Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret

Off Topic
81

400×600 43.4 KB

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

[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?

[/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.”–LOL!!

However, I will somewhat back SM up here. Gender is a term that is new. The TERM ITSELF is a social construct, or more accurately, an academic construct. It seeks to distinguish between how a person acts (including the clothes they wear and their pasttimes) and the genetalia a person has. The entire point of the concept of gender is to “prove” (as if that can be done), that men and women are not different, and that difference = inequality. Despite what biologists and psychologists tell us (that men and women are different, in some very fundamental ways), “gender advocates” want us to believe that they are not different, they are essentially the same.

This is his point. We place too much emphasis on the action, not the person behind the action. In ancient Sparta, women didn’t get naked and rub oil on each other…THAT is what made the practice masculine. Today, men don’t wear tights and put on make-up … oh wait.

82

[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.

If someone reaches adulthood and decides that the gender idea doesn’t work for them and knowingly decides to reject it (as many have done), that’s awesome and even admirable. To force that on a child before they can decide for themselves or are aware of the societal implications of your decision for their life can almost be considered cruelty.

You don’t experiment with children.

Edit: There’s nothing wrong with raising your kid without favoring a gender as the parent (not buying them certain colors unless they specifically ask, letting them pick their own toys etc), but raising your kids as the opposite gender is experimentation and a pretty mean one at that.[/quote]

Pish posh.

All children are experiments. There is a huge difference between reading a book about rearing a child and actually rearing a child. Plenty of parents have changed ideas and methods between the 1st and 2nd or the 3rd and 4th, etc… I know plenty of instances where friends and family handle there children differently than I would handle mine. That doesn’t mean they are wrong and I am right. How many arguments are there over the efficacy of spanking a child? I imagine there are plenty of folks in the world who would declare spanking far more detrimental to development than ignoring gender. Similar arguments could be made for circumcision, discipline, labor, etc…

What these folks are doing with their kids is hardly news worthy, and barely comment worthy. Every child, teen, adult feels ostracism and misplacement it’s a part of growing up and adapting to new environments. Just because these parents are raising their children with little regard to gender doesn’t mean the idea will stick. The children will be experiencing new ideas and customs when they go to kindergarten. As the children start to speak, read, and write they will start questioning their parents. Social interaction will have a normalizing effect. All that really matters is that the parents love and support their kids while trying to do the best they can.

83

[quote]Waylander wrote:
Someone was eventually going to try it. I think it could be interesting what can be learnt from it, despite the fact that this child’s life will probably be fucked up. It might just put the argument of gender as social construct to rest.

Plus these guys are obviously morons, so at least they won’t be polluting the gene pool for too much longer.[/quote]

I know a lot of morons that breed like rabbits…

84

[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]

Well, with the advances in modern science, technology, and surgery that isn’t he truth it once was…

85

1697×2394 371 KB

[quote]byukid wrote:
I think the worst part may be that they named their kid Storm[/quote]

Maybe they have superhuman expectations…

86

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

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]

Well said.

87

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

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?[/quote]

+1 for experimenting on children.

I’m trying to teach all 4 of my nieces to throw and punch like boys. I’m pretty sure I can do it, but the oldest one is only 4 years old so we still have a lot of hand-eye coordination to work on. Their dads and I are all engineers so we’re tackling that math, science, and spacial analysis stuff to. And teaching them how to read and fold maps. And give directions…

88

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Was this some sort of jab at Troy Palomalu?

89

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

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?[/quote]

+1 for experimenting on children.

I’m trying to teach all 4 of my nieces to throw and punch like boys. I’m pretty sure I can do it, but the oldest one is only 4 years old so we still have a lot of hand-eye coordination to work on. Their dads and I are all engineers so we’re tackling that math, science, and spacial analysis stuff to. And teaching them how to read and fold maps. And give directions…[/quote]

Props if you can get them to throw like boys. After puberty it is going to be tough, however. I think it has something to do with their hips widening and angles.

90

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[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.

If someone reaches adulthood and decides that the gender idea doesn’t work for them and knowingly decides to reject it (as many have done), that’s awesome and even admirable. To force that on a child before they can decide for themselves or are aware of the societal implications of your decision for their life can almost be considered cruelty.

You don’t experiment with children.

Edit: There’s nothing wrong with raising your kid without favoring a gender as the parent (not buying them certain colors unless they specifically ask, letting them pick their own toys etc), but raising your kids as the opposite gender is experimentation and a pretty mean one at that.[/quote]

Pish posh.

All children are experiments. There is a huge difference between reading a book about rearing a child and actually rearing a child. Plenty of parents have changed ideas and methods between the 1st and 2nd or the 3rd and 4th, etc… I know plenty of instances where friends and family handle there children differently than I would handle mine. That doesn’t mean they are wrong and I am right. How many arguments are there over the efficacy of spanking a child? I imagine there are plenty of folks in the world who would declare spanking far more detrimental to development than ignoring gender. Similar arguments could be made for circumcision, discipline, labor, etc…

What these folks are doing with their kids is hardly news worthy, and barely comment worthy. Every child, teen, adult feels ostracism and misplacement it’s a part of growing up and adapting to new environments. Just because these parents are raising their children with little regard to gender doesn’t mean the idea will stick. The children will be experiencing new ideas and customs when they go to kindergarten. As the children start to speak, read, and write they will start questioning their parents. Social interaction will have a normalizing effect. All that really matters is that the parents love and support their kids while trying to do the best they can.[/quote]
You should read the article I posted earlier on these parents. The kids won’t be going to kindergarten… The parents are “unschooling” their kids.

91

[quote]swshko21 wrote:

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

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?[/quote]

+1 for experimenting on children.

I’m trying to teach all 4 of my nieces to throw and punch like boys. I’m pretty sure I can do it, but the oldest one is only 4 years old so we still have a lot of hand-eye coordination to work on. Their dads and I are all engineers so we’re tackling that math, science, and spacial analysis stuff to. And teaching them how to read and fold maps. And give directions…[/quote]

Props if you can get them to throw like boys. After puberty it is going to be tough, however. I think it has something to do with their hips widening and angles.[/quote]

Personally, I think there is a genetic defect in women that keeps the shoulder and the hips from being used simultaneously. That’s why their overhand throws are all wrist, elbow, shoulder. I hoping to prove that theory wrong. If I can teach them while they are still young enough to believe what I say, I might have a chance.

92

[quote]OBoile wrote:

You should read the article I posted earlier on these parents. The kids won’t be going to kindergarten… The parents are “unschooling” their kids.[/quote]

I read most of it. Even if home schooled their is still interaction with competing ideas. Neighbors, friends, books, TV, internet… Even if those outside influences are blocked there is still puberty, which will shake things up. Plus the “genderless” baby is gonna figure a few things out for his/herself when potty training rolls around. Personally, I’m more skeptical of the home schooling than the “gender vs society” issues. Parents tend to teach subjects they are good at and the easy generic stuff, like geography, fairly well. Meanwhile they gloss over or completely botch the more difficult subjects like physics, chemistry, algebra, and calculus. It’s easy to teach out of a workbook when the question and answer are right there in black and white. Math, Science, interpretations of historical events and literary works are a bit more complicated.

93

I believe many people are not correctly understanding the difference between role and identity. Many of these posts and what was mentioned in the video deal more with roles or how gender is played out in society. Just because gender is played out differently in society does not mean that gender is a construct of society. What many people do is find their identity in their role. For example, many men find their identity in their work, but their work is not what defines them. Many women find their identity in being a wife, but being a wife is not what defines them. Both of those examples illustrate ways people misunderstand the difference between role and identity. Being a wife or the work you do are roles that you have, not things that identify who you are.

Society misunderstands this difference. Society also tends to believe that to be equal, you have to be the same. Men and women are not the same, but they are equal. Racism exists because some people believe that you have to be the same to be equal. We do not have to look the same or be made the same to be equal. This is also played out with personality. You have people who believe that to be a man you have to be aggressive, big, strong, etc. However, these things do not accurately define a man. You can be a man who is those things, but those things are not what makes you a man. Men who are quieter and more artistic are not any less of a man than the previous example. To help illustrate this, look at some different coaches who are great leaders. You have some who are like Phil Jackson and don’t yell very much and seem more passive. Then you have others who are very aggressive and in their player’s faces like Pat Riley. Both are great coaches and the difference in their style is due to personality.

94

[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]

Men in the 18th Century wore tights ,wigs and face powder for the same reasons the women did: to hide blemishes/ infections from infrequent personal hygiene habits. The backsides of Spartan boys were given a thorough pummelling by their older male mentors as part of a rite of passage to become men (literally male bonding); a fact conveniently though understandably glossed over in 300 so as not to alienate the target audience of teenage boys.

95

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

You should read the article I posted earlier on these parents. The kids won’t be going to kindergarten… The parents are “unschooling” their kids.[/quote]

I read most of it. Even if home schooled their is still interaction with competing ideas. Neighbors, friends, books, TV, internet… Even if those outside influences are blocked there is still puberty, which will shake things up. Plus the “genderless” baby is gonna figure a few things out for his/herself when potty training rolls around. Personally, I’m more skeptical of the home schooling than the “gender vs society” issues. Parents tend to teach subjects they are good at and the easy generic stuff, like geography, fairly well. Meanwhile they gloss over or completely botch the more difficult subjects like physics, chemistry, algebra, and calculus. It’s easy to teach out of a workbook when the question and answer are right there in black and white. Math, Science, interpretations of historical events and literary works are a bit more complicated.[/quote]

I too am far more skeptical about the schooling aspect. But, its not “homeschooled” its “unschooled” as in the kids learn about whatever they want, not some sort of planed and organized curriculum.

I wouldn’t be worried about the kids “figuring things out”. More about how they will be treated when they’re teenagers and they go out in public in dresses. If they ever do go to a regular school they’re going to get eaten alive.

96

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
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.[/quote]

I don’t think you understood what I said. No one has a right to have a baby, because that would imply that someone has the obligation to have sex with that person. So…does anyone have the obligation to have sex with another person?

97

[quote]swshko21 wrote:

[quote]Bujo wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

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?[/quote]

+1 for experimenting on children.

I’m trying to teach all 4 of my nieces to throw and punch like boys. I’m pretty sure I can do it, but the oldest one is only 4 years old so we still have a lot of hand-eye coordination to work on. Their dads and I are all engineers so we’re tackling that math, science, and spacial analysis stuff to. And teaching them how to read and fold maps. And give directions…[/quote]

Props if you can get them to throw like boys. After puberty it is going to be tough, however. I think it has something to do with their hips widening and angles.[/quote]

There are biological and biomechanical differences between the sexes (as there are between individuals), but for most girls this is the least of their throwing problems. It will be interesting to see what this girls ends up throwing like: Chelsea Baker: One of Little League's Best Pitchers - YouTube

A note to Storm’s parents, Chelsea’s mom wanted her to be a beauty pageant queen!

98

I think some academics have that barrow to push, but on the whole I’m not sure that I would agree that this is “point” of gender in academia. I do think there is a problem with the way we conflate behaviour, roles, or personal identity with biology. We used to do the same thing with Fixed Action Patterns and social hierarchies in animals based on species (and sex), or what we expected would make sense from an evolutionary perspective.

In the NBC report two experts, at least one with a PhD (a psychiatrist) stated that males and females have different brains as if it were a proven scientific fact. This is a highly contested opinion on scientific grounds, not political grounds.

99

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Was this some sort of jab at Troy Palomalu?[/quote]

If he is in the change-rooms handing out rub-downs after a game, then yes. LOL!

100

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

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

That’s not even true for sex, let alone gender.
[/quote]

Please explain this. Because unless every biologist ever is wrong, XX=female, and XY=male, obviously there are some mutations, like XYY, but in every normal situation, if you chromosone pairs are XX, you are a female, and if they are XY, then you are a male. It doesnt matter if you wear a dress and say your a girl, if youve got XY in your DNA, you are in fact a male.