Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I agree with monster rain, do whatever the hell you want when it comes to yourself but the minute you start doing something to your kids as an experiment you have crossed the line.

Agreed. It just comes across as an arrogant attempt to be different. Saying that they want to raise the child to be "neutral" is not a justification to basically screw-up another human.

Actually, after reading the article again.... I have read it multiple times.... It tries to combine three completely different subjects into a single idea of "gender neutrality."

One: Not telling other people the sex of a child does not make it, or the parent "gender neutral." They have an older child who is described as being male, which makes the parents seem more like they have a case of Munchausens.. That is they are seeking attention by forcing others to play their little game of "guess".
Two: The 'boychick" woman.... who is not apparently raising her child to be not neutral but rather "bi-gendered". Even the word she uses to describe this is bi-gender: "boy/chick". Given that many feminists consider the word 'chick' to be offensive, it also show a lack of respect for her own gender choices.
Three: Androgyny... the example given is based soley on appearance. The model may or may not actually be an androgyne. We are not given enough information. The fact that his body fits with what fashion designers have been touting as "perfect" (Superskinny with almost no breasts.) for decades (Look up fashion model Twiggy) for the female figure, plus his feminine facial features more than explains his current success as a model. His actual gender outlook is never given consideration.

corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with monster rain, do whatever the hell you want when it comes to yourself but the minute you start doing something to your kids as an experiment you have crossed the line.

Merely by living with your children you are doing something to them. Considering that no one is capable of exactly replicating a successful childhood experience from a book, or observation, this can necessarily be called experimental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:That is they are seeking attention by forcing others to play their little game of "guess".

They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. You don't have to know the gender of a child in order to acknowledge its existence. What might be a common social impulse is not the result of any action taken by these particular parents.

dogma wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I agree with monster rain, do whatever the hell you want when it comes to yourself but the minute you start doing something to your kids as an experiment you have crossed the line.

Merely by living with your children you are doing something to them. Considering that no one is capable of exactly replicating a successful childhood experience from a book, or observation, this can necessarily be called experimental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:That is they are seeking attention by forcing others to play their little game of "guess".

They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. You don't have to know the gender of a child in order to acknowledge its existence. What might be a common social impulse is not the result of any action taken by these particular parents.

That is true however you are fully aware that raising a child a certain way purely to see what happens is different to raising a child the way you see best.

iproxtaco wrote:Agreed. It just comes across as an arrogant attempt to be different. Saying that they want to raise the child to be "neutral" is not a justification to basically screw-up another human.

You can't claim someone is being "screwed-up" without claiming that there is a correct way to be in the first place.

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is true however you are fully aware that raising a child a certain way purely to see what happens is different to raising a child the way you see best.

Sure, but I don't consider the difference important. You can't know what manner of raising a child is best, you can only guess. In effect the belief that your method is best is nothing more than psychological cover for what is an experiment in child rearing.

A common sentiment among new parents is "I hope what I'm doing is right."

Yeah, but dogma, surely you would concede that there are more socially acceptable ways to raise a child than others.

And when something is more socially acceptable, it causes less commotion than that which is not?

I would actually reword that to "There are more moral ways to raise a child" Rain.

Far as I can tell, the couple from Canada are doing what they're doing because they want to get attention and talk about how much more "tolerant" they are.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but dogma, surely you would concede that there are more socially acceptable ways to raise a child than others.

And when something is more socially acceptable, it causes less commotion than that which is not?

Oh, no doubt. My parents didn't raise me in a way that most people would consider socially acceptable, and it made my life fairly bitter until I hit high school and decided to do something about it. My point is that having an uneventful life isn't necessarily having a good life. If my parents hadn't established m academic tendencies when I was young I would probably have had more friends, but I also probably wouldn't be working on my doctorate right now.

Its all a matter of how the parents want to treat their child, short of abuse, of course. Granted, what constitutes abuse can be questionable, but I think in most cases people will agree that physical abuse is the best means of determining that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:I would actually reword that to "There are more moral ways to raise a child" Rain.

Far as I can tell, the couple from Canada are doing what they're doing because they want to get attention and talk about how much more "tolerant" they are.

I'm not sure that's the result of any conscious action by the parents. Once you become a topic of note in the media, you have to work pretty hard to stay out of it. There's a reason many celebrities hire security details.

dogma wrote: My point is that having an uneventful life isn't necessarily having a good life. If my parents hadn't established m academic tendencies when I was young I would probably have had more friends, but I also probably wouldn't be working on my doctorate right now.

Overcoming hardships builds character, there is no question about that.

My problem with this situation is that the hardships are completely of the parents' design, and are unlikely to elicit anything but revulsion and annoyance by the community at large and may not be as beneficial as more conventional hardships such as poverty/genuine sexual identity crisis/physical handicap; etc.

dogma wrote:I'm not sure that's the result of any conscious action by the parents. Once you become a topic of note in the media, you have to work pretty hard to stay out of it.

Then the question become "How did they come to the attention of the media?" At some point they granted an interview knowing full well what they were doing.

helgrenze wrote:
Then the question become "How did they come to the attention of the media?" At some point they granted an interview knowing full well what they were doing.

Well, they knew they were granting an interview, but that doesn't mean they knew doing so would provoke controversy.

Honestly, I don't understand this mentality of presuming arrogance because someone chose to talk about the way they raise their child. It isn't like they're openly accusing the rest of the world of being intolerant, though given some of the responses in this thread it wouldn't be off base. Certainly speaking to a news outlet about your child is no more "arrogant" than presuming people on the internet want to read about your opinion of them for doing so.

Its almost like people are trying to fabricate reasons to be annoyed, which seems like a wholly unfulfilling pastime.

dogma wrote:Its almost like people are trying to fabricate reasons to be annoyed, which seems like a wholly unfulfilling pastime.

People are always trying to find reasons to be annoyed.

I'm not "annoyed" by this as I'm likely to never meet these people or their child. I'm just somewhat saddened by the idea that a person is born into this world completely at the whim of someone who would use them as a social experiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Well, they knew they were granting an interview, but that doesn't mean they knew doing so would provoke controversy.

I think that a reasonable person would assume that this was going to provoke controversy.

People do this specifically because it will provoke controversy. Many people like being contrarian (that's a word... right?).

Monster Rain wrote:
My problem with this situation is that the hardships are completely of the parents' design, and are unlikely to elicit anything but revulsion and annoyance by the community at large and may not be as beneficial as more conventional hardships such as poverty/genuine sexual identity crisis/physical handicap; etc.

I mean, my parents knew I was going to have a difficult childhood when they got me into all the stereotypical nerdy activities while keeping me in public school. They didn't want it to happen, but they definitely engineered the set of circumstances which brought it about.

I don't see how this is any different than raising your child to be Muslim in Middle America, or Irish Catholic in mid-19th century New York. No matter what you do someone is going to hate your kid, it just goes with being alive, you can try to minimize that group, but a lot of people think other things are more important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think that a reasonable person would assume that this was going to provoke controversy.

Probably, but not everyone is reasonable, and no one is reasonable all the time. In fact, when it comes to their own children, most people are less reasonable than they would be at other times; that's why the "He's a good boy." argument exists.

LordofHats wrote:People do this specifically because it will provoke controversy. Many people like being contrarian (that's a word... right?).

I knew what you meant, so I guess to the two of us it's a word. I can't speak for others.

dogma wrote:I mean, my parents knew I was going to have a difficult childhood when they got me into all the stereotypical nerdy activities while keeping me in public school. They didn't want it to happen, but they definitely engineered the set of circumstances which brought it about.

"Nerd" activities are actually beneficial in some way. I can't see how enforcing gender neutrality on an unwitting participant gives an edge of any sort in today's society.

dogma wrote:I don't see how this is any different than raising your child to be Muslim in Middle America, or Irish Catholic in mid-19th century New York. No matter what you do someone is going to hate your kid, it just goes with being alive, you can try to minimize that group, but a lot of people think other things are more important.

Yes, someone is going to hate your kid. I accept (and relish) the fact that there are people that hate me. My problem is that what someone thinks is important shouldn't necessarily translate into causing unneccessary strife in their child's life. You are born into a Muslim or Irish family. The child in question wasn't born into a gender neutral family, he is being forced into this by his parents without his consent.

dogma wrote:Probably, but not everyone is reasonable, and no one is reasonable all the time. In fact, when it comes to their own children, most people are less reasonable than they would be at other times; that's why the "He's a good boy." argument exists.

Granted.

But still, as I said before, it's not an argument of what is "reasonable" it's an argument as to what is "socially acceptable" which is going to ultimately be what decides whether someone has a relatively easier upbringing.

LordofHats wrote:People do this specifically because it will provoke controversy. Many people like being contrarian (that's a word... right?).

It is, but not everyone does things like this to provoke controversy. Some people do things like this because they honestly believe they are better to alternatives, or because they find the enterprise interesting, or because they think its no worse than the alternative, the list goes on.

I say this as a naturally contrarian person who spends most of his time thinking about why what is commonly assumed is wrong, or at least without basis.

Oh look, this thread again.

I don't believe this particular subject has come up before, and I've been here longer than I care to admit.

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

Monster Rain wrote:
"Nerd" activities are actually beneficial in some way. I can't see how enforcing gender neutrality on an unwitting participant gives an edge of any sort in today's society.

This kid will very likely understand gender better than the vast majority of people, which can be useful in the course of pursuing a career in the academy, therapy, or entertainment.

It may also be that the kid develops a more emotionally healthy personality than is common, there's really no way to know until he grows up.

Monster Rain wrote:
Yes, someone is going to hate your kid. I accept (and relish) the fact that there are people that hate me. My problem is that what someone thinks is important shouldn't necessarily translate into causing unneccessary strife in their child's life. You are born into a Muslim or Irish family. The child in question wasn't born into a gender neutral family, he is being forced into this by his parents without his consent.

He was born into a family which believes gender neutrality is either good or interesting in the context of raising a child. I don't see how that's different from religious belief, which is often quite capricious. For example, I know a number of fellow PKs who had extremely difficult childhoods because they were forced to adhere to religious beliefs that they didn't share, leading them to be very angry and militant atheists.

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?

Until he's four or so, this will be a non-issue. Kids of any gender go into the restroom of the gender of the parent that happens to be out in public with them at the time.

After that though, who knows?

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.

dogma wrote:He was born into a family which believes gender neutrality is either good or interesting in the context of raising a child. I don't see how that's different from religious belief, which is often quite capricious. For example, I know a number of fellow PKs who had extremely difficult childhoods because they were forced to adhere to religious beliefs that they didn't share, leading them to be very angry and militant atheists.

Who's to say that this type of upbringing won't cause storm to be the opposite of what his parents intended then?

Monster Rain wrote:
Who's to say that this type of upbringing won't cause storm to be the opposite of what his parents intended then?

No one, that's my point. Parents generally impose their beliefs on their children, and not even always by intention. Offhanded comments about "Those damn Democrats!" or "Fething immigrants!" will influence the personality of the child as surely as systematic attempts to immerse a kid in Judaism or the Catholic Church. The results aren't predictable, not easily anyway (a kid surrounded by nothing but Mormons is probably going to be Mormon, its why many religious communities are so insular), but they're certainly there.

I know people don't like talking about imposing their will on others, but doing that is in large part what creates the will of a child in the first place. At least if "will" is the set of beliefs and preferences which constitute the child's personality.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I really do.

But going far out of your way to make your kid into some sort of experiment falls outside of that, don't you think?

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, I get what you're saying. I really do.

But going far out of your way to make your kid into some sort of experiment falls outside of that, don't you think?

I don't know. I think it depends on whether or not they care about the kid. If the parents love the child, and really believe their experiment can produce good results, then I see no problem with it.

But then I'm probably the last person who should ever have children. Hell, I can barely tolerate my students, and they're all 18+.

dogma wrote:
But then I'm probably the last person who should ever have children. Hell, I can barely tolerate my students, and they're all 18+.

Those who can't procreate teach.

dogma wrote:But going far out of your way to make your kid into some sort of experiment falls outside of that, don't you think?

I don't know. I think it depends on whether or not they care about the kid. If the parents love the child, and really believe their experiment can produce good results, then I see no problem with it.

To me it seems like an odd variation on parents bragging about their children. It reminds me of "Billy made starting quarterback!" or "We enrolled Johnny in Kentucky Country Day!" more than anything else.