Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret

Off Topic
61

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]amoebo wrote:
Has anyone called child protective services yet?[/quote]

Why would you call protective services?

I’m just curious because I always wonder where to draw the line in terms of children and legal accountability.

If having children is your biological right, and the children are your property and not those of the state, how is it the government’s right to interfere in your child rearing if you’re not harming the child?

Even Christian Scientists get a bye by the gov when they don’t take their kids to the doctors for “religious reasons” - why would this be any different?[/quote]

You don’t have a biological right to have a child. That would indicate that someone has the biological duty to give you a child.

62

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Gender is a social construct but these kids live in society. As social animals, they will experience ostracism and the resulting feelings of misplacement, which could lead to deeper issues of self-worth as a result of what their parents are doing. As much as we’d like to philosophize about self-worth coming from within, the entire concept of it only makes sense in relation to society. [/quote]

You were going good until you got to the self-worth stuff. But, I’ll leave that alone. Good so far.

63

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]SuperAlienFreak wrote:

[quote]cct wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
Well, they’re not incorrect in stating that “gender is a social construction” as that is indeed the case.

Sex is biological. Gender is constructed. And frankly, it doesn’t really matter what gender you assign your child as their psycho-social development and their interaction with society will inevitably dictate their gender preference and sexual-orientation. Besides, despite the child’s unconventional upbringing, I’m sure s/he will just grow-up despising its parents - which is quite normal!

Just another case of silly over-educated white people trying to be controversial.
[/quote]

Yep. SMH @ silly pseudo-intellectual white people.[/quote]

Racist.[/quote]

Meh. There might be a few individuals that are like that of other races, but lets face it-- most of these wackos are white. Nothing but an observation. Nothing against white folk, I love white wimmenz.[/quote]

yes, its an observation that I, as a white woman, have also made and show great disdain for. So sue me.

Anyways, rich White folk, which are a cohort that are typically correlated with being highly educated, have nothing to “fight” for, nothing to complain about, no injustices to overcome of their own - so they just concoct stupid shit to be outraged about (unless they’re bitching about not getting bigger tax breaks or something equally nefarious).

If only they’d channel their energies to helping out their fellow man, rather than trying to be “progressive” for the sake of their egos. [/quote]

White and proud of it. [/quote]

I always get confused when I see this - or black pride, for that matter, or brown pride (like cain velasquez’ tattoo). What do you have to be proud of? Obviously nothing to be ashamed of, but are past accomplishments of whites somehow reflective on you? Obviously you had no cobntribution to the achievements of whites who died before you were even born, so what is it? I genuinely feel like somethign’s being lost in translation when people start telling me what they are proud of.[/quote]

Besides not having anything to be proud of (besides your fireman and cops for 9/11) about NYC. I am confused that someone could be proud, as are past accomplishments of New Yorkers somehow reflective on you? Obviously you had no contribution to the achievements of New Yorkers who died before you were even born, so what is it? I genuinely feel like something’s being lost in translation when people start telling me what they are proud of.

64

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I’m trying to get past the whole “storm will decide what storm is” thing…um, the kid can’t decide to be a boy or a girl, biology already did that! It’s not like the kid can go “um, I have a penis, but I choose to be a girl!” It just doesn’t work that way. [/quote]

Biologically, the kid is either male or female, obviously. But by concealing the gender, everyone else will have to treat storm as a human instead of a boy or girl. This will definitely affect the way he/she is treated which may allow for more freedom to behave however he/she wants to, instead of being lumped into the guidelines society has given boys and girls. With that said, I strongly disagree with running this experiment on your kids. Storm is only going to be picked on by other kids. Unfortunately, there really isn’t any great way to break down the socially constructed gender categories that kids are placed into, so I, like everyone else, will probably wrap my baby girl in pink and my baby boy in blue, despite the fact that there is nothing masculine or feminine about those colors.
[/quote]

There is reason why we have those ‘guidelines.’

65

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
Gender is absolutely biological and determined at conception[/quote]

That’s not even true for sex, let alone gender.

66

[quote]B to the rian wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
If having children is your biological right, and the children are your property and not those of the state, how is it the government’s right to interfere in your child rearing if you’re not harming the child?

Even Christian Scientists get a bye by the gov when they don’t take their kids to the doctors for “religious reasons” - why would this be any different?[/quote]
Although procreation is your biological right, our government only grants parental rights on the basis of “good behavior.” If you act out of accordance of loosely defined social norms, your children are legally removed from your care.

As for christians getting a bye on religious practices leading to legally defined child abuse, read the following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/07/couple-sentenced-daughter-prayer-death[/quote]

I saw this and had to comment, so forgive me if I repeat what someone else said.

The government does not grant parental rights, because they are not the government’s to give. They are inherent in our very being as humans. What our government does is remove children from their parents when their parents demonstrate they lack the ability to care for their kids. This isn’t some loose social norm we are talking about. We are talking about parents who neglect their children because of drugs and alcohol, parents who beat their children, and the like. In these cases, children’s very lives are in jeopardy.

EDIT: The parents in the link aren’t Christian Scientists, so it doesn’t counter Masch’s statement. Certain groups are legally exempt from certain things. For example, there are “Christian” groups that are exempt from taking Pennsylvania’s school assessment tests. People will go on-line, get their “Pastoral Certificate” and be a “pastor” of one of these groups, and their kids don’t have to take the tests. The same is true for health related things as well. (But, heck, even the Amish use doctors.)

67

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]amoebo wrote:
Has anyone called child protective services yet?[/quote]

Why would you call protective services?

I’m just curious because I always wonder where to draw the line in terms of children and legal accountability.

If having children is your biological right, and the children are your property and not those of the state, how is it the government’s right to interfere in your child rearing if you’re not harming the child?

Even Christian Scientists get a bye by the gov when they don’t take their kids to the doctors for “religious reasons” - why would this be any different?[/quote]

You don’t have a biological right to have a child. That would indicate that someone has the biological duty to give you a child.[/quote]

Duty and right are two different things. “Right” is something that we CAN exercise, like my Constitutional right to free speech. I can choose to speak out or choose to keep silent. Duty is something I MUST exercise, like signing up for selective service at age 18. Within ‘rights’ are duties. Within the right to bear arms, we have a duty to behave with those guns in a responsible manner.

In the context of parenthood, every human being, by virtue of them being a human being, has the right to parenthood because our bodies are DESIGNED for parenthood (that’s what the whole “reproductive system” thing is for). Within that right is the duty to exercise that right responsibly. This includes cooperation between both parents, as well as understanding the consequences what parenthood means (in terms of social situation, economic situation, family situation, etc).

Thus, while I have a right to be a father, and Mascherano has the right to be a mother, it doesn’t mean that I have a duty to father her child. It means that when I exercise my right with my wife, I have a duty to BE a father to my children, and when Mascherano exercises her right with her husband, she has a duty a to BE a mother to her children.

68

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I’m trying to get past the whole “storm will decide what storm is” thing…um, the kid can’t decide to be a boy or a girl, biology already did that! It’s not like the kid can go “um, I have a penis, but I choose to be a girl!” It just doesn’t work that way. [/quote]

Biologically, the kid is either male or female, obviously. But by concealing the gender, everyone else will have to treat storm as a human instead of a boy or girl. This will definitely affect the way he/she is treated which may allow for more freedom to behave however he/she wants to, instead of being lumped into the guidelines society has given boys and girls. With that said, I strongly disagree with running this experiment on your kids. Storm is only going to be picked on by other kids. Unfortunately, there really isn’t any great way to break down the socially constructed gender categories that kids are placed into, so I, like everyone else, will probably wrap my baby girl in pink and my baby boy in blue, despite the fact that there is nothing masculine or feminine about those colors.
[/quote]

There is reason why we have those ‘guidelines.’ [/quote]

I agree with BC on this one: ‘guidelines’ aren’t necessarily a bad thing.

69

I hear people often say that gender is a “construct of society.” However, I have never heard anyone explain how gender is a “construct of society.” Can someone who believes this explain how gender is a “construct of society”?

70

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]amoebo wrote:
Has anyone called child protective services yet?[/quote]

Why would you call protective services?

I’m just curious because I always wonder where to draw the line in terms of children and legal accountability.

If having children is your biological right, and the children are your property and not those of the state, how is it the government’s right to interfere in your child rearing if you’re not harming the child?

Even Christian Scientists get a bye by the gov when they don’t take their kids to the doctors for “religious reasons” - why would this be any different?[/quote]

You don’t have a biological right to have a child. That would indicate that someone has the biological duty to give you a child.[/quote]

Duty and right are two different things. “Right” is something that we CAN exercise, like my Constitutional right to free speech. I can choose to speak out or choose to keep silent. Duty is something I MUST exercise, like signing up for selective service at age 18. Within ‘rights’ are duties. Within the right to bear arms, we have a duty to behave with those guns in a responsible manner.

In the context of parenthood, every human being, by virtue of them being a human being, has the right to parenthood because our bodies are DESIGNED for parenthood (that’s what the whole “reproductive system” thing is for). Within that right is the duty to exercise that right responsibly. This includes cooperation between both parents, as well as understanding the consequences what parenthood means (in terms of social situation, economic situation, family situation, etc).

Thus, while I have a right to be a father, and Mascherano has the right to be a mother, it doesn’t mean that I have a duty to father her child. It means that when I exercise my right with my wife, I have a duty to BE a father to my children, and when Mascherano exercises her right with her husband, she has a duty a to BE a mother to her children.[/quote]

Duties and rights are two sides of the same coin.

If you postulate a right for yourself you infer that someone else has a duty not to violate it.

Since the concept of rights only makes sense in a social context, this is always the case.

71

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
Well, they’re not incorrect in stating that “gender is a social construction” as that is indeed the case.

Sex is biological. Gender is constructed. And frankly, it doesn’t really matter what gender you assign your child as their psycho-social development and their interaction with society will inevitably dictate their gender preference and sexual-orientation. Besides, despite the child’s unconventional upbringing, I’m sure s/he will just grow-up despising its parents - which is quite normal!

Just another case of silly over-educated white people trying to be controversial.
[/quote]

You fucking kidding me? Their ‘gender preference’? So cutting your dick off and taking estrogen till you grow tits is a just a normal way of choosing your preferred gender? So my dick is merely a ‘social construct’? You think these freaks are ‘over-educated’(whatever the fuck that means)? What has their ethnicity got to do with anything? Isn’t race a social construct too?

72

[quote]swshko21 wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
You don’t experiment with children.[/quote]

+1[/quote]

Exactly. So no same sex parents either.

73

[quote]orion wrote:

Duties and rights are two sides of the same coin.

If you postulate a right for yourself you infer that someone else has a duty not to violate it.

Since the concept of rights only makes sense in a social context, this is always the case.[/quote]

You make your own rights in the absence of law and order(outside a social context). John Wayne sums it up best in ‘The Shootist’:

‘I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I require the same from them.’

74

I think around 3:00 is rather apt…

As has been stated by a few already, what is wrong with the pre-existing social constructs of gender that are commonplace in most of the world. Admittedly, a handful of cultures have existed where such definitions of gender are non-existent or dissimilar to ours, but how have these societies progressed on the world stage? Although parents should be encouraging children to develop as individuals, a basic framework to work from is not much to ask. Encouraging people to do as they please is unlikely to lead to social harmony - “rules” and frameworks exist to ease social cohesion. It is possible for people to act in an individual manner while still conforming to social norms.

75

Your dick is a biological fact. Your sex is usually a biological fact. How you speak, move, the roles you take on and even how you think to a large extent reflects how you see yourself fitting in to society.

Masculinity or femininity change with fashion. It was not so long ago that European men wore tights and powder wigs. Now they wear skinny jeans and product. Maybe not so much has changed after all?

If you see a straight, biological male wearing a dress (not a kilt), what do you think? There’s your evidence right there that gender is a social construct. What does it really matter if a man wears a dress or not? It doesn’t, yet most people would stare or even publicly ridicule a man in a dress. Hence, men don’t wear dresses. That’s a social construct.

Why do girls throw like girls? Do all girls throw like girls? If girls CAN throw like boys, then there isn’t a biological reason why girls throw like girls. They learn to throw like girls, just like they learn to bat their lashes, giggle around cute boys, show more empathy, sit down to pee, not be good at math, leave work when they marry, and refrain from voting. Oh wait… they DO do some of those things! How about that? Maybe the social constructs that define gender roles are changing?

I’m not convinced that the parents in this story understand this entirely. If they did, they would realise that this sort of freedom is not theirs to give.

76

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

Your dick is a biological fact. Your sex is usually a biological fact. How you speak, move, the roles you take on and even how you think to a large extent reflects how you see yourself fitting in to society.

Masculinity or femininity change with fashion. It was not so long ago that European men wore tights and powder wigs. Now they wear skinny jeans and product. Maybe not so much has changed after all?

If you see a straight, biological male wearing a dress (not a kilt), what do you think? There’s your evidence right there that gender is a social construct. What does it really matter if a man wears a dress or not? It doesn’t, yet most people would stare or even publicly ridicule a man in a dress. Hence, men don’t wear dresses. That’s a social construct.

Why do girls throw like girls? Do all girls throw like girls? If girls CAN throw like boys, then there isn’t a biological reason why girls throw like girls. They learn to throw like girls, just like they learn to bat their lashes, giggle around cute boys, show more empathy, sit down to pee, not be good at math, leave work when they marry, and refrain from voting. Oh wait… they DO do some of those things! How about that? Maybe the social constructs that define gender roles are changing?

I’m not convinced that the parents in this story understand this entirely. If they did, they would realise that this sort of freedom is not theirs to give.[/quote]

This is all bullshit obfuscation. Men in the 18th Century who wore tights and face/hair powder were NOT feminine. Frederick the fucking Great wore tights and face/hair powder! As did the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy. I’m talking about masculinity and femininity not fashions/behaviours. The Spartans had long girly hair and used to get naked and rub oil on each other. This means nada. They were men. Masculinity is NOT a social construct. It’s biological reality.

77

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

Your dick is a biological fact. Your sex is usually a biological fact. How you speak, move, the roles you take on and even how you think to a large extent reflects how you see yourself fitting in to society.

Masculinity or femininity change with fashion. It was not so long ago that European men wore tights and powder wigs. Now they wear skinny jeans and product. Maybe not so much has changed after all?

If you see a straight, biological male wearing a dress (not a kilt), what do you think? There’s your evidence right there that gender is a social construct. What does it really matter if a man wears a dress or not? It doesn’t, yet most people would stare or even publicly ridicule a man in a dress. Hence, men don’t wear dresses. That’s a social construct.

Why do girls throw like girls? Do all girls throw like girls? If girls CAN throw like boys, then there isn’t a biological reason why girls throw like girls. They learn to throw like girls, just like they learn to bat their lashes, giggle around cute boys, show more empathy, sit down to pee, not be good at math, leave work when they marry, and refrain from voting. Oh wait… they DO do some of those things! How about that? Maybe the social constructs that define gender roles are changing?

I’m not convinced that the parents in this story understand this entirely. If they did, they would realise that this sort of freedom is not theirs to give.[/quote]

This is all bullshit obfuscation. Men in the 18th Century who wore tights and face/hair powder were NOT feminine. Frederick the fucking Great wore tights and face/hair powder! As did the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy. I’m talking about masculinity and femininity not fashions/behaviours. The Spartans had long girly hair and used to get naked and rub oil on each other. This means nada. They were men. Masculinity is NOT a social construct. It’s biological reality.[/quote]

Alright, so grow long girly hair, put on tights and make-up then get naked and try to rub oil on another man today. See what happens next.

If gender is a biological reality, what was masculine then should still be masculine today. Our biology hasn’t changed. What has?

78

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

If gender is a biological reality, what was masculine then should still be masculine today. Our biology hasn’t changed. What has?

[/quote]

What was masculine then IS still masculine. That’s why soldiers are considered masculine and male air hostesses are not. If soldiers wore tights and make up and male air hostesses wore khakis and boots nothing would change.

79

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

If gender is a biological reality, what was masculine then should still be masculine today. Our biology hasn’t changed. What has?

[/quote]

What was masculine then IS still masculine. That’s why soldiers are considered masculine and male air hostesses are not. If soldiers wore tights and make up and male air hostesses wore khakis and boots nothing would change.[/quote]

That’s not a biological reality. Males can be stewards and females can be soldiers. The fact that men are stronger than women (on average) might make them better soldiers, but that is not the argument (nor would I necessarily make that argument in this day and age).

80

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Duties and rights are two sides of the same coin.

If you postulate a right for yourself you infer that someone else has a duty not to violate it.

Since the concept of rights only makes sense in a social context, this is always the case.[/quote]

You make your own rights in the absence of law and order(outside a social context). John Wayne sums it up best in ‘The Shootist’:

‘I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I require the same from them.’[/quote]

Well, he quite clearly implies that these rules only apply if other people are around.

You demand from other people to respect your postulated rights, you cannot demand that a river does not drown you or that lightning does not strike you.

Insofar, everty right requires a social context.