The End Of Gender?

by Linton Weeks
text size A A A
June 23, 2011

Look closely and you may see signposts.

• Kathy Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising their 4-month-old child, Storm, without revealing the child's gender. According to the birth announcement from the Toronto couple: "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place?)"
• Andrej Pejic, an androgynous Australian model, worked both the male and female runways at the Paris fashion shows earlier this year.
• A recent J. Crew catalog drew national attention when it featured a young boy with his toenails painted pink.
Androgynous male model Andrej Pejic on the runway in Rio de Janeiro, June 4.
Felipe Dana/AP

Androgynous male model Andrej Pejic on the runway in Rio de Janeiro, June 4.

Could we be heading toward the end of gender?

And by "gender" we mean, according to Merriam-Webster, "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex." In other words, the cultural expectations that go along with saying that someone is a boy or a girl. In other other words, not someone's sex — the person's gender.

"Sex differences are real and some are probably present at birth, but then social factors magnify them," says Lise Eliot, an associate professor of neuroscience at the Chicago Medical School and author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps and What We Can Do About It. "So if we, as a society, feel that gender divisions do more harm than good, it would be valuable to break them down. "

As history shows, one enterprise in which Americans excel is the breaking down of divisions.

Gender Neutrality

Perhaps you have a friend or family member who is more comfortable with a new gender. Or maybe you have had dealings with someone of indeterminate gender in the checkout line. Maybe you have seen the old "It's Pat" routines from Saturday Night Live.

Because there is a growing societal awareness of gender consciousness and of a certain blurriness of genders, the question "Is it a boy or a girl?" may not just be for expectant parents anymore.

And so what? Does gender matter? In a country with the ideal of treating everyone fairly and equitably, do we really need to know if someone is a boy or a girl? These questions are driving decisions and actions around the country.

• In Muskegon, Mich., officials at Mona Shores High School declared this year's prom court would be gender-neutral — with no "kings" and "queens" — after denying a transgender student the homecoming-king crown last year.

• In Johnson City, Tenn., East Tennessee State University recently announced that it is exploring gender-neutral housing for students — following the lead of Stanford University, the University of Michigan, Rutgers University and other colleges. These are not just coed dorms, but dorms for anyone regardless of how they express their gender. The roommate you choose can be gay or straight or whatever.
Four-month-old Storm Stocker (right) gets a hug from older brother Jazz in Toronto. Storm's parents, Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, are keeping Storm's gender a secret.
Steve Russell/AP

Four-month-old Storm Stocker (right) gets a hug from older brother Jazz in Toronto. Storm's parents, Kathy Witterick, 38, and David Stocker, 39, are keeping Storm's gender a secret.

• Around the beginning of this year, the State Department began using gender-neutral language on U.S. passports — replacing "father" and "mother" with "Parent One" and Parent Two" — to make it simpler for nontraditional parents, beyond the male/female combination, to get passports for their children.

Everywhere you turn, it seems, there is talk of gender-neutral this and gender-free that: baby bedding (Wild Safari by Carousel); fashion (Kanye West in a Celine women's shirt); Bibles (the New International Version).

Gender neutrality, writes one blogging parent, is the new black.

'High-Stakes Social Constructions'

A female-to-male transsexual and advocate for transgender rights, Dean Spade writes often about gender issues. Spade is an assistant professor at Seattle University School of Law and founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project in New York City, which offers free legal guidance to transgender, intersex and gender-nonconforming clients.

In a 2008 paper, "Documenting Gender," Spade examines the gender reclassification polices of public agencies and departments in the United States. In the past 40 years, Spade observes, society has come to recognize the existence of a group of people, currently known as "transgender," who identify with and live as a different gender than the one assigned to them when they were born.

In an interview, Spade makes a passionate pitch for the elimination of gender categorization in most government record-keeping. "I really don't think that data needs to be on our IDs or gathered by most agencies and institutions," Spade says. Tagging someone as female or male "enforces binary gender norms and it pretends that gender is a more stable category of identity than it actually is."

Spade says, "I can see why we might want institutions to be aware of gender at a general level in order to engage in remediation of the sexism and transphobia that shape our world."

For example, Spade says, gender-based affirmative action — that rectifies discrimination against women — might be called for in certain programs and institutions "so we might want institutions to do an analysis of who is getting to participate." But, Spade adds, in order to gain a general idea of the gender makeup of a particular population, it is not necessary to then turn around and post that information on a particular participant's personal record.
Why Gender Still Matters

Gender matters to Leonard Sax, a family physician, psychologist and founder and executive director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Sax has written several books on gender, including Why Gender Matters and Girls on the Edge.

When NPR asked Sax whether he sees signs of the end of gender in contemporary society, he responded with a lively defense of gender distinctions, an edited version of which appears here:

The tidbits you mention — the Toronto couple, or the J. Crew fashion catalog — are of interest only to a small segment of media people, and without resonance in the larger society.

As opposed to the tidbits you cited, I would observe:

• The new head of New York City Public Schools, Dennis Walcott, has called for more single-sex public schools in New York City.

• The newly elected mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has called for more single-sex public schools in the city of Chicago.

• Tampa public schools are opening a girls' public school and a boys' public school this fall. Not charter schools, but regular public schools under the authority of the district.

Ignoring gender won't make it go away. On the contrary: Ignoring gender has the ironic consequence of exacerbating gender stereotypes.

The determined lack of awareness of gender difference which you describe ... puts both girls and boys at risk — but in different ways. Not merely academically, but physically — increasing girls' risks of knee injury and concussion — and spiritually — increasing girls' risks of drug and alcohol abuse; increasing boys' risk of disengagement and apathy.

If you don't think gender matters in the classroom, you haven't been in a third-grade classroom recently. I have visited more than 300 schools over the past 11 years.

You will find that white, black, Spanish-speaking doesn't matter on this parameter; affluent or low-income doesn't matter; urban or rural doesn't matter. Gender is far more important, more fundamental, than any of those other parameters. On many parameters relevant to education, such as attention span, a white boy from an affluent home in Bethesda or McLean has more in common with an African-American male from a low-income home in Southeast D.C. than he has in common with his own sister, a white girl.

Many third-grade boys today in the United States have told me "school is a stupid waste of time." I have never heard such a comment from a third-grade girl in this country. Do you think that doesn't matter?

— Linton Weeks

Developing policies to counter the impact of sexism and transphobia, Spade adds, does not require a belief that gender categories are "real — stable, unchangeable, natural. We can engage such strategies while understanding that gender categories are high-stakes social constructions deployed in ways that endanger and harm socially determined groups."

Boychicks

To chronicle her adventures in gender-neutral parenting, Arwyn Daemyir writes a blog called Raising My Boychick. She describes herself as "a walking contradiction: knitting feminist fulltime parent, Wiccan science-minded woowoo massage therapist, queer-identified male-partnered monogamist, body-loving healthy-eating fat chick, unmedicated mostly-stable bipolar."

She describes her boychick, born in March 2007, as a "male-assigned at birth — and so far apparently comfortable with that assignment, white, currently able-bodied, congenitally hypothyroid, cosleeper, former breastfed toddler, elimination communication graduate, sling baby and early walker, trial and terror, cliched light of our life, and impetus for the blog. Odds are good he will be the most privileged of persons: a middle class, able bodied, cisgender, straight, white male."

The adjective cisgender — as opposed to transgender — describes someone who is at peace with the gender he or she was assigned at birth.

Daemyir lives in Portland, Ore. She and her straight male partner are expecting another baby in September.

For Daemyir, gender-neutral parenting is not an attempt to eliminate gender, "because the 70s'-era gender neutral parenting movement proved that's not possible."

But, she adds, she has concerns about the ways we designate and segregate gender in public, "starting with the idea that there are two-and-only-two genders — a construction, and a myth, in our society that excludes many."

To that end, Daemyir supports, among other changes, non-gender-designated single-stall bathrooms and an option for unisex washrooms and locker rooms. "Right now, when an establishment only has one toilet stall, of course it is non-gendered. Why, when there is room for two, must they arbitrarily be designated for 'Men' and 'Women'? When a place has room enough for several large rooms of toilets and free-standing single-stalls, why must they all be gendered, when it would be as easy to make some single-gendered and some not, giving people the ability to make choices that are most comfortable or convenient for them?"

Daemyir does not think that eliminating all single-gender areas "is beneficial or safe either, necessarily, but ... we over-designate many of these things when it's simply not necessary, and actively harms a particularly marginalized population — people with non-binary genders."

Eliot, the neuroscience professor, is not so sure about total change. "Perhaps I'm too old-school — or fussy — to argue for the elimination of men's and women's bathrooms," Eliot says, " but certainly employment forms and loan applications should not require gender information. Also, if parents did not buy into the gender stereotyping of children's toys and clothes, kids would stay open-minded longer during childhood. The goal is to keep girls physically active, curious and assertive, and boys sensitive, verbal and studious."

coolyo294 wrote:Hey LordofHats, mind sharing some of that popcorn with me?

Manstein wrote:
Being from the Deep South, and having grown up in a very traditional family, I sometimes felt a bit out of place with not knowing the gender. Simple stuff like: "Do I wait to hold the door open for her? Do I let her walk into the room first? ect. ect." For many such conventions might seem outdated, but for those who still play by the old rules these sorts of gender confusions can make life a bit confusing at times.

Platuan4th wrote:

Manstein wrote:
Being from the Deep South, and having grown up in a very traditional family, I sometimes felt a bit out of place with not knowing the gender. Simple stuff like: "Do I wait to hold the door open for her? Do I let her walk into the room first? ect. ect." For many such conventions might seem outdated, but for those who still play by the old rules these sorts of gender confusions can make life a bit confusing at times.

Easiest way to deal with this is the way I do(regardless of unknowable gender situations): Hold the door for everyone(male and female) and always be the last one in.

Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...

...and make it complicated.

Idiots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
....oh yea, and I'm going to use my son/daughter as an "experiment".

Fabulous, just what the world needed, another screwed up kid.

Rather than teach your child GENDER-BAD, NEUTRAL-GOOD. How bout teaching something useful that wont make your son look like a freak to 99.9% of the planet that you live on.

If you're a boy that wants to paint his toenails...fine.
If you're a girl that wants to do runway for male and female fashion...more power to you.

THATS YOUR CHOICE

Parents making sure that their kids are non-genderised? WTF!? What is wrong with you? Innocent children...getting a screwed beginning in life...b/c their parents have something to prove to the world.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:This is madness.

Raising a boy... as a female?. No, dear madam. You're not raising him as a female. REAL females are free to choose, and most of them don't follow your cookie-cutter views on gender. Neither do men. Boys watch My Little Pony and girls play Warhammer these days. There's nothing strange about it. It doesn't make them cisgender or intersexual.

What you're doing is forcing a male to act as an overfeminized, stereotypical caricature of a woman. In the end, you are reinforcing the same old gender roles you're supposedly fighting against.

Ketara wrote:The logic being followed in this thread is atrocious. When you boys and girls were raised, were you 'forced' to be boys and girls? The answer is, yes. Yes you were. The child is no more being forced, inculcated, brainwashed, or anything along those lines, than you were. Gender is nothing more than a social construct. It evolved out of necessity. That necessity is now gone, and so is the requirement for gender differences. Telling someone that by choosing to raise their child in a different way to how you were raised makes those parents bad people smacks of ignorance to me.

Manstein wrote:Not sure how I fall on this. I'm all for people's right to choose to be whatever they want to be, but some of this seems to be a tad extreme... especially when it comes to intentionally raising boys as "females" and vice versa. Being a strong Libertarian, I don't think anyone has the right to tell you how to raise your kids (ya know, minus abuse) but yeah... weird stuff.

LordofHats wrote:So long as there is a difference between men and women/boys and girls, differences in culture and society will occur. Since it's impossible to end biological differences without becoming some new asexual species, it's not happening. I'm gonna have to agree with the consequences of ignoring gender. You can't make it go away by pretending it doesn't exist or that genetic defects that result in people of mismatched sexual features are somehow a gender of their own.

Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...

Parents making sure that their kids are non-genderised? WTF!? What is wrong with you? Innocent children...getting a screwed beginning in life...b/c their parents have something to prove to the world.

chaos0xomega wrote:Whats happening now is people are no longer feeling as though there gender should be determined by their sex, but rather by their own personal decision/preference... which is bs (I suppose I should throw an IMO in there).

remilia_scarlet wrote:I'm offended by this whole thing, you should choose to be transgendered, not forced.

chaos0xomega wrote:As others have said, there will never be an end to gender.

LordofHats wrote:
Of course they were forced. A boy is born a boy and a girl is born a girl. Genetics picked for us.

The only exceptions to the rule are a result of genetic defects in a minority of the population so small that it literally can be disregarded as inconsequential to the larger human species.

Gender/gender roles evolve yes, but they won't disappear so long as men and women can recognize themselves as being different from one another

LordofHats wrote:My point is that the biological differences can't be wished away and as a result the social differences can't disappear either (Read my first post). Changed yes, maybe fair, but the differences between the genders will always be there because the sexes are different.

Kathy Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising their 4-month-old child, Storm, without revealing the child's gender. According to the birth announcement from the Toronto couple: "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place?)"

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. Can anyone explain just HOW you raise a child without gender references?
Take something as complicated as .... potty training. Do you teach a biologically male child to sit, or a biologically female child to stand, because the other way is too "gender specific"?

Gender neutrality is a nice idea but there are too many biological issues that will become problems as a child gets older. Its fine to say you are raising your child in a gender neutral manner, but even you will be giving the child subtle clues as to what their "expected" role in society is to be. Some things are just unavoidable.

Making them "gender neutral" will just create confusion at the early stages and major mental health issues later in life.

LordofHats wrote:I can't agree with some aspects of the article and disagree with others? Maybe I just want to disagree with the title which poorly represents the contents of the article which is mostly 'blah.'

For example, I vehemently disagree with this:

Kathy Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising their 4-month-old child, Storm, without revealing the child's gender. According to the birth announcement from the Toronto couple: "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place?)"

This is the idea of gender neutrality taken to an absurd extreme. There's a similar thing going on in Sweeden that made the news a few days ago.

Equality = good (so I hear). But seeing as the title is "The End of Gender" at the top of the thread, it would be odd not to comment on whether or not we actually think gender can end (I obviously don't). If you want to blame someone blame the author of the article for crappy titling

LordofHats wrote:
Of course they were forced. A boy is born a boy and a girl is born a girl. Genetics picked for us.

Gender/gender roles evolve yes, but they won't disappear so long as men and women can recognize themselves as being different from one another, and biologically they are different from one another

(Hell this entire scenario is playing out because we know their different but that's no longer PC so we decide to pretend we're not). You can't make it go away without completely changing the human species.

Ketara wrote:The logic being followed in this thread is atrocious. When you boys and girls were raised, were you 'forced' to be boys and girls? The answer is, yes. Yes you were. The child is no more being forced, inculcated, brainwashed, or anything along those lines, than you were. Gender is nothing more than a social construct. It evolved out of necessity. That necessity is now gone, and so is the requirement for gender differences. Telling someone that by choosing to raise their child in a different way to how you were raised makes those parents bad people smacks of ignorance to me.

Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

Joetaco wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:As others have said, there will never be an end to gender.

Gender is a social construct. Society could arguably get rid of it whenever it wants, but i can see that its just too early to begin to tiptoe into those waters.
Saying that gender will never end is like saying that racism and sexism will never end; i'll give you can't change the hearts and minds of everyone, but its not our generations this is being targetted at its the future ones. I can look at my own family and i'm taking aback at even the slight racistly things my parents/ grandparents say; i call them out on it and they say old habits die hard, but they at least acknowledge its wrong unlike my grandparents.
Now you can say racism and sexism are still prevelant, but they are by no means anywhere as bad as they used to be. So sure your children won't be androgenous, but don't be too surprised if your grandchildren look at you as ignorant for buying them "gender biased gifts".

I like to think of myself as an open minded (at least in a to each their own sort of way), but this kinda makes me shudder. So yes I'm defending the idea, arguing against those who oppose it, but wouldn't practice it myself.

Here's the thing. I'm a fairly regular kind of guy, I like most regular guy things, like sport and looking at girls. One way I differ from blokey guys is that I know nothing about cars. I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I ought to know about cars, in case I breakdown or something. More to the point, they never mention that to girls .

My fiance has been told many times that she 'should' be able to cook. People are often amazed that I do most of the cooking. It doesn't seem to matter that she's actually a much better cook than I am, it's just that I cook most weeknights because I get home from work first.

These are very minor examples of much greater social pressures that have nothing to do with biological differences. What about the common insistence in society that a guy should play sport? Or the amount of hostility a girl will recieve if she dares to go out in public without spending an hour on make-up beforehand, instead just combing her hair and going out the door like any guy would do?

The point is not to pretend biology doesn't exist, but to continue examining what's biology and what's just society placing roles on people because of gender.

And sure, take the child shopping for clothing and allow them to pick out their own outfits..... Have you ever watched a child when given free reign to dress themselves?

Sure you can, the problem is that you and most other posters in this thread were just disagreeing with what they thought the article title meant, not what it actually meant. As a result, most people in this thread were just arguing about stuff that simply wasn't in the article.

Why? It's four months old, and it isn't denying the child's gender, it's just not telling other people yet, so they don't start treating it certain ways. There's nothing stopping the child's natural preferences coming to the fore.

It isn't a great title, because it's relying on a use of the word 'gender' to mean something very different than it's common use (gender in gender relation studies means the socially enforced part of gender, not as a synonym for sex as it is used in common language). The result has been a lot of people sounding off about an idea they really don't like, an idea that wasn't mentioned in the article.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:The logic being followed in this thread is atrocious. When you boys and girls were raised, were you 'forced' to be boys and girls? The answer is, yes. Yes you were. The child is no more being forced, inculcated, brainwashed, or anything along those lines, than you were. Gender is nothing more than a social construct. It evolved out of necessity. That necessity is now gone, and so is the requirement for gender differences. Telling someone that by choosing to raise their child in a different way to how you were raised makes those parents bad people smacks of ignorance to me.

I would counter that while it was a 'forced' decision, there is no way for it to NOT be forced, short of keeping the kid in a bubble until he reaches majority age and then asking him to pick his gender.

If I suddenly decided that I was gender neutral or gender female, it would most likely be as a result of me trying to prove you wrong.

And I wouldn't say the necessity is gone, those necessities are still very much there, male masculinity and female femininity are supposed to be indicators of a healthy mate, its a natural way to pick a strong breeding partner to pass on your genetic material and continue the healthy survival of the species as a whole.

Ketara wrote:
Male dominance of society grew out of a male's physical strength. In modern society, this advantage is now irrelevant.

We no longer hunt for our dinners.

What we look for as indicators as to a healthy mate have little to do with telling a little girl she should wear a skirt.

An attractive woman is an attractive woman regardless of what she's wearing, or whether or not she's climbing trees and playing with GI Joe figures.

Fafnir wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Well, there was that one involving John Money and the Reimer family... And not only was John Money('s hypothesis about gender being exclusively a social construct and that gender can be taught, allowing a child to be raised as any gender) proven horribly, horribly wrong (a point which he failed to admit, even until his death), but it also ruined several lives.

I disagree. If it is possible to identify what elements of environmental influence force gender, than it is possible to deliberately withhold those influences from the subject. In other words, not buying the little girl the embroidery kit, and the little boy the transformers. Not focusing on a little girls appearance anymore than you would a boy. Dressing them in skirts and trousers alike. And so on.

I actually happen to know a person who claims gender neutrality. We've had several conversations over the topic, and what it essentially boils down to is that she was raised in an isolated area, and her parents treated her in a very similar way to the way they treated her brothers. The result of course, is that when she entered a different societal setting, all of a sudden she was being judged on how she dressed and behaved, and so on, because she was just acting the way she always had done, which was not how a 'woman' is supposed to act.

Would you really be gender neutral or gender female then? It's not something you can just 'decide' on, anymore than you can just 'decide' to be homosexual.

Male dominance of society grew out of a male's physical strength. In modern society, this advantage is now irrelevant. We no longer hunt for our dinners. What we look for as indicators as to a healthy mate have little to do with telling a little girl she should wear a skirt. An attractive woman is an attractive woman regardless of what she's wearing, or whether or not she's climbing trees and playing with GI Joe figures.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Well, there was that one involving John Money and the Reimer family... And not only was John Money('s hypothesis about gender being exclusively a social construct and that gender can be taught, allowing a child to be raised as any gender) proven horribly, horribly wrong (a point which he failed to admit, even until his death), but it also ruined several lives.

I know all about that 'study' but that only helps further reinforce my point, but that actually supports my argument rather than the 'other side'...

Fafnir wrote:Gender is not a social construct.

There are societal factors involved, but the biology reigns supreme. You could try to raise a boy as a girl (see David Reimer and intersexed individuals),

but the child will ultimately end up identifying as the gender that their biology prescribes to them.

LordofHats wrote:Does anyone ever actually talk about the issues in the article around here

I gave up trying months ago. Only a few people bother (props to those who try).

Read the articles about them from a few months ago. They are referring to the child as 'it.' I find that rather dehumanizing and they seem to have no intention to ever refer to their child otherwise.

Plus I just don't like them. The parents are clearly doing this to show boat at the kids expense which is fairly obvious in their self-righteous attitudes in interviews.

The use of gender was specified in the first few paragraphs, but I don't think that's the real problem for the title. The problem is the word "End" because the article isn't really about ending gender, just redefining it.

chaos0xomega wrote:What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

I think you missed the point of the article and the resulting controversy, or maybe I did. Its not about questioning the social constructs associated with gender roles, its about questioning whether or not gender roles should even exist in the first place, and if so should they be determined by choice rather than by biology.

Yeah, little bastards don't have any color coordination at all.

sebster wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Gender is not a social construct.

As has been explained multiple times in this thread, in gender studies they use 'sex' to refer to biological differences, and 'gender' to refer to social concepts of gender.

but the child will ultimately end up identifying as the gender that their biology prescribes to them.

Plainly, that isn't always true.

Fafnir wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

Studies have found that a lot of people who express the desire to change gender have a very strong tendency towards having brain patterns strongly associated with their desired gender. That is, men who wish to be women are typically found under analysis to have female brains. It is a physiological condition.

Lord Scythican wrote:I give the kid till the age of 7 years old before it gets made fun of by other children to the point where it types in Google's search engine: "What sex am I?" and "How can I tell if I have a penis or not?".

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:I give the kid till the age of 7 years old before it gets made fun of by other children to the point where it types in Google's search engine: "What sex am I?" and "How can I tell if I have a penis or not?".

Then he'll probably commit suicide under the rolling waves of "go awai troll"

Fafnir wrote:I'm just saying that trying to treat gender as an entirely social construct is futile. It's more complicated than that.

Just because 'gender' focuses more on social components does not mean that the biological factors that influence it can be ignored, as it tends to be by people who don't understand that the differences between the sexes run far deeper than simple cosmetics and morphology.

chaos0xomega wrote:I would argue that this is not the norm, and as you said, it is a 'condition'. There are biological factors that may be (I would say are, but without some sort of valid analysis to confirm this, I'm just guessing here) associated with this. Look up concepts such as XX male, XXY, XYY, etc.

helgrenze wrote:Biological "sex" is not the only factor you would be working against, but it is a major one. How do you explain to a "gender neutral" child why they are physically different from another?
How would you deal with a "male" childs first erection?
A female childs budding curves?

Fafnir wrote:Male dominance in society grew out of the idea of masculine dominance that's engrained into our biology. Physical strength was a useful tool back in the days of hunting and gathering, but how do you explain how our business-based society is governed mostly by men?

Men are simply naturally more aggressive and desire to be more dominant. It's a trait engrained into us.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:But that's because I chose to do it for myself.
I hear of these parents that want to raise their children to be androgynous like this and it's sickening.

Fafnir wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

Mind, I'm talking in general terms. There are always exceptions.

LordofHats wrote:The saddest part is that it probably would happen at some point to someone. Dare I say stranger things have happened.

AvatarForm wrote:I call this to be a fad for a few...

Gender is not a social construct and people raising children as the opposite gender is unnatural.

sebster wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:I call this to be a fad for a few...

Gender is not a social construct and people raising children as the opposite gender is unnatural.

It literally is a social construct by the definition of the word within gender studies.

Is it so hard to accept that there can be both social and biological elements?

Albatross wrote:Remember men and women?


They were good, weren't they? I wonder what happened to them...

Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

LordofHats wrote:

Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

This rather appropriately describes one of the trials science faces. Gender studies is the study of gender roles; social norms and behaviors expected of a particular sex within a given culture (hence a social construct). Example. Raising children is a gender role traditionally directed towards women in most cultures. Working and bread winning is a gender role traditionally attributed to men. Neither are strictly tied to biology, nothing in the biology of men and women prevents one from doing though other, but do have to a degree a biological basis (women give birth to children, at times possibly incapacitating them during pregnancy and afterwards, making it simpler and easier to rely on the male to provide for her and the children. This is an example. No flames please, hats burn easily)

The problem science has is that even when they explain that, most people will still use gender as an interchangeable term with sex to define male and females in strict biological terms.

AvatarForm wrote:Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

Exactly. This is a fad and will pass.

sebster wrote:No-one is denying that there are basic differences between the sexes. No-one.

What I am trying to explain to you is that in gender studies, the word gender refers explicitly to the differences resulting from society, whereas biological differences are refered to using the word 'sex'.

So when people refer to ending gender, they refer only to the ways society treats the two different genders. Do you understand that now?

Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...

...and make it complicated.

helgrenze wrote:Actually, If as you say, gender refers to societal differences, then those wanting to end gender are referring to how society treats the two different SEXES, not Genders.
That is the basic premise, that society 'created' gender due to how people of varying sexes were treated by said society. This suggests that the biological differences between male and female are negligable.
This premise is flawed.

Society may define genders but they are not a creation of society.

sebster wrote:Please just fething read what I'm saying.

"And by "gender" we mean, according to Merriam-Webster, "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.""

And the parts of that difference that are biological are referred to as 'sex' and the parts of that difference that are driven by society are called gender. Because both exist.

It isn't that hard to understand. It really just fething isn't.

Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...

...and make it complicated.

Idiots.

helgrenze wrote:How about we try to have a CIVIL discussion?

Simply taking the social/cultural traits out of the equation does nothing.

Children learn behaviors by observation. You would have to completely remove the child from society to eliminate such learned behaviors.

A child raised without any contact with others would be the only possible way to create a truely gender neutral person.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Lettuce be reality here, being transsexual or whatever is just a deviation from the norm. Should they have rights? Sure, they're people too. But all this special treatment crap has to stop somewhere.

sebster wrote: Is anyone saying that a child should be called it for the rest of its life? Is anyone suggesting that we aggressively deny all forms of biological difference?

No-one in the article or in this thread has suggested raising a child to be entirely androgynous, or ignore the basics of biology.

Would people please kindly stop making things up?

sebster wrote:
What special treatment? The special right to be treated as a human being?

remilia_scarlet wrote:If you can't see what's wrong with it, you're just as stupid as the parents. Yes, I am transgendered, but I chose to be, there are plenty of feminine males out there who choose to be/stay men, even hermaphrodites pick a gender. Sigmund freud once said "what we are never changes, who we are never stops changing". Even after I slipped the dress on, received breast implants, or put on my lipstick, the truth is I'm still a male. This is why I keep my doohickey, I may see my self as female gender, my sex is male in the end.

Nobody is making it up, it is strongly implied.

This is why I hate people, and even sadder, why I understand why a lot of other countries hate america, because people can't be happy until they push all the buttons on the control panel of society. in a way, I feel sorry for the kid, and even sorrier for the parents who feel the need to do this. kids are cruel, like a den of lions, and they've tied a steak to the poor child, but, they don't care since they won't suffer, so, it's easy for them to hide the kid's identity. I know this from personal experience. when I began experimenting with crossdressing, I was mistreated, abused, and humiliated, and this was russia, and the kids in america are a lot meaner.

helgrenze wrote:Raising a child in a non gender specific way does not remove what the child will observe and then immitate, unless both parents are acting in a gender neutral way. Human nature being what it is, makes this improbable as one parent or the other will, perhaps subconscienciously, act in a very gender specific manner and thus influence the child who is then likely to attempt the same mannerism because it was different from the childs normal experience with that parent.

So then perhaps we should retrain some 11 billion people, from different social, economic, religious, and cultural backgrounds?

Vladsimpaler wrote:Just because some people have some messed up wiring mean that kids should be forced to grow up without a gender, as the article notes that there are dangers for going against the gender roles.

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

The fact that not everyone necessarily wishes to adhere to them, or feels comfortable in them, or indeed even possesses the traits required to fulfill 'traditional roles', and expecting and putting social pressure on them to conform is ignorant. There's also the fact that a huge amount of sexism can be traced back to these 'traditional gender roles'.

In fact, there's quite a bit wrong with 'traditional gender roles'.

iproxtaco wrote:What harm does it do? No harm, until said person steps out of their gender-less environment and into the regular world, where they will be judged.

4M2A wrote:Getting the chance to see how individuals from both sex act, affect and are effected by the world around them is a import part of a childs education. Learning and understanding society is an importand skill. Children learn how to behave from looking at others. By taking this away from them you aren't helping. Yes they should be free to choose- this can be done by showing them how people from either gender behave and making it clear it is ok to choose. Taking away all the people who they can relate to just leaves as isolated child.

They will be living in the real world- they need to find therir place in this world not in a genderless world created by their parents.

htj wrote:What harm does it do to bring someone up in a genderless environment? If gender is as rooted in biology as you say, wouldn't it make no difference, the traits you mentioned naturally asserting themselves?

sebster wrote:The point isn't to deny gender roles for the sake of the transgendered, I don't know where you got that from. The point is that a perfectly normal, straight girl might just prefer playing with guns and cars when she's a kid. A perfectly normal, straight boy might love to play house.

The point is to let kids find out for themselves what kind of kid they want to be, without as little social pressure as possible.

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

The fact that not everyone necessarily wishes to adhere to them, or feels comfortable in them, or indeed even possesses the traits required to fulfill 'traditional roles', and expecting and putting social pressure on them to conform is ignorant.

There's also the fact that a huge amount of sexism can be traced back to these 'traditional gender roles'.

In fact, there's quite a bit wrong with 'traditional gender roles'.

Albatross wrote:Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority? I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people. In fact, I pretty much leave those people the feth alone because I have no interest in them.

I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is. And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it. In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks. OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind. Dress it up however you like, but there it is.

helgrenze wrote:
Actually, If as you say, gender refers to societal differences, then those wanting to end gender are referring to how society treats the two different SEXES, not Genders.

helgrenze wrote:
Society may define genders but they are not a creation of society.

Albatross wrote:
What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

helgrenze wrote:
So then perhaps we should retrain some 11 billion people, from different social, economic, religious, and cultural backgrounds?

Fafnir wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

Albatross wrote:
Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority?

I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people.

In fact, I pretty much leave those people the feth alone because I have no interest in them.

I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is.

And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it.

In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks.

OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind. Dress it up however you like, but there it is.

I can be traced back to Irish hill-farmers. I, however also live in a major metropolitan area of England, and am a music student. Does that which came before me influence me? Undoubtedly.
However, I am not exactly the same, in fact I am massively different, almost unrecognisable.

See where I'm going with this? The roles of men and women in society are constantly evolving towards greater and greater equality - that DOES NOT mean that we need to do away with the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'.

Cool, I'm all ears, since so far all you've posted was 'some people don't like them' and 'uh, sexism and that'. Shoot.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.

LordofHats wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.

Its okay. We still believe in you.

corpsesarefun wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My name has been mentioned only once in this thread. I'm losing my touch.

Its okay. We still believe in you.

I do believe in fairies!

dogma wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

And apparently our biology informs people to express their gender in ways which are not conventional by Western standards.

Fafnir wrote:

dogma wrote:

Fafnir wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

And apparently our biology informs people to express their gender in ways which are not conventional by Western standards.

No one ever said gender was strictly dichotamous. At least I never did.

dogma wrote:whatever people do is a component of human nature

Fafnir wrote:

dogma wrote:whatever people do is a component of human nature

And there's a problem with that how?

FITZZ wrote: Hmm, seems I recall this sort of experiment ending very badly...

Ketara wrote:Sebster, I'd just give up. Gender studies is a highly complicated field, and can be quite difficult to understand at the best of times. When my gender neutral friend first told me about this particular area, I couldn't really understand what she was talking about. It wasn't until I sat down in an academic library, researching the topic of gender, that I finally managed to wrap my head around the concept, and even then it required a complete shift in thinking as to how I regarded the difference between the words 'sex' and 'gender'.

Fact is, I don't think we're going to have much luck explaining it to the people here. From what I can see, we have a number of people who didn't read the article, a number of people making ignorant comments and implying its just a load of attention seeking made up stuff, and a number of people who could understand, but probably won't, or will refuse to in the context of an internet argument.

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

iproxtaco wrote:What harm does it do? No harm, until said person steps out of their gender-less environment and into the regular world, where they will be judged.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:Exactly. I've been reading "Raising my Boychick", and the author rises quite a point: Parents should really loosen their grip on some issues that are, more or less, beyond their control.

It has reminded me of all the critizism Amy Chua got for that book on "Tiger Moms" and how strong discipline during childhood leads to successful adults. Most critics said Ms. Chua's methods were not only cruel, but also counterproductive. Believing that genetics or upbringing predispose your kid for success, attempting to rout out enthropy through tight control, is self deceiving. Education is about giving kids the tools to better deal with future situations, not programming them for a bright future which may never come.

That said, I've still got issues against Queer Theory and most diatribes on gender espoused by the author of "Raising my Boychick". Gender studies rely too much on broad generalizations and categorizing that, in the long term, end up reinforcing traditional gender roles. By making up new categories such as cisgender, male/female assigned, intersexual and the like, or by adhering to orientalistic, deeply illiberal views on "other genders", they are effectively denying the fact that gender roles change and adapt as society does. Queer theorists' views on gender depend of an incredibly restrictive, almost medioeval definition of male and female gender roles, a world in which males are all psychopathic beer-guzzling promiscuous apes and women all feerical mother-figures always in the verge of hysterical breakdown. Accompanying these two caricatures lie a host of "intermediate genders", where all deviations from the "norm" are tagged and categorized as aberrations demanding proper study.

Needless to say, reality doesn't conform to this in the slightest.

Albatross wrote:Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority?

I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people.

I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is. And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it. In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks. OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind.

See where I'm going with this? The roles of men and women in society are constantly evolving towards greater and greater equality - that DOES NOT mean that we need to do away with the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'.

helgrenze wrote:The concept still comes down to trying to eliminate how other people, aka "Society", reacts to and deals with a person who chooses to affect a mentality and personality that is outside of the observers expectations of "normal".

Changing "society" and its perceptions takes time. It rarely happens in a single lifetime. Sorry to say, but racism still exists and is probably more prevelant than you think, though it has moved to the fringe, which is where it becomes more dangerous because it is hidden from view and allowed to fester.

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:The concept still comes down to trying to eliminate how other people, aka "Society", reacts to and deals with a person who chooses to affect a mentality and personality that is outside of the observers expectations of "normal".

Yes, and the idea that building a more inclusive, understanding society is an objectively good thing.

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Changing "society" and its perceptions takes time. It rarely happens in a single lifetime. Sorry to say, but racism still exists and is probably more prevelant than you think, though it has moved to the fringe, which is where it becomes more dangerous because it is hidden from view and allowed to fester.

Given people are rarely lynched anymore, I'm going to go out on a limb and say racism is a fuckload less dangerous than it used to be.

Meanwhile, the two groups who suffer more assaults per capita than any other are gay people and the transgendered.

FBI website wrote:For each hate crime offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases.

■In 2009, 2,034 law enforcement agencies reported 6,604 hate crime incidents involving 7,789 offenses.
■There were 6,598 single-bias incidents that involved 7,775 offenses, 8,322 victims, and 6,219 offenders.
■The 6 multiple-bias incidents reported in 2009 involved 14 offenses, 14 victims, and 6 offenders.

Single-bias incidents
An analysis of the 6,598 single-bias incidents reported in 2009 showed the following:
■48.5 percent were motivated by racial bias.
■19.7 percent resulted from religious bias.
■18.5 percent were linked to sexual-orientation bias.
■11.8 percent stemmed from ethnicity/national origin bias.
■1.5 percent involved disability bias.

Offenses by bias motivation within incidents
Of the 7,775 single-bias hate crime offenses reported in the above incidents:
■49.1 percent stemmed from racial bias.
■18.5 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
■17.7 percent resulted from religious bias.
■13.5 percent were prompted by ethnicity/national origin bias.
■1.2 percent were from biases against disabilities.

Racial bias
In 2009, law enforcement agencies reported that 3,816 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:
■71.4 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
■17.1 percent resulted from anti-white bias.
■5.5 percent occurred because of biases against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
■3.9 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
■2.2 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.

Religious bias
Law enforcement agencies reported 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. A breakdown of biases for these offenses showed:
■70.1 percent were anti-Jewish.
■9.3 percent were anti-Islamic.
■8.6 percent were anti-other religion.
■4.4 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
■4.0 percent were anti-Catholic.
■2.9 percent were anti-Protestant.
■0.7 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

Sexual-orientation bias
Law enforcement agencies reported 1,436 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
■55.6 percent were motivated by anti-male homosexual bias.
■26.2 percent resulted from anti-homosexual bias.
■15.0 percent were prompted by anti-female homosexual bias.
■1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.
■1.5 percent were the result of anti-heterosexual bias.

Ethnicity/national origin bias
In 2009, law enforcement reported 1,050 offenses were committed based on the perceived ethnicity or national origin of the victim. Of these offenses:
■62.3 percent were motivated by anti-Hispanic bias.
■37.7 percent resulted from anti-other ethnicity/national origin bias.

Disability bias
There were 97 reported hate crime offenses committed based on disability bias. Of these:
■72 offenses were prompted by anti-mental disability bias.
■25 offenses were the result of anti-physical disability bias.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but isn't making starting quarterback an accomplishment that the son made, and not something foisted upon him at birth?

Ahtman wrote:How did this turn into a thread about Payton and Eli Manning?

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:About the kid who parents want people to guess his sex, what about when said child has to go into a public restroom?

Many people believe that sexually delineated restrooms are oppressive.

Ahtman wrote:How did this turn into a thread about Payton and Eli Manning?

halonachos wrote:
I remember when some woman thought she could just let other women use the men's room because the women's restroom smelt bad, stopped that real quick, mainly because I had to use the bathroom.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I remember when some woman thought she could just let other women use the men's room because the women's restroom smelt bad, stopped that real quick, mainly because I had to use the bathroom.

Honestly I find it funny that very few people have no problem being seen going into a bathroom by members of the opposite sex, but very many of them have a problem being seen in a bathroom by members of the opposite sex.

halonachos wrote:About the kid who parents want people to guess his sex, what about when said child has to go into a public restroom?

halonachos wrote: I believe that Carlos Mencia had a quote about that.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
No. I gave some behaviours she has that might be considered not feminine. She has others that would be considered feminine. You're jumping to conclusions based on too little data. She is gender neutral.

By that criteria everyone is gender neutral because everyone exhibits traits that are both feminine and masculine. For example, I like to play sports, drink beer, look at attractive women, and work on cars; all masculine traits. However, I also like to go shopping, read poetry, watch Hollywood gossip television, read gossip blogs on which that television is based, and I own 17 pairs of shoes; all feminine traits.

Ketara wrote:
*Shakes head sadly*

Alas, you once again base your conclusions on too little data. I never said the criteria for being gender neutral was solely exhibiting both feminine and masculine aspects. I was simply responding to the claim she was of the masculine gender, due to exhibiting some masculine aspects, which would be inaccurate.

dogma wrote:

Ketara wrote:
*Shakes head sadly*

Alas, you once again base your conclusions on too little data. I never said the criteria for being gender neutral was solely exhibiting both feminine and masculine aspects. I was simply responding to the claim she was of the masculine gender, due to exhibiting some masculine aspects, which would be inaccurate.

My point is that she doesn't seem to be gender neutral even by your criteria, as you do not refer to her as a non-gendered person except where behooved by circumstance. You called her a lad, and really haven't expressed her neutralness to us.

And anyway, it isn't possible to ne non-gendered, It is possible to not be neither female or male, but it is not possible to lack gender altogether.

Ketara wrote:
And my point is that you're basing several steps of reasoning on incomplete data on a person you do not know, thus leading to flawed conclusions.

Ketara wrote:
Just out of interest, if one is not a man or a woman, what gender are they?