swedish couple conceals child's biological sex from world

[MeDeFe]

Player, just because it has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it has to be done that way forever. Saying that society will not accept a person raised in a way so as not to be as constrained by gender roles as most others and that therefore it shouldn't be done (yes you have said that, although in a lot more words), is tantamount to saying that society will not stand for a woman voting and therefor women shouldn't. Without pushing the limits of what's acceptable every now and then, where would we be? Probably living in wood huts, ruled by councils of (male) elders on a village by village basis and with 95% of the population "employed" in agriculture.
Traditional gender roles do very much exist, they only really had to begin changing with the World Wars when the men were off fighting and the women had to work in the factories (first hints of it came during the industrial revolution when women were hired on account of being paid less, this would only apply to the lowest social classes then), until then the man brought home the food and the woman cooked it, kept the place clean and raised the children, for several thousand years. Gender roles were fairly quickly reestablished afterwards and have evolved quite slowly.


Woodruff, I'll agree that traditional gender roles are becoming less important, we have certainly come a long way towards gender equality over the last 100 years, but we're nowhere nearly there yet as Sultan pointed out. In some places their importance is fading faster than in others, Sweden is cutting edge which is why this story really didn't surprise me.


What all of you who criticize the parents seem to be missing is... well, the entire situation.
I will paraphrase what most of this thread has read like:
"It can't work, the child will of course know if it has a penis or a vagina", "Whaaa! They'll ruin the childs life by not telling it anything about penises and vaginas", "They'll keep the child isolated from others and homeschool it so it won't know about penises and vaginas!? OMGWTFBBQ!", "If you let children choose everything themselves they'll end up spoiled rotten, they need guidance" "Children need to be guided so they can develop their interests like music, karate or sports" (which is so irrelevant to the topic at hand that it's borderline spam), "The poor child is being made the subject of an experiment", "Girls usually play with girls and boys with boys, Pop won't have anyone to play with" (could that be an indication of gender roles being fixed early on by the expectations of society? Possibly, it certainly doesn't strengthen your argument).

I may have forgotten something, but the picture should be fairly clear. Would anyone like some cheese with the whine? No?


So... What should be kept in mind:
- "Pop" is a pseudonym, we don't know the child's real name.

- Pop knows what sort of sexual organs Pop has. So do Pop's parents. Noone else knows. But what's the big fucking deal? If someone I know had a child but wouldn't tell anyone what gender the kid is I would realize that it's unusual (as in: "doesn't happen very often"), but hardly think much of it.

- I suppose Pop will be told what Pop needs to know about sexual organs when the question of where babies come from comes up. Pop already knows that there are two different sexes and which one Pop has.

- If Pop needs a new sweatshirt I suppose Pop's mom or dad, whoever's doing the shopping then, will ask Pop what colour Pop would like it. I'm fairly certain Pop will be made to eat their vegetables like any other kid. (See? It's not letting the kid decide everything on its own as some of you claimed, just none of that "This blue/red (depending on gender) sweatshirt looks good on you!", which I do recall from my own and my sister's upbringing and in retrospect think was quite silly. If there are a dozen sweatshirts that are all the same size but different colours I'm fairly certain even a 4 year old can tell which they like best if given the chance). Same with hairstyles, if Pop at age 6 has short hair and wants braids I don't see a problem with letting it grow.

- Homeschooling was never mentioned in the article, nor in the interview the article is based on, I suppose Pop will start going to school at age 7 as any other kid (I think that's the age in Sweden).

- If Pop wants a guitar for their birthday and wants to learn to play it, I don't see why Pop's parents wouldn't encourage that. Same if Pop likes playing soccer, enjoys reading or painting or singing or whatever. But why guide a child towards only half or so of what's available and then let it choose? Let them choose from the whole range.



Finally and most importantly: The parents are not doing this to prove a point or to see what happens, but because they think it's for the best to raise a child and not a son or a daughter. They are not refusing to tell what gender their kid has because they think it would be an interesting experiment or something, but because they think it's in the child's best interest not to be treated in a certain way by the rest of society based on what's between the child's legs.

[F1fth]

Kids who are born hermaphrodites, quite rare actually, have an inherently difficult time. Parents can help or hurt. Helping is recognizing who your child is and leading them to accept that. Harm is forcing a child to fit a role that doesn't fit. But, to do that properly, you have to actually FIND the role. That requires a parent's guidance. Few children are really able to find or know those things for themselves at an early enough age to fully develop those trends.

part of finding the role that's correct for you child is listening to the child's needs and desires. the parent of an intersex child (and indeed a normal child) is not going to magically find out the child's gender before the child first self-identifies and presents behavior which is in keeping with that gender. that's when the parent steps in and says, "it's ok to be this way." i don't see any evidence that this isn't exactly what pop's parents are doing, and i am still at a complete loss as to why it pisses so many people off.

Now, also look around in your community. Look for those kids that don't seem to fit those same lines. They are there. We typically call the girls "tomboys" and boys "mommas boys" or sometimes "sissies", though that is much more negative and not used much any more (in my experience). Even that looks mostly at superficial stuff, though. The fact that a girl likes to climb trees, doesn't mind getting dirty, the fact that a boy likes to play with cooking sets and maybe even wear pink really DON'T have anything to do with whether they will be heterosexual or homosexual. Except, what happens to those kids.

i like how you completely dismiss the concept that certain behavior might be socially instilled, with absolutely no evidence except that you want it to be that way. regardless, i never claimed that gender didn't exist in some way outside of society, only that society gives us a very simplistic conception of what is in reality an extremely fluid thing.

One of two things. In the old days, those kids would often be told "bad, wrong, you can't do that". And you wound up with kids that were mildly or majorly screwed up. Boys, in particular, might avoid pink and cooking like a plague.

oh, you mean like today? how many boys do you see running around in pink clothes? does the media not still present boys playing with dolls as an inherently funny, ridiculous idea? why do you think that is?

HOWEVER, that is not the only option nor is it the most common any more. Instead, what really happens is that parents tend to accept who their kids are.

i don't think you've ever been the the bible belt. or really any rural small town.

What makes the difference is not telling a child "you have no gender".

that is not what pop's parents are doing, and it's a major stumbling block here in the debate. pop's parents are telling pop that pop doesn't have to try to act like a "boy" or a "girl," that pop has a gender but whatever gender it happens to be is all right. they are just waiting to see what that gender is.

That's like saying "you have no particular skills". What makes a child succeed is knowing that they HAVE identity. They have skills, they have gender... they have multiple facets which all fit together to make them who they are. Its telling the young boy "OK, you like cooking, you like color, and you are a boy.. you are DEFINITELY a boy and you should be proud of who you are". Later, maybe a few of those boys will find that they are ALSO attracted to other boys, not girls. If they have been taught that who they are is basically OK, then that won't be such a tragic, horrible transition. Religious issues are different and separate It certainly has an impact to know that following your impulses is sin. HOWEVER, even in that, if a child has been raised to accept who they are, truly and to know that they are inherently OK, at least as OK as anyone else, then they are more likely to be able to deal with the religion, also. In religion, some pain will occur. There is no getting around that part, but again, it is seperate and apart. It is an ADDED element.

i'm almost afraid to ask whether you actually mean what you've implied here, that homosexuality is an affront to your chosen sky man, or if you meant "know" in quotes, like how alchemists knew they could turn lead into gold. if it's the former then this debate is pointless because it's not really about gender, it's about your bizarre conception of what constitutes "sin." you would never accept a male child presenting with a typically female gender, or vice-versa.

it would really be too bad, because i took you to be smarter than the average bible thumping barunt-type here

As for the last, I was giving an example, not a personnal view. I don't want to get into that.

The point is that forcing a child into any role is always painful, usually harmful. The exceptions are very, very few. (mostly if its necessary for the child's survival)

But so is the opposite. These parents have what is apparently a normal child and are teaching the child in ways very different from the rest of society. This is going to cause that child problems. Letting a child decide if they "feel male" or "feel female" when they just have no concept of either is just wrong. When he does make various expressions. Let's say that the kid is a male and decides he wants to wear dresses. Well, since he is being raised "gender neutral", he probably won't have the chance. But, if she's a girl, she also won't. For boys, outward things are much more important. How boys play together, the activities they play decides who is friends with whom. For girls, its about relationships. Girls tend to pall up together with other girls in "cliques". This child will have neither. These are not things forced on children by their parents, they are things they do to be friends with other children. That this child is being raised so much different from other kids is going mean his frameword is different and it will cause him problems later in life.

This is not about freedom. This is about parents who want to try and create a world THEY think would be better. Except, their job is to prepare their child for this world. And help that child to change the world when they wish.. not to force this on the child.

Sorry, Player, but I feel you have it backwards on this one.

If a male raised in the more conventional manner wants to wear a dress, the parents will almost undoubtedly not allow it. Most will tell him it's wrong for boys to wear dresses, while practically all of the rest will discourage the behavior more subtly.

Pop, however, will not be barred from it or discouraged. If he wants to wear a dress, boy or girl, he will be allowed to. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a boy wearing a dress. There is no innate benefit to imposing that restriction, and all it does is boys who do want to wear dresses feel bad about themselves for wanting to do something "wrong."

I think this reflects on a misunderstanding as to what the parents are doing, to which I feel you should refer to MeDeFe's post above.

[F1fth]

oh lolll

Are you able to actually argue a point, or are insults the only thing you've got?

I'm very curious...which gender roles do you believe AREN'T at least dying at this point? Even the gender role of fighter pilot in the military is no longer exclusively a male gender role, and that's a pretty bloody strong gender role. Homemaker is no longer exclusively a female gender role, and that's also a pretty bloody strong gender role.

So Sultan...did you have a response to this question? You seem to be avoiding it for some reason...

if you look around and don't see the primacy of gender roles in modern society then i honestly don't know what to tell you, because you must be literally retarded (or more likely just enjoying being in the more privileged gender role).

why don't you look at the beauty, clothing, and modeling industries to start off with, and think about how they affect the population at large. little girls aren't starving themselves to death and dressing like prostitutes at 9 years old because the sexes are equal now.

then you can look at the discrepancy in income between males and females and the extremely low social mobility of females compared to males, and wonder whether this is PURE HAPPENSTANCE, a sign of gender roles magically dying, or perhaps the ugly reality of a society that still doesn't like women in the work force

after that maybe you will want to look at how our media portrays men as strong and adventurous and women as weak and in need of saving, and how even inversions of this trope are presented as bizarre or somehow notable just by dint of the inversion. Then look at how people who flout traditional conceptions of gender, like homosexuals and transsexuals, are routinely demonized by media, politicians, and the public at large

finally just look at how women and men traditionally act in social situations. who asks who out for dates? who is allowed to cry and who has to suck it up? who is allowed to fuss over decorations, and who is allowed to go crazy about power tools? why do we even have standards for these things? and do you honestly think that they don't reflect the inherent segregation of sexes and gender into separate, mutually-incompatible roles? are you goddamn blind or are you really this stupid? the world may never know!

If you want to be taken seriously (i.e., actually convince people that you may have some intelligent thoughts), then you're really going to have to change your delivery. Spewing vile insults while discussing things with people will only bring derision and laughter your direction (which it is definitely doing). Should I presume that you prefer to have derision and laughter come your direction rather than serious discussion? You're creating yourself as just another captain.crazy.

While I agree that Sultan's delivery is quite more vehement than is appropriate, the points he makes are still very much valid. I'd say the same about BK as well -- he makes some valid points, but is also unnecessarily derisive. You will not change either of the two, however, so my suggestion for your sake is to understand and address their points and ignore the insults or just ignore everything they say.

[Woodruff]

If a male raised in the more conventional manner wants to wear a dress, the parents will almost undoubtedly not allow it. Most will tell him it's wrong for boys to wear dresses, while practically all of the rest will discourage the behavior more subtly.
Pop, however, will not be barred from it or discouraged. If he wants to wear a dress, boy or girl, he will be allowed to. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a boy wearing a dress. There is no innate benefit to imposing that restriction, and all it does is boys who do want to wear dresses feel bad about themselves for wanting to do something "wrong."

While I do agree with you that there is nothing inherently wrong with a boy wearing a dress (after all, women have made the reverse conversion happen and I happen to like the kilt look myself), however...I am looking at it from an adult, reasoned perspective. The dumbass kids (and there are unfortunately plenty of them) that will be pounding Pop's ass will not be. Just as "having to act like a boy" can be very damaging psychologically for an individual growing up who would prefer not to, as has been mentioned many times in this thread...those ass-beatings he's going to get will also be just as damaging psychologically. THAT is where I see the problem.

Is the ridiculous behavior of these hooligans Pop's parents' fault? Of course not...but they are exposing him to that risk without (and I admit I say this without knowing what they've considered and all, not being them) giving this enough consideration.

[Woodruff]

finally just look at how women and men traditionally act in social situations. who asks who out for dates? who is allowed to cry and who has to suck it up? who is allowed to fuss over decorations, and who is allowed to go crazy about power tools? why do we even have standards for these things? and do you honestly think that they don't reflect the inherent segregation of sexes and gender into separate, mutually-incompatible roles? are you goddamn blind or are you really this stupid? the world may never know!

If you want to be taken seriously (i.e., actually convince people that you may have some intelligent thoughts), then you're really going to have to change your delivery. Spewing vile insults while discussing things with people will only bring derision and laughter your direction (which it is definitely doing). Should I presume that you prefer to have derision and laughter come your direction rather than serious discussion? You're creating yourself as just another captain.crazy.

While I agree that Sultan's delivery is quite more vehement than is appropriate, the points he makes are still very much valid.

But that's precisely my point. If he would argue things reasonably, he'd probably be able to convince people. Instead, he acts like an ass and most just write him off as an idiot.

I'd say the same about BK as well -- he makes some valid points, but is also unnecessarily derisive. You will not change either of the two, however, so my suggestion for your sake is to understand and address their points and ignore the insults or just ignore everything they say.

I disagree. In working with teenagers as I do, it's certainly possible to get individuals to recognize that it's IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS to change their behaviors (as it certainly is in Sultan's case here, presuming that he does in fact actually want to change anyone's mind...honestly, I'm beginning to believe that he does not).

If teenagers can do this regularly, I'm sure Sultan can. He simply has to recognize that it IS in his interest to do so. He seems to be a reasonably intelligent individual, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to.

Hell, I agree with him on 90% of what he says and yet I spend almost all of my time arguing with him...that alone should tell him that there's a pretty serious problem with his delivery.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, just because it has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it has to be done that way forever. Saying that society will not accept a person raised in a way so as not to be as constrained by gender roles as most others and that therefore it shouldn't be done (yes you have said that, although in a lot more words), is tantamount to saying that society will not stand for a woman voting and therefor women shouldn't. Without pushing the limits of what's acceptable every now and then, where would we be? Probably living in wood huts, ruled by councils of (male) elders on a village by village basis and with 95% of the population "employed" in agriculture.

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that when you make such changes you have to go slowly and carefully.

This is like raising a girl to walk around in a tank top and shorts in a society where women are expected to not show their ankles. Should things change? Yes, but that is not the way to do it. You start by teaching your child that hiding ankles might be a bit silly, but it is necessary and then you build her up with what changes are possible. Teaching her to challenge, yes, but not wind up in an insane assylum. Maybe her children then can have a world where ankles can be shown ... etc.

Traditional gender roles do very much exist, they only really had to begin changing with the World Wars when the men were off fighting and the women had to work in the factories (first hints of it came during the industrial revolution when women were hired on account of being paid less, this would only apply to the lowest social classes then), until then the man brought home the food and the woman cooked it, kept the place clean and raised the children, for several thousand years. Gender roles were fairly quickly reestablished afterwards and have evolved quite slowly.

I actually had about 4 paragraphs on just this thing. The issue is that roles changed for men, but it took about 300 years before women eve got a chance. Now what we really have is still a completely skewed system. Women have up until very recently been expected to deal with everything regarding kids until those kids are 18 and keep house... while dad brought home a paycheck, kissed his wife and played with the kids. That cheats everyone .. men and women. I won't get into that, though because it is a whole topic onto itself. I just say, yes, I most definitely understand this.

Woodruff, I'll agree that traditional gender roles are becoming less important, we have certainly come a long way towards gender equality over the last 100 years, but we're nowhere nearly there yet as Sultan pointed out. In some places their importance is fading faster than in others, Sweden is cutting edge which is why this story really didn't surprise me.

I agree, but I will say that the problem is not that men and women are the same, the problem is that so-called "gender roles" really don't match the true differences between men and women. We each get shortchanged far too much because of those roles instead of just letting people be. BUT, and this is the interesting part. If you look at how people talk about these things, we are actually well behind reality. I saw this a lot in the south. The southern wife was supposed to be, well a sexy beauty queen, keep her house perfect, kids, well, etc. and always defer to her man. (traditional stereotype speaking). And most women even then (about 15 years ago) prided themselves in those roles. They didn't reject them, they embraced them. BUT, guess what, behind that facade were some pretty darned strong women who stopped at nothing to get things done. They would paint their houses, build shelves, even fix a toilet.. and still talk about letting their men do all the work in public. But.. again, I get into some things that are somewhat tricky to talk about.

- If Pop needs a new sweatshirt I suppose Pop's mom or dad, whoever's doing the shopping then, will ask Pop what colour Pop would like it. I'm fairly certain Pop will be made to eat their vegetables like any other kid. (See? It's not letting the kid decide everything on its own as some of you claimed, just none of that "This blue/red (depending on gender) sweatshirt looks good on you!", which I do recall from my own and my sister's upbringing and in retrospect think was quite silly. If there are a dozen sweatshirts that are all the same size but different colours I'm fairly certain even a 4 year old can tell which they like best if given the chance). Same with hairstyles, if Pop at age 6 has short hair and wants braids I don't see a problem with letting it grow.

Sorry, but you are missing a lot here.

There are a LOT of parents that don't believe in dressing their girls in pink and boys in blue. Many of those who do do so not because "pink is for girls", but because if you go to JC Penney you see reams of pink and blue. There are some "neutral" colors, too, but pink and blue are by far easier to find and more likely to be on sale. (call that corporate training... and it benefits them because now they get 2 markets instead of one. Your son cannot hand down clothes to his sisters and vice versa .. grrr..) AND there are plenty of parents who let their kids choose their own clothes.. as I specifically said, even if it means wearing plaid and polka dots, or any other "no no's" in the adult world.

I used that purely as a superficial example and specifically said that was the case. Vegetables were not even an example, they were analogy. Yes, I am well aware that pop will probably have to eat as many vegetables as any other Swedish child.

But here is the thing. You assume that gender is something completely artificial, thrust upon people. There is much research indicating this is just not the truth. Womens and men's brains are different in subtle, but significant ways. Its not about wearing pink, its more about the way that men and women just really do think a bit different.

AND, here is the key part. The world need us all. The world needs people who think not all the same, but differently.

- If Pop wants a guitar for their birthday and wants to learn to play it, I don't see why Pop's parents wouldn't encourage that. Same if Pop likes playing soccer, enjoys reading or painting or singing or whatever. But why guide a child towards only half or so of what's available and then let it choose? Let them choose from the whole range.

See this is where I say you are just misinformed and frankly being sexist yourself. In todays world, girls and boys both play soccer, do cooking classes, etc. The main exception is in scouts. There is girl scouts and boy scouts and they are different. It is about the ONLY place where things are limited. And guess what? They are extremely popular and this limitation is one big reasons. Boys need a time to just "be boys". Girls need chances to be girls.

BUT, even though boys and girls do the same things side-by-side, there are still distinct differences in the way each approaches these things. This is not about how they are socialized and raised. That is an OLD idea, from the 70's. And we know it was just wrong. I know of plenty of women extremely active in women's rights and equality movements, almost like "gender nazis" they were so adamant about men and women being equal who now find themselves raising "girlie girls" and boys who are "all boy". They CERTAINLY did not get that way because mom and dad thought they ought to wear pink.

THAT is freedom and allowing a child choice. Not revealing a child's sex is just too confusing for the child.

Finally and most importantly: The parents are not doing this to prove a point or to see what happens, but because they think it's for the best to raise a child and not a son or a daughter. They are not refusing to tell what gender their kid has because they think it would be an interesting experiment or something, but because they think it's in the child's best interest not to be treated in a certain way by the rest of society based on what's between the child's legs.

Sorry, but while I know full well they are doing it with the honest best of intentions, I also have seen far too many such experiments with kids. And yes, that IS what it is, whether the parents wish to admit it or not.

[PLAYER57832]

If a male raised in the more conventional manner wants to wear a dress, the parents will almost undoubtedly not allow it. Most will tell him it's wrong for boys to wear dresses, while practically all of the rest will discourage the behavior more subtly.
Pop, however, will not be barred from it or discouraged. If he wants to wear a dress, boy or girl, he will be allowed to. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a boy wearing a dress. There is no innate benefit to imposing that restriction, and all it does is boys who do want to wear dresses feel bad about themselves for wanting to do something "wrong."

While I do agree with you that there is nothing inherently wrong with a boy wearing a dress (after all, women have made the reverse conversion happen and I happen to like the kilt look myself), however...I am looking at it from an adult, reasoned perspective. The dumbass kids (and there are unfortunately plenty of them) that will be pounding Pop's ass will not be. Just as "having to act like a boy" can be very damaging psychologically for an individual growing up who would prefer not to, as has been mentioned many times in this thread...those ass-beatings he's going to get will also be just as damaging psychologically. THAT is where I see the problem.

Is the ridiculous behavior of these hooligans Pop's parents' fault? Of course not...but they are exposing him to that risk without (and I admit I say this without knowing what they've considered and all, not being them) giving this enough consideration.

Thank you for making a point I was going to make earlier.

There are really 2 things here. When a three year old boy picks up a dress and puts it on, they are NOT making a "gender expression" or a "desire to be like a girl" or any such thing. Maybe they saw another child wearing it, maybe they just picked it up and thought it might be fun. In the old days, the boy would be told to take it off. Now, most parents and day care centers will gently suggest that boys just don't wear dresses (Silly, we know, but that's how it is...). If the boy fusses, most wills ay "OK, wear it"..for a while, in some situations. (maybe in the yard, but not to the grocery store, etc.). And guess what? If you don't make a big deal of it, the boy moves on to other things. It is not about gender identity or even really wanting to wear a dress, it is just about making a choice. Three year olds don't get to decide much. Clothes are one thing they like to control.. and given the chance, they will.

BUT, how will pop's parents react? They will decide "oh, pop likes dresses, let's let him wear them". He will go along, wearing dresses and then .. poof, he goes to school or meats someone in the playyard who eventually realizes this is a boyd wearing a dress. Only then does pop learn that this choice had consequences. And its likely a very RUDE introduction. So, not only does pop not gain acceptance, knowledge of who he is, but now he is given a very negative idea of dresses. That is the opposite of what the parents say they want, but it is reality. Those parents think they are producing a child who is free, but in reality they are likely to wind up with a child who clings FIERCELY to their specific gender once they get old enough to really figure it out.


Now, Sultan brought up cross dressers earlier. Here is the thing. They make that choice as adults. I don't know of any transgender person who would really wish this on any child. A child just does not know who they are enough to even begin to make that choice.

There is a saying, you have to know the rules before you can know how to break them. Pop won't know the rules. He won't know how it is and is not OK to break them.

The ONLY justification I can see for raising pop in this way were if he were truly hermaphroditic. That is extremely rare, but does happen. Usually doctors try to "guess" at the child's "dominant" sex and the parents go with that. Most of the time the traits of one sex are more poorly developed, so the choice is relatively clear. But, there is some thinking that birth might be too early to make that choice in some cases (where things are more equal physically). However, nothing in any of the articles even hints that this might be the case.

No, this is simply parents making a choice for their child without really understanding the full consequences.

[b.k. barunt]

I gotta say it kills me how some of the self styled liberals on this site think that life is some kinda create your own reality show. "Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, it's a mixed up jumbled up shook up world ('cept for Lola)"

La La La La Lola.


Honibaz

[xelabale]

I gotta say it kills me how some of the self styled liberals on this site think that life is some kinda create your own reality show. "Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, it's a mixed up jumbled up shook up world ('cept for Lola)"

La La La La Lola.


Honibaz

Girls who are boys
Who like boys to be girls
Who do boys like they're girls
Who do girls like they're boys
Always should be someone you really love

[SultanOfSurreal]

I gotta say it kills me how some of the self styled liberals on this site think that life is some kinda create your own reality show. "Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, it's a mixed up jumbled up shook up world ('cept for Lola)"

La La La La Lola.


Honibaz

please, let's hear more about gender roles from the guy who thinks will and grace is part of a global gay conspiracy

i am captivated

[MeDeFe]

Not revealing a child's sex is just too confusing for the child.

Click image to enlarge.

- Pop knows what sort of sexual organs Pop has. So do Pop's parents. Noone else knows. But what's the big fucking deal? If someone I know had a child but wouldn't tell anyone what gender the kid is I would realize that it's unusual (as in: "doesn't happen very often"), but hardly think much of it.

- I suppose Pop will be told what Pop needs to know about sexual organs when the question of where babies come from comes up. Pop already knows that there are two different sexes and which one Pop has.

Care to explain where the confusion is? I have a great deal of respect for you as a poster from former debates, but this time I think the confusion is to be found in your vicinity.




Furthermore, I'm not sure you even realize it yourself, but:

This is like raising a girl to walk around in a tank top and shorts in a society where women are expected to not show their ankles. Should things change? Yes, but that is not the way to do it. You start by teaching your child that hiding ankles might be a bit silly, but it is necessary and then you build her up with what changes are possible. Teaching her to challenge, yes, but not wind up in an insane assylum. Maybe her children then can have a world where ankles can be shown ... etc.

Only then does pop learn that this choice had consequences. And its likely a very RUDE introduction. So, not only does pop not gain acceptance, knowledge of who he is, but now he is given a very negative idea of dresses.

There is a saying, you have to know the rules before you can know how to break them. Pop won't know the rules. He won't know how it is and is not OK to break them.

Really adds up to nothing other than "it's always been done a certain way, we really shouldn't change it". Saying that we should go slowly and carefully and change things bit by bit, showing an ankle this generation and maybe the wrist a generation after that will lead to nothing changing. Society and its norms are something almost horribly resilient. Nudging it gently in the direction you desire does not work, it takes a lot more to get things to change permanently.
For example (anecdotal evidence, yes I know): It took some 10 instances over the course of 2008 of companies spying on and accumulating huge amounts of data about their employees, companies "losing" sensitive data of millions of customers to the black market and companies wiretapping their employees private phones to arouse a feeling of "maybe we need better legislation to deal with these sort of situations and with what should and shouldn't happen to data that is stored about us" in the general population here. To get that ankle uncovered you would either need protests with people wearing shorts and sandals who demand the right to decide how to dress, or a spectacular case where people were killed or badly hurt in an accident that ensued because the ankles were covered.




Moreover,

BUT, how will pop's parents react? They will decide "oh, pop likes dresses, let's let him wear them". He will go along, wearing dresses and then .. poof, he goes to school or meats someone in the playyard who eventually realizes this is a boyd wearing a dress. Only then does pop learn that this choice had consequences. And its likely a very RUDE introduction. So, not only does pop not gain acceptance, knowledge of who he is, but now he is given a very negative idea of dresses. That is the opposite of what the parents say they want, but it is reality. Those parents think they are producing a child who is free, but in reality they are likely to wind up with a child who clings FIERCELY to their specific gender once they get old enough to really figure it out.

Yes, if Pop wants to wear dresses Pop's parents will let Pop do so, if Pop then decides Pop wants to wear trousers, Pop will wear trousers. All else is speculation, if you were a politician I would call this paragraph fear-mongering. Swedes are polite almost to a fault (or maybe they have other ways of being nasty that I couldn't spot) and it rubs off early, Pop being bullied, systematically so as Woodruff claimed would be the case, is among the least of my worries in this case.
I also notice that you did not mention the, or possibly "a", opposite case of Pop being bullied for being a girl wearing baggy jeans. How come?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, if Pop wants to wear dresses Pop's parents will let Pop do so, if Pop then decides Pop wants to wear trousers, Pop will wear trousers. All else is speculation, if you were a politician I would call this paragraph fear-mongering. Swedes are polite almost to a fault (or maybe they have other ways of being nasty that I couldn't spot) and it rubs off early, Pop being bullied, systematically so as Woodruff claimed would be the case, is among the least of my worries in this case.
I also notice that you did not mention the, or possibly "a", opposite case of Pop being bullied for being a girl wearing baggy jeans. How come?

Actually, I did mention the reverse, but you dismissed it. You also dismissed every other comparison I made from real studies, real situations and experience.. not just "hypothetical" stuff. Yet, you respond with hypothetical. Your comparison to business practices is just silly. There IS no comparison.

The thing is that children have to live and exist in society the way it is. When parents do "experiments" (and yes, these parents are), their kids pay for it. They pay immensly. I am not talking off my hat and actually, neither was bk barunt. We each are old enough, have been around enough to SEE what happens when parents do those things. The result is usually not good. At best, the result is generally the exact opposite of what parents think. Kids are thinking, breathing, living human beings who have to make do, make friends, survive and flourish or fail in the society that IS. They have a hard enough time just learning that, never mind having the maturity and strength to go out and be pioneers who will change society.

I mentioned "hippie" kids a while back. Know what all those "free thinkers" produced in their kids? Partly a bunch of well, spoiled brats who can't succeed anywhere. Those that succeeded largely wound up being ultra-conservative. It is no cooincidence that the conservative 80's and 90's followed the 60's. Nor is the social tolerance a cooincidence, though it is a tolerance of OTHERS, paired with a highly conservative view for themselves. AND.. that is being reversed very much now. It is being reversed because so many got hurt, wounded and plain fed up by all that "hippie" freedom.

[GabonX]

I agree with Player and BK, I think it's wrong to experiment with a person's life this way. Nobody knows what the results of this will be on the child's psychological well being, and in addition the child is likely to face untold social pressures from his or her peers. In a perfect world this would not be the case, but in the real world kids are pretty brutal to each other and if you stand out you get scrutinized which can cause a lot of emotional and developmental problems. The social pressures from Pop's peers will probably be enough to cause sever distress even if the lack of guidance would not have.

It will be interesting to see what kind of affect, if any, this has on the child's orientation. Dare I say that there is an increased likeliness that Pop will be a homosexual or bisexual?

Yes, I dare..and if this is the case the bleeding heart liberals have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

[Woodruff]

One thing that hasn't come up (I don't think) in the discussion is that boundaries are something that children actually WANT. It gives them a sense of security. I'm not saying that pop necessarily needs this PARTICULAR boundary, necessarily. But that aspect hasn't been mentioned.

[thegreekdog]

I think the Swedish couple can't do what they want. However, it's odd that any liberal would support this - It takes a village to raise a child, after all.

In any event, I think the idea that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls stems from our ancestors. At some point in history, those cavemen and women determined that men should take their big sticks and go hunting and the women should stay at home and take care of the children. Antiquated? Maybe. But I suspect that this Swedish boy/girl will find his/her gender rather quickly. In sum... why do we care?

[Neoteny]

Possible child-abuse I suppose.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Possible child-abuse I suppose.

tsk, i thought you were above such reactionism

[Neoteny]

Naw, I was just trying to express what I thought would be the most common general complaint. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.

[PLAYER57832]

It will be interesting to see what kind of affect, if any, this has on the child's orientation. Dare I say that there is an increased likeliness that Pop will be a homosexual or bisexual?

Yes, I dare..and if this is the case the bleeding heart liberals have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Sexuality seems to be more biology than environment, but only time will really tell.

[Snorri1234]

Most hilarious experiment ever. I give it an A-.

[Snorri1234]

Yes, I dare..and if this is the case the bleeding heart liberals have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Well yeah but you dare because you're such a huge moron.

[GabonX]

It will be interesting to see what kind of affect, if any, this has on the child's orientation. Dare I say that there is an increased likeliness that Pop will be a homosexual or bisexual?

Yes, I dare..and if this is the case the bleeding heart liberals have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Sexuality seems to be more biology than environment, but only time will really tell.

Unless you're in prison...

People have an emotional reaction to the idea that sexuality is based on psychology rather than genetics. People are actually offended that someone could question the validity of whether or not people are born gay or straight. This should come as a red flag to anyone who really wants to delve into the subject with an open mind.

Sex (ie reproduction) is based on biology. Sexuality is mental.

Yes, I dare..and if this is the case the bleeding heart liberals have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Well yeah but you dare because you're such a huge moron.

This is what I mean when I say "offended" or "emotional reaction."

[SultanOfSurreal]

People have an emotional reaction to the idea that sexuality is based on psychology rather than genetics. People are actually offended that someone could question the validity of whether or not people are born gay or straight. This should come as a red flag to anyone who really wants to delve into the subject with an open mind.

Sex (ie reproduction) is based on biology. Sexuality is mental.

there is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality, almost every "prison gay" person self-identifies as straight and remains attracted to women

gabon's post is the kind of retarded bullshit we get when people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about decide they're experts on human behavior

[Neoteny]

People have an emotional reaction to the idea that sexuality is based on psychology rather than genetics. People are actually offended that someone could question the validity of whether or not people are born gay or straight. This should come as a red flag to anyone who really wants to delve into the subject with an open mind.

Sex (ie reproduction) is based on biology. Sexuality is mental.

there is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality, almost every "prison gay" person self-identifies as straight and remains attracted to women

gabon's post is the kind of retarded bullshit we get when people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about decide they're experts on human behavior

No no, he's right. Even though I don't like broccoli, if I choose to like broccoli it tastes so much better. Eating is based on biology. Taste is mental.

[GabonX]

gabon's post is the kind of retarded bullshit we get when people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about decide they're experts on human behavior

The pot shouldn't call the kettle black.

The fact is that the consensus up to a point indicated that homosexuality was a psychological condition and this data was thrown out for political reasons. The fact that people reject the idea without giving it any kind of rational consideration is indicative of the fact that the science on this topic is skewed.

What about people who are attracted to animals? Is this a psychological condition or are there actually people out there who are genetically inclined to f*ck fish?

there is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality, almost every "prison gay" person self-identifies as straight and remains attracted to women

It demonstrates empirically that circumstance can cause people to resort to homosexuality. In prison you have a number of alpha males who are used to having sex with women who no longer have access to women and compensate for this with homosexual behavior.

Beta males who can not reach women and carry on a normal sexual relationship in the outside world are known to resort to homosexuality because they get frustrated at their lack success. They convince themselves that they were born gay and use this to rationalize their failure with women.

This isn't the only cause of homosexuality but it is a big one.

People have an emotional reaction to the idea that sexuality is based on psychology rather than genetics. People are actually offended that someone could question the validity of whether or not people are born gay or straight. This should come as a red flag to anyone who really wants to delve into the subject with an open mind.

Sex (ie reproduction) is based on biology. Sexuality is mental.

there is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality, almost every "prison gay" person self-identifies as straight and remains attracted to women

gabon's post is the kind of retarded bullshit we get when people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about decide they're experts on human behavior

No no, he's right. Even though I don't like broccoli, if I choose to like broccoli it tastes so much better. Eating is based on biology. Taste is mental.

Yes, tastes can be acquired over time.