'Don't Judge Children Wearing Pirate Costumes'

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
When he beats your dress wearing son up on the playground, I will explain an appropriate response to strange people. If he does it again, he will lose certain privileges. If he continues, he will be spanked too. This typically curtails repeated, poor behavior effectively.
[/quote]

Why would your son feel that beating up someone who is different than he is, is an appropriate response? And what is the root of that response, what motivates it?
[/quote]
You’ll have to ask mother nature. Humans are inherently violent in some scenarios and often must be taught control.

You would be lying if you said you didn’t know any boys of a certain age who’ve been in trouble for hitting.

Sometimes the answered is that it is just the way it is.

Also,

Substitute “when my son ostracizes” if it makes you feel safer.

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
You’ll have to ask mother nature. Humans are inherently violent in some scenarios and often must be taught control.
[/quote]

Humans are inherently loving and accepting in some scenarios and often must be taught to fear or hate.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
You’ll have to ask mother nature. Humans are inherently violent in some scenarios and often must be taught control.
[/quote]

Humans are inherently loving and accepting in some scenarios and often must be taught to fear or hate.
[/quote]
This is true, in another scenario.

Send a kid to recess in a dress and watch responses. To suggest the vast majority are twisted, brainwashed for hate and scared as they react negatively is just stupid.

Boys don’t wear dresses. It’s just the way it is. Teaching your son to go against the grain for the sake of going against the grain is the dysfunctional attitude here. Most people being intentionally different are chasing existential ideals and acting against their own instinct. Instilling this mentality in a kid who is simply ignorant and needing instruction is damaging.

You can edit my quotes to re-direct intent but we will go in circles as I re-iterate, FYI.

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
You can edit my quotes to re-direct intent but we will go in circles as I re-iterate, FYI.[/quote]

I’m not editing your quotes, and I’m not trying to tell you that you intend to say something that you clearly don’t. I’m simply using an analogous sentence structure to illustrate my point, which is that it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
You can edit my quotes to re-direct intent but we will go in circles as I re-iterate, FYI.[/quote]

I’m not editing your quotes, and I’m not trying to tell you that you intend to say something that you clearly don’t. I’m simply using an analogous sentence structure to illustrate my point, which is that it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]
Yes, you’re editing examples to create you reverse analogy. And you’re being dishonest for the sake of an argument. We haven’t moved away from my previous posts and won’t, you can’t compromise nature. That grain will break your blade every time.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]

How can you be sure? What if it’s an instinctual survival mechanism type thing?

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
You can edit my quotes to re-direct intent but we will go in circles as I re-iterate, FYI.[/quote]

I’m not editing your quotes, and I’m not trying to tell you that you intend to say something that you clearly don’t. I’m simply using an analogous sentence structure to illustrate my point, which is that it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]
Yes, you’re editing examples to create you reverse analogy. And you’re being dishonest for the sake of an argument. We haven’t moved away from my previous posts and won’t, you can’t compromise nature. That grain will break your blade every time.[/quote]

I can see this is going nowhere.

A rhetorical device is not dishonest, it’s simply a way of reframing an argument so it can be seen in a different light.

The phrase “you can’t compromise nature” is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I don’t even think we agree on what can be attributed to nature.

Oh, and a wink is the same as a nudge to a blind bat.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]

How can you be sure? What if it’s an instinctual survival mechanism type thing?[/quote]

That’s a terrific argument from a evolutionary biology standpoint. New and novel things represented a potential threat and needed to be gotten rid of.

It can also be terribly dysfunctional. We know that not everything novel is a threat, and sometimes the introduction of something new provides a net benefit to a society.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
You can edit my quotes to re-direct intent but we will go in circles as I re-iterate, FYI.[/quote]

I’m not editing your quotes, and I’m not trying to tell you that you intend to say something that you clearly don’t. I’m simply using an analogous sentence structure to illustrate my point, which is that it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]
Yes, you’re editing examples to create you reverse analogy. And you’re being dishonest for the sake of an argument. We haven’t moved away from my previous posts and won’t, you can’t compromise nature. That grain will break your blade every time.[/quote]

I can see this is going nowhere.

A rhetorical device is not dishonest, it’s simply a way of reframing an argument so it can be seen in a different light.

The phrase “you can’t compromise nature” is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I don’t even think we agree on what can be attributed to nature.

Oh, and a wink is the same as a nudge to a blind bat.

[/quote]
Kids naturally ostracize strange peers.

Young kids may not yet understand what they do is generally accepted as “strange”.

The kid in question therefore requires responsible guidance. This isn’t a personality quirk at the age in question.

We are discussing a young, literally ignorant child, not a free thinking, intentionally rebellious teen.

This is going nowhere because you refuse to accept the obvious.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
it’s not innate in children to beat down (or ostracize) something or someone that is different than they. It’s a learned behavior, and a learned behavior that is contrary to a child’s nature.
[/quote]

How can you be sure? What if it’s an instinctual survival mechanism type thing?[/quote]

That’s a terrific argument from a evolutionary biology standpoint. New and novel things represented a potential threat and needed to be gotten rid of.

It can also be terribly dysfunctional. We know that not everything novel is a threat, and sometimes the introduction of something new provides a net benefit to a society.

[/quote]
Little boys in dresses providing a net benefit to society will open a can of dysfunctional worms all over this thread.

[quote]IchibodCrane wrote:
Kids naturally ostracize strange peers.[/quote]
I disagree with your use of the word “naturally”.

I know. It’s wonderful, isn’t it?

Neither is it a pathology that needs to be exorcised.

Agreed.

What you see as obvious and inevitable, I see as neither. Just because you state it’s obvious, doesn’t make it so.

On that note, I’m going to bow out of the thread for the time being and get some work done.

Cheers.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
What I’m wondering is at what age do you trust your child to be able to know where they stand from a sex and gender role standpoint? The original topic was about kids. If your 6 year old son wants to wear a dress to express himself or whatever, it would seem logical to me to tell that child “No, you’re wearing boy clothes.” Because I know at least when I was like 6, I probably thought eating chocolate for every meal of the day was a great fucking idea. I think the kid ought to at least be in high school before I would trust them to actually know how to feel about this issue. I mean hell, wouldn’t they even need to start puberty first or something?[/quote]

I think the underlying premise to your question, and to other’s arguements, is that there is something harmful in allowing a 6 year old boy to wear a dress. In this case, it’s not like allowing them to eat chocolate cake for every meal, or watch 4 hours of TV a day, or any other activity which can either be shown to be harmful, or which reasonable people could agree would be harmful through some generally recognized mechanism of action. For example, allowing a 7 year old to watch Robocop might be seen as a parental choice, but I think most can agree that that level of violence is inappropriate for a 7 year old.

There is no demonstrable harm from allowing a 6 year old boy to wear a dress. To bring sexuality into the discussion only muddles it. Many times a young boy wearing a dress is just that and not some glimpse into his sexuality.

As a humorous aside, last Xmas my daughter wanted to know why our parish priest was wearing a violet dress during Lent. [/quote]
To build on this, any harm that does come from wearing a dress is a result of people’s responses to wearing the dress, not the actual act of wearing the dress itself. The response is what results in harm and the response is the behavior that should be stopped.

By asking the behavior that LEADS to the response to be stopped instead, it creates the impression (especially in the minds of young children) that the response is appropriate and the behavior that provokes it is not okay. If a parent asks that the action be stopped rather than the response to it, even if they support the child’s choice of clothing, it leads the child to believe that their own parents also think that it is okay for their kid to be made fun of.[/quote]

Some of us don’t feel like making our children object lessons for utopian society.

Having been picked on and teased myself, once for the clothes I was wearing, in fact, I can tell you that it is one of the worst, most traumatic experiences a child must endure. Most children will have to endure it no matter how rigidly they conform, and that’s natural. But taking a child and allowing him to engage in behavior that is going to rain down hell on him at school from virtually all of his peers, making him into a pariah when social acceptance is THE most important goal in life at that stage, is one of the most egregious form of abuse I can imagine.
[/quote]
First of all, you already ARE making your child an object lesson for your concept of a utopian society by deciding who he gets to be instead of letting him find out on his own.

Allowing a child to engage in behavior that is going to rain down hell on him at school, eh? You know, when I was in high school all the drama people got made fun of, even the ones that weren’t really weird simply for their association with the whole thing. The abuse wasn’t comparable to what someone cross-dressing would receive, but it was very, very significant nonetheless.

Now, if my kid wanted to participate in plays or the choir or something like that, which would also garner a lot of ridicule from his classmates, I wouldn’t tell him that he cannot do it because people make fun of him. That is absolutely ridiculous to base what a kid can do on whether or not he’ll be made fun of. And who the hell says “social acceptance” is THE most important goal at that stage? Are we raising lemmings or self-confident individuals capable of making their own decisions about their life? Because THAT is the ultimate goal, period, in a democracy. At that age children should already be learning how to make their own decisions and come to some sort of awareness of who they are.

There’s some trial and error in that process and if it means wearing a dress and getting made fun of, so be it. There are all sorts of activities that a kid can engage in that get him turned into the butt of his classmates’ jokes, but do you discourage all of them as well, or only the ones that raise gender role issues?

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The gulf.[/quote]

Oh, no, push, it’s just a little ole crick. You can just lift up your skirts and hop right across to the other side, to where the drama kids are standing.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Every single defense the pro pink dress crowd made in this thread can be used to justify the Sombrero Six Year Old.[/quote]

In a world full of LSD induced ‘slippery slopes’, I completely agree with you.