interview.
What are these parents trying to demonstrate, other than their own bias, ignorance and stupidity?
On May 10 2012 06:57 TALegion wrote: Their kid is going to love them when he grows up. Intentionally isolating from all of his peers because they want to make a point? Basically sacrificing their son's social life. 5 bucks says this family relationship crashes and burns sometime into his teens, if this continues.
I doubt it. They will do a good job at indoctrinating him to have the same weird beliefs that they have. He will probably go on to produce his own gender neutral children.
Raising kids "as a boy" or "as a girl" is creepy and unnecessary, but a lot of society will force it upon your kid as soon as they know your kid's sex. So, concealing that for the first few years of life makes an awful lot of sense.
It sounds like, from the "no cargo shorts, but female undergarments (swimsuits) are OK," bit, that the parents are trying to make their boy feminime rather than just shield him from damaging social pressures. However, poor execution by the parents does not somehow invalidate the concept.
What we have here are two homosexuals trying to "breed" a similar gay child, I am COMPLETELY for letting children wear girl clothes, it's hilarious and hell if they like it whatever they're themselves, but saying "he cant wear cargo pants its to manly" and then later saying "kids like sparkly things" when addressing the pink swim suit, it's completely one sided... These people are completely confused in how to raise a child, and need to get a grasp on reality, especially the formal dress clothes for classes, being different and unique =/= what's happening. Personally I feel as if social services should be called.
EDIT:
Are they a man and a man? I read comments, and it seemed like male/female but it said "partner" in the thread so that gave me the impression, my point still stands if they are same sex, A-sex, bi-sex, uni-sex or hedro sex... Shit's wrong.
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
The concern is that by artificially imposing a genderless environment, they are somewhat impeding the kids' ability to assume a gender role, which is something all kids tend to do naturally, and may play a role in development. While the things that are considered masculine and feminine are arbitrary, feminity and masculinity itself may not be. Pretty much all people seem to want to identify with one or the other gender, regardless of upbringing.
it's not like testosterone and estrogen play a part in the separation in masculinity and feminine. Nope not at all. As a matter of fact its socially constructed bullshit and the roles we tie to people are completely nonsensical. Yehp. i suppose a boy who doesn't know hes a boy would be far more likely with all that testosterone pumping in his body to go out and play with some barbie dolls especially when he hits puberty.. yehp
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
The concern is that by artificially imposing a genderless environment, they are somewhat impeding the kids' ability to assume a gender role, which is something all kids tend to do naturally, and may play a role in development. While the things that are considered masculine and feminine are arbitrary, feminity and masculinity itself may not be. Pretty much all people seem to want to identify with one or the other gender, regardless of upbringing.
I understand that and agree, but nowhere in the article is mentioned that the kid wears the girl's blouse because of his parents. It could very well be his own decision.
This is creepy and wrong. They are hurting their kid's development and are setting him up for bullying. Professional psychologists are saying this is wrong as well. I absolutely hate this. It's ok if you hate stereotypes, but don't fuck your kid over for the rest of his life because you're too retarded to listen to large numbers of psychologists.
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.
I think it's pretty fucked up to the child for parents to decide that a child is gender neutral, or to not let a child understand the importance wether you have a penis or vagina.. I think its fucking important! Gender makes life interesting! I'm masculine, and I'm quite attracted to femininity! Tension between genders makes life interesting. Sexual tension. Emotional tension.
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
The concern is that by artificially imposing a genderless environment, they are somewhat impeding the kids' ability to assume a gender role, which is something all kids tend to do naturally, and may play a role in development. While the things that are considered masculine and feminine are arbitrary, feminity and masculinity itself may not be. Pretty much all people seem to want to identify with one or the other gender, regardless of upbringing.
I understand that and agree, but nowhere in the article is mentioned that the kid wears the girl's blouse because of his parents. It could very well be his own decision.
Yes, it could be, but it seems unlikely. Studies suggest that children almost always pick a gender when their mind, unconsious or otherwise, gets a good picture of what is feminine and what is masculine. The magic number seems to be around age 5. It doesn't necessarily have to be the gender they were raised in as the result of their sex, but they do tend to pick.
If parents make such an effort that the child isn't able to disriminate feminine from masculine, or if they put him under pressure not to pick, it may be somewhat harmful to child's sense of identity.
It seemed like they were pushing their child to be gender neutral rather than allowing him to decide. Maybe I'm reading too much into the statement that "hyper-masculine" clothes were banned.
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
The concern is that by artificially imposing a genderless environment, they are somewhat impeding the kids' ability to assume a gender role, which is something all kids tend to do naturally, and may play a role in development. While the things that are considered masculine and feminine are arbitrary, feminity and masculinity itself may not be. Pretty much all people seem to want to identify with one or the other gender, regardless of upbringing.
I understand that and agree, but nowhere in the article is mentioned that the kid wears the girl's blouse because of his parents. It could very well be his own decision.
Not true. It says that his mother is intervening, indicating that it is infact his mothers decision for him to wear it, not his.
On May 10 2012 07:10 LarJarsE wrote: I think it's pretty fucked up to the child for parents to decide that a child is gender neutral, or to not let a child understand the importance wether you have a penis or vagina.. I think its fucking important! Gender makes life interesting! I'm masculine, and I'm quite attracted to femininity! Tension between genders makes life interesting. Sexual tension. Emotional tension.
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.
On May 10 2012 07:14 Sabu113 wrote: It seemed like they were pushing their child to be gender neutral rather than allowing him to decide. Maybe I'm reading too much into the statement that "hyper-masculine" clothes were banned.
I think you're reading exactly what the situation is.
"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.
On May 10 2012 06:46 ampson wrote: Sucks for the kid. He's gonna have a tough time in society.
Yep. Psycho parents forcing their kid into awkward situation. Unlucky child is all I can say.
The parents are the people responsible for forming their child, especially in their early years. You don't need to make your child into a super-masculine boy, just raise him normally and it will be fine if you're responsible. But nope, want to prove a pointless point so let's fuck up the kid's life!
This child will have a messed up identity and they are even forcing him to wear a girl's blouse at school. For fucks sake, how could they possibly think this is a good idea?
Stories like this piss me off. Do you think the child would willingly outcast himself if he was old enough to understand everything going on? Of course not. When he's a teenager, he will be desperate to fit in like all teenagers, but he will be a ways behind because of his crazy parents. Kids are vicious, they will judge him permanently on this stuff.
Have you read the article? They ain't forcing shit on the kid. They let the kid decide how he wants to dress and what toys to play with.
The concern is that by artificially imposing a genderless environment, they are somewhat impeding the kids' ability to assume a gender role, which is something all kids tend to do naturally, and may play a role in development. While the things that are considered masculine and feminine are arbitrary, feminity and masculinity itself may not be. Pretty much all people seem to want to identify with one or the other gender, regardless of upbringing.
I understand that and agree, but nowhere in the article is mentioned that the kid wears the girl's blouse because of his parents. It could very well be his own decision.
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.
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.
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.
Alright, so I find this to be sort of immoral of an action.
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.
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.
On May 10 2012 07:10 LarJarsE wrote: I think it's pretty fucked up to the child for parents to decide that a child is gender neutral, or to not let a child understand the importance wether you have a penis or vagina.. I think its fucking important! Gender makes life interesting! I'm masculine, and I'm quite attracted to femininity! Tension between genders makes life interesting. Sexual tension. Emotional tension.
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.
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.
I think it makes some people deeply uncomfortable. They want to believe that it will leave some scar on the kid.
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.
On May 10 2012 07:10 LarJarsE wrote: I think it's pretty fucked up to the child for parents to decide that a child is gender neutral, or to not let a child understand the importance wether you have a penis or vagina.. I think its fucking important! Gender makes life interesting! I'm masculine, and I'm quite attracted to femininity! Tension between genders makes life interesting. Sexual tension. Emotional tension.
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?
Excuse me for skimming.
That really just makes the experiment moot, and totally pointless other than making them semi-famous.
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.
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.
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...
Stupid. The bad thing is that this causes the kid to be bulled even more by others than most parents believe. I used to be bullied (daily) about the silliest things in kindergarten, including some stuff like this where if I liked something from another gender, sure, I could get it. However, it never really went this far, usually it was stuff like 1 necklace that I only wore around the house and where I got it which I only actually liked because it was shiny. I wasn't even bullied because of it since I made sure no bully got a chance to see it.
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...
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...
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.
I think experimentation can always be good (or maybe almost always?). If it turns out to be bad, people will learn from it, and either do a similar (modified) experiment, or understand that the whole thing just isn't a good idea.
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.
While I wouldn't say that as fact, I'd lean towards thinking that too; at least as a possibility. Like Eppa! said, humans (or animals and nature in general) are very adaptive creatures.
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...
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.
What is the basis of this idea? Disrupting it would be something like isolation.
On May 10 2012 06:14 The KY wrote: The whole idea was weird and to be honest I suspect the kids parents are deeply, deeply tiresome people. Yeah you wanna avoid stereotypes shaping who your child becomes, want him to just be a kid? I mean, there's no way going 'Hey! Hey everybody! My kid is gender neutral! I'm not telling you if it's a boy or a girl! Hey! Hey look how fucking open minded we are!' is gonna affect the child's upbringing. Nope. Definitely not.
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.
This was my initial reaction to hearing the story the first time. People seem to be way more enthusiastic about breaking gender roles for kids when they're trying to get a boy to act like a typical girl, and to a smaller extent, when they're trying to get a girl to act like a typical boy.
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.
Or the view that children who are different get tortured in school?
Lots of kids get tortured in school. The main reasons are lack of social skill and bad luck. If they choose his school wisely and are competent this will be a non-issue.
There are ways to truly fuck up your child's life, like emotional abuse or neglect. Or worse. And it happens to a lot of kids. Like hundreds of millions. Yet, we chose to focus on kid who seems to live in a healthy emotional environment, but his parents have some quirky views about sex and gender. I think that tells more about us than the parents.
The most important years of his development have been hindered by his parents desire to "fix the world".
And what kind of development would that be? Are you an expert on child development or do you just believe that being taught that they are girls or boys is important?
Imagine your typical first grader, who sees a kid in a blouse and pants. Any chance that kid will not be made fun of? Of course it's nice to have parental support, but that won't save you from a class...and good luck teaching that first grade class that even though the kid looks like he's crossdressing, it's perfectly normal.
while i disagree about forcing your kid to like stereotypical things just because of the gender thing, i think this might've gone a bit extreme but hey, they're the parents and they probably know what's best for the kid, if he is happy, then who are we to judge.
On May 10 2012 07:32 Eppa! wrote: 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.
I don't think your sex is just a physical phenomenon. Boys and girls have different needs and they will express them themselves. You can't set one free by forcing him to be, it just works if you let him be. The parents are struck with an idea and they try to bring this idea to life through their own child, talk about mad scientists.
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.
This was my initial reaction to hearing the story the first time. People seem to be way more enthusiastic about breaking gender roles for kids when they're trying to get a boy to act like a typical girl, and to a smaller extent, when they're trying to get a girl to act like a typical boy.
Gender roles already come half-broken for girls in Western nations, don't they? Women are allowed to wear 'male' clothing such as pants and shirts, without color restrictions, and it's exciting and good that women want to participate in sports or male-dominated school subjects/career paths.
Lots of kids get tortured in school. The main reasons are lack of social skill and bad luck.
Lots of kids get tortured in school because lots of children are cruel little monsters when establishing a social hierarchy. Not because the victims lack social skills and have bad luck.
If they chose his school wisely and are competent this will be a non-issue.
Hahahaha no. "Competent" parents have little to no power whatsoever over how their child is treated by his peers. Or her peers. Or, its peers! Choosing a school, being engaged with the teachers and administration, oversight of who the child is friends with, it means very little. Children form and enforce their own social hierarchies independent of and usually in defiance of adults, even at an early age.
There are ways to truly fuck up your child's life, like emotional abuse or neglect. Or worse. And it happens to a lot of kids. Like hundreds of millions. Yet, we chose to focus on kid who seems to live in a healthy emotional environment, but his parents have some quirky views about sex and gender. I think that tells more about us than the parents.
It tells us more about some people's wish to show off their ideology the way most people would a flashy new car with a complete lack of regard (borne of arrogance) for the social well-being and development of an internal identity of the child.
And what kind of development would that be? Are you an expert on child development or do you just believe that being taught that they are girls or boys is important?
Development as an individual human being with a firm sense of self-identity that can stand up to the social rigors of childhood and the transition to adulthood.
Are you an expert on child development, or are you just asking that question because you think what these parents are doing is okay and you don't have a real argument as to why?
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.
This was my initial reaction to hearing the story the first time. People seem to be way more enthusiastic about breaking gender roles for kids when they're trying to get a boy to act like a typical girl, and to a smaller extent, when they're trying to get a girl to act like a typical boy.
Gender roles already come half-broken for girls in Western nations, don't they? Women are allowed to wear 'male' clothing such as pants and shirts, without color restrictions, and it's exciting and good that women want to participate in sports or male-dominated school subjects/career paths.
Feminine boys/men get a lot more crap.
Feminine boys/men afaik don't get a lot of crap. In fact, from what i've seen, they get laid a lot more often because they get close to so many girls.
'male' women stand out and tend to be rather isolated. It's true they don't receive any direct sort of discrimination, but they definitely don't fit in as well as the rest.
im curious, is he the one who wants to wear the girls blouse or is it the parents? they made it sound like it was the parents but earlier it sounded like their whole thing was letting him wear whatever he wanted.
"As long as he has good relationships and good friends," she says, "then nothing else matters, does it?"
well that's mostly true. though i feel like she might still not be thinking it through the whole way
This is not a new experiment or something. There have been cultures in which they treat the kids gender neutral, I see nothing wrong here except that the parents are making a huge deal about this and are putting silly rules.
On May 10 2012 07:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: im curious, is he the one who wants to wear the girls blouse or is it the parents? they made it sound like it was the parents but earlier it sounded like their whole thing was letting him wear whatever he wanted.
Another day, another story presenting sheer stupidity.
In no way are they doing themselves or their kid a favour. All they did was massage their "alternative" and pseudo intellectual egos. Kids will be kids regardless of what labels you put on them and at some point reality will always catch up with them, keeping them from it does more damage than good. It is ridiculous what an impact you can have on your child's life from a developmental perspective at such an age.
It's for cases like this social services should step in and declare the parents unfit to look after / have further children.
Lots of kids get tortured in school. The main reasons are lack of social skill and bad luck.
Lots of kids get tortured in school because lots of children are cruel little monsters when establishing a social hierarchy. Not because the victims lack social skills and have bad luck.
If they chose his school wisely and are competent this will be a non-issue.
Hahahaha no. "Competent" parents have little to no power whatsoever over how their child is treated by his peers. Or her peers. Or, its peers! Choosing a school, being engaged with the teachers and administration, oversight of who the child is friends with, it means very little. Children form and enforce their own social hierarchies independent of and usually in defiance of adults, even at an early age.
They have a lot of influence on how the kid reacts to the challenges that come up. That in turn has an effect on how the situation develops.
There are ways to truly fuck up your child's life, like emotional abuse or neglect. Or worse. And it happens to a lot of kids. Like hundreds of millions. Yet, we chose to focus on kid who seems to live in a healthy emotional environment, but his parents have some quirky views about sex and gender. I think that tells more about us than the parents.
It tells us more about some people's wish to show off their ideology the way most people would a flashy new car with a complete lack of regard (borne of arrogance) for the social well-being and development of an internal identity of the child.
You weren't addressing my point, so I don't see why you quoted that part of my post. But yeah, I'm not sure about the parents' motivation. If they are truly attention whores who are using their kid for their 15 minutes of fame that's a problem. Not because they are hurting the child's development, but because they are using him.
Development as an individual human being with a firm sense of self-identity that can stand up to the social rigors of childhood and the transition to adulthood.
Are you an expert on child development, or are you just asking that question because you think what these parents are doing is okay and you don't have a real argument as to why?
No and I should have said that when I said that when I said "the kid's gonna be fine". But if you're making a statement that "The most important years of his development have been hindered" you absolutely need to say what you base that on. If it's your opinion don't make it sound like an authoritative statement.
Someone already said it, but I agree in principle with the following - Sex = being the biological one, while Gender = the societal (lame) construct.
The idea of the parents was essentialy good, in terms of not wanting to just raise yet another kid hanging on old, lame gender stereotypes, which should've die ages ago, however, the whole executing of the idea, forcing it on a being, who can't make his/her own mind is just not fair towards the little one. Instead, the parents should always put emphasis on choice, as to what the kid wants, in terms of toys and stuff, when he/she gets older to be able to make that choice. No emphasis on 'this is boy's/girl's stuff'. No saying that this and that is girls' or boy's, as that is what promotes the stereotypes, not the other way around.
I have a 9 years old son and I always make sure to explain him, that there's nothing like girl's or boy's toys or colours, etc. for example. Sure, there is an influence from the outside (school, other kids) in regards of the gender shit, but the best and the most fair thing I can do is to keep teaching my son to be open-minded and not fall into the stereotypes, without forcing him to wear some pink bullshit to make my point across..
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.
well there is that troll Sacha Baron Cohen
but that's aside the point, other small children don't know about porn they don't learn about that till they are 10 and are allowed to use the internet and google boobs cause they think its funny nvm kids get ipods and smart phones at that age now.
When you are a child and young adult you typically want nothing more than to fit in with your peers, to feel included, to not feel very different, to not be an outcast. These parents are forgetting how important this type of social inclusion is for development and confidence, even if it is based on really stupid things like norms, fads, and stereotypes.
I wear clothes that a male wears because it's what society expects a male to wear, I'm not gonna waste my time fighting a battle about it because it's a fucking stupid battle and a real waste of my time. Also, I don't really see what is so harmful about these stereotypes in the first place. The poster above me calls them "lame," ok whatever... Some stereotypes absolutely are 100% socially constructed, and some other stereotypes are absolutely influenced by actual biology and nature.
Selfish parents imo. They only did this to get attention. I dont believe a word they said, skull shirts are to masculine, but a pink bathing suit is neutral? The fuck outta here
Am I the only one that thinks it's hypocritical of them to not allow their kid to wear clothes with skulls or play with Barbies? I think these people are literally retarded. Give me a break, gender roles exist for a reason, they came about because that's how humans act. I don't see how hiding their kid's gender can possibly have more positive than negative outcomes.
I don't quite get what the parents thought they were gonna achieve with this, they had to have known at the beginning that they could only keep it going for a certain amount of time. It really sucks for that kid, he's almost certainly gonna be bullied, especially if he keeps wearing part of the girl's uniform.
Ok so he could dress/act/play with whatever he wanted AS LONG as it wasn't "stereotypical"? Seems like they're just enforcing stereotypes in an indirect way.
On May 10 2012 08:05 Nekosan78 wrote: Another day, another story presenting sheer stupidity.
In no way are they doing themselves or their kid a favour. All they did was massage their "alternative" and pseudo intellectual egos. Kids will be kids regardless of what labels you put on them and at some point reality will always catch up with them, keeping them from it does more damage than good. It is ridiculous what an impact you can have on your child's life from a developmental perspective at such an age.
It's for cases like this social services should step in and declare the parents unfit to look after / have further children.
Don't be absurd. The child has obviously not been mistreated, only it's sex has been withheld from people outside the family, how is that bad in any way? Children hardly have any idea about gender at such a low age anyway, nor do they care - in fact it makes sense not to push that on them, since it should give them better relations with both sexes. The real problem with this is the other people that senselessly mold their children into what they think is the appropriate view of a specific gender.
The only insensible thing about this whole story is the fact that media is involved, and I doubt it was even the parents that called it to the medias attention in the first place. Assigning gender to small children was basically a non-issue until the 20th century anyway - up until then pink was considered quite butch and wearing dresses was standard for both boys and girls, so not forcing a gender label on a small child is obviously neither unnatural or dangerous. -_-
On May 10 2012 08:05 Nekosan78 wrote: Another day, another story presenting sheer stupidity.
In no way are they doing themselves or their kid a favour. All they did was massage their "alternative" and pseudo intellectual egos. Kids will be kids regardless of what labels you put on them and at some point reality will always catch up with them, keeping them from it does more damage than good. It is ridiculous what an impact you can have on your child's life from a developmental perspective at such an age.
It's for cases like this social services should step in and declare the parents unfit to look after / have further children.
Don't be absurd. The child has obviously not been mistreated, only it's sex has been withheld from people outside the family, how is that bad in any way? Children hardly have any idea about gender at such a low age anyway, nor do they care - in fact it makes sense not to push that on them, since it should give them better relations with both sexes. The real problem with this is the other people that senselessly mold their children into what they think is the appropriate view of a specific gender.
The only insensible thing about this whole story is the fact that media is involved, and I doubt it was even the parents that called it to the medias attention in the first place. Assigning gender to small children was basically a non-issue until the 20th century anyway - up until then pink was considered quite butch and wearing dresses was standard for both boys and girls, so not forcing a gender label on a small child is obviously neither unnatural or dangerous. -_-
Wearing dresses was never considered manly ever. And pink was never considered butch either.
This does seem to be, a frankly disturbing, experiment. Just because they don't like gender roles they decide to make these changes during the most delicate part of a child's development...without understanding what the consequences will be, or having assumed them based on "feelings" and personal anecdotes.
Perhaps at some point gender roles will need to be studied...but it would have to be in a way that doesn't use human subjects at that age, and by experts in the field who (relatively speaking) know what they're doing. In the mean time they should really have just introduced ideas of gender vs. sex to their kids when they're old enough to understand these concepts. And earlier on support their choices if they are naturally attracted to certain toys/clothes over others just like everyone else.
I don't get where people are getting the "fame" motive from though. They would have to be pretty horrible people to undertake this experiment on their own son just to get some popularity; in my mind the more reasonable explanation is that they actually believe in what they're doing. It would be pretty rare to have parents immoral enough to seriously jeopardize their child's development...not so rare to have parents who simply believe weird things.
On May 10 2012 08:03 Celestia wrote: This is not a new experiment or something. There have been cultures in which they treat the kids gender neutral, I see nothing wrong here except that the parents are making a huge deal about this and are putting silly rules.
There are (extremely rare) cultures that are gender neutral, or where it is commonly accepted for people to identify with both/neither gender.
However, Western culture is not one of them. It's thought that in Western culture, children learn their own gender identity by 2-3 years of age, and by 5 years of age they begin socially enforcing it e.g. by bullying those who don't conform.
I doubt that their decision to not enforce any gender onto him will do him any actual harm. Probably for the best that they ended this publicity stunt now. I wouldn't call it an experiment, it's fairly well known what will happen if you don't enforce a gender stereotype onto a child, and the answer is that he or she will choose stereotypes to identify with that match the child's own gender identity.
EDIT: Of course, they could have made it a true experiment by removing the child from any social interaction until now, essentially forcing the child to create a de novo gender identity without being able to observe social stereotyped behaviour. I suspect that's the kind of thing that falls under torture.
On May 10 2012 08:05 Nekosan78 wrote: Another day, another story presenting sheer stupidity.
In no way are they doing themselves or their kid a favour. All they did was massage their "alternative" and pseudo intellectual egos. Kids will be kids regardless of what labels you put on them and at some point reality will always catch up with them, keeping them from it does more damage than good. It is ridiculous what an impact you can have on your child's life from a developmental perspective at such an age.
It's for cases like this social services should step in and declare the parents unfit to look after / have further children.
Don't be absurd. The child has obviously not been mistreated, only it's sex has been withheld from people outside the family, how is that bad in any way? Children hardly have any idea about gender at such a low age anyway, nor do they care - in fact it makes sense not to push that on them, since it should give them better relations with both sexes. The real problem with this is the other people that senselessly mold their children into what they think is the appropriate view of a specific gender.
The only insensible thing about this whole story is the fact that media is involved, and I doubt it was even the parents that called it to the medias attention in the first place. Assigning gender to small children was basically a non-issue until the 20th century anyway - up until then pink was considered quite butch and wearing dresses was standard for both boys and girls, so not forcing a gender label on a small child is obviously neither unnatural or dangerous. -_-
Maybe a bit of exaggeration on my behalf
It is a young age but they (the parents) are establishing an identity that does not conform with society - as others have mentioned that is however all kids want to do at that age. Worst of all (and that's why i included my extreme take including social services) is that they are taking the kids choice away. Admittedly there are many decisions kids can't and shouldn't make but this isn't one, this concerns identity and is deeply personal. Comparable would be if I raised my children as religious fanatics or stubborn atheists, only indoctrinating them with my subjective view of the world. I can think of nothing worse.
Best is to talk to your children, present all sides and let them make up their own minds. Anything else is tantamount to brainwashing and disrespectful towards them as thinking, rational human beings.
On May 10 2012 08:14 BabyToss! wrote: Someone already said it, but I agree in principle with the following - Sex = being the biological one, while Gender = the societal (lame) construct.
The idea of the parents was essentialy good, in terms of not wanting to just raise yet another kid hanging on old, lame gender stereotypes, which should've die ages ago, however, the whole executing of the idea, forcing it on a being, who can't make his/her own mind is just not fair towards the little one. Instead, the parents should always put emphasis on choice, as to what the kid wants, in terms of toys and stuff, when he/she gets older to be able to make that choice. No emphasis on 'this is boy's/girl's stuff'. No saying that this and that is girls' or boy's, as that is what promotes the stereotypes, not the other way around.
I have a 9 years old son and I always make sure to explain him, that there's nothing like girl's or boy's toys or colours, etc. for example. Sure, there is an influence from the outside (school, other kids) in regards of the gender shit, but the best and the most fair thing I can do is to keep teaching my son to be open-minded and not fall into the stereotypes, without forcing him to wear some pink bullshit to make my point across..
I agree. Teaching a kid to be open minded and letting it play with whatever it likes is OK but calling him neutral is attention whoring IMHO. What's the point? Isn't it enough to just say "he's a boy but he likes to play with dolls too and it's perfectly fine with me"? There is a border which when crossed shows that parents are self - centered more than they want well being of their kid. I would not want for my young kid to stand out too much to lower the chance he/she will be ridiculed by peers.
I'm worried for Sasha in a way some posters here expressed - kids can be cruel and there isn't much teachers and parents can do about it, especially since cruelty of those kids, in my opinion, comes from somewhere, in most cases their home. Whether be it parents neglecting the kid or being assholes themselves. Can we be 100% the parent of a cruel kid will do something successfully about it?
On May 10 2012 08:42 Zaqwert wrote: Someone remember to bump this thread in about 20 years when this kid is arrested as the most prolific serial killer of all time.
I don't think this will happen. more likely he will be just metro-sexual.
EPT
