Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret

[otar]

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

defenderofTruth wrote: 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.

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.

Despite what biologists and psychologists tell us (that men and women are different, in some very fundamental ways)

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. [/quote]

The physiological differences in the male and female brain is not contested on scientific grounds nor is it an opinion. There are physical differences that cannot be ignored like the size of the female’s markedly larger corpus callosum .

[Tex_Ag]

[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]

Well stated!

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

defenderofTruth wrote: 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.

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.

Despite what biologists and psychologists tell us (that men and women are different, in some very fundamental ways)

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. [/quote]

A recent research (now a book, which I can try to find the name of if your interested) look at brain scans of babies (done for a different study) found the difference in brains of babies by sex are minute and the differences of male and female brains as adults bear evidence that the brain is an adaptive organ that will develop in ways that it needs to perform the tasks it is assigned. So gender roles (the teaching of what men do verse what women do) have a great influence on brain development (and lets remember that the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s).

[Tex_Ag]

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

There are lot more varieties of gene grouping than what you mentioned, and they are more common than you think. For example, guys with XXY is about 1 in every 2000 though not all show physical symptoms of it, like extra breast tissue, a more rounded (feminine) build. Wikipedia can be useful here. Also, there is the hormonal response to be considered here. Male bodies, in some case, do not process testosterone or its blocked (or something) and will develop visually as females. The there is the whole girls with testes instead of ovaries (inside the body). Visually, in both these cases the person would be considered female although there bodies internally say something else.

Also, about 1 out of every 10000 kids are born with not readily identifiable genitalia. Doctors will quickly alter the babies body to meet social convention. In case that the alteration is more profound the doctors then consult the parents.

[roybot]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

defenderofTruth wrote: 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.

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.

Despite what biologists and psychologists tell us (that men and women are different, in some very fundamental ways)

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. [/quote]

A recent research (now a book, which I can try to find the name of if your interested) look at brain scans of babies (done for a different study) found the difference in brains of babies by sex are minute and the differences of male and female brains as adults bear evidence that the brain is an adaptive organ that will develop in ways that it needs to perform the tasks it is assigned. So gender roles (the teaching of what men do verse what women do) have a great influence on brain development (and lets remember that the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s).
[/quote]

Neuroplasticity

[otar]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

There are lot more varieties of gene grouping than what you mentioned, and they are more common than you think. For example, guys with XXY is about 1 in every 2000 though not all show physical symptoms of it, like extra breast tissue, a more rounded (feminine) build. Wikipedia can be useful here. Also, there is the hormonal response to be considered here. Male bodies, in some case, do not process testosterone or its blocked (or something) and will develop visually as females. The there is the whole girls with testes instead of ovaries (inside the body). Visually, in both these cases the person would be considered female although there bodies internally say something else.

Also, about 1 out of every 10000 kids are born with not readily identifiable genitalia. Doctors will quickly alter the babies body to meet social convention. In case that the alteration is more profound the doctors then consult the parents.[/quote]

I think they have started phasing out doctors altering anyone’s genitals at birth due to a string of suicides, had to watch a documentary on that one. In addition you can have XY females and XX males if there is a crossover event in which the SRY portion of the Y chromosome gets transferred to an X chromosome in the sperm cell.

[DragnCarry]

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You conflated “sex” with “gender”, and ruled out the possibility of any changes to sex after conception with your statement quoted above. However I agree with the sentiment that, statistically speaking, sex is determined at conception.

[DragnCarry]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

defenderofTruth wrote: 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.

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.

Despite what biologists and psychologists tell us (that men and women are different, in some very fundamental ways)

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. [/quote]

A recent research (now a book, which I can try to find the name of if your interested) look at brain scans of babies (done for a different study) found the difference in brains of babies by sex are minute and the differences of male and female brains as adults bear evidence that the brain is an adaptive organ that will develop in ways that it needs to perform the tasks it is assigned. So gender roles (the teaching of what men do verse what women do) have a great influence on brain development (and lets remember that the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s).
[/quote]

Was it the book by Dr Cordelia Fine? A quick google of her name will lead to some interesting reading for anyone interested. She is one of the researchers contesting this view on scientific and not political grounds.

[SexMachine]

[quote]roybot wrote:

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. [/quote]

Actually the face powder was to hide small pox scars.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece:

Everything you think you know about homosexuals in ancient Greece is bullshit. The actual Attic word for homosexual is ‘kinaidos’, literally ‘causer of shame’

• Root: ‘Kineo’ - to move
• Stem: ‘Aidos’ - shame

Aido was the Goddess who punished moral transgressors.

source Liddell and Scott’s Advanced Greek Lexicon.

The Spartan laws are not known as they were transmitted via word of mouth. All we know of the Spartan constitution comes from Xenophon’s ‘The Politeia of the Spartans’ and it doesn’t cover laws relating to homosexuality. However we DO know about the laws in Athens, the most liberal citystate in all of Greece:

From Aeschines:

If any Athenian shall have ‘Etairese’(same sex relations) he shall not be permitted to:

1. Become one of the nine archons.

2. Nor to discharge the office of priest.

3. Nor to act as an advocate for the state.

4. Nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or election: he shall not be sent as a herald.

5. He shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices

6. He shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of illegal sexual activities contrary to these prohibitions he shall be put to death.

And Demosthenes:

…nor shall they have the right to speak, nor bring a charge before the court.

Plato’s Laws:

‘…male does not touch male for this purpose(sexual gratification) as it is unnatural’

and

‘When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is natural, but is contrary to nature(i.e. unnatural) when male unites with male or female unites with female, and those guilty of such enormities are impelled by their slavery to pleasure’

and

‘No one should sow any unholy and barren seed in sodomy’

Aesopos:

‘When Zeus created humans and their souls’ properties he ingrained them in every human being. However he left shame out. Since he didn’t know where to insert it, he commanded that it be inserted in the anus. From this day forth may every sexually inclined person who chooses this method be shameful!’

On homosexual depictions on Greek vases:

ALL depictions are of SATYRS - evil and degenerate demons.

Ancient Greek ‘scholars’ who have built up the lie that homosexuality was common place and normal in Greek society:

Walter Pater
Michael Foucault
John Boswell
John Winkler
David Halperin

ALL of them are/were homosexuals themselves!

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions.

[defenderofTruth]

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

defenderofTruth wrote: 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.

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.

Despite what biologists and psychologists tell us (that men and women are different, in some very fundamental ways)

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. [/quote]

A recent research (now a book, which I can try to find the name of if your interested) look at brain scans of babies (done for a different study) found the difference in brains of babies by sex are minute and the differences of male and female brains as adults bear evidence that the brain is an adaptive organ that will develop in ways that it needs to perform the tasks it is assigned. So gender roles (the teaching of what men do verse what women do) have a great influence on brain development (and lets remember that the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s).
[/quote]

I’d be interested to know if the author considered brain development as well. For example, the differences in secretions of sex hormones in pre-pubecent boys and girls are minor. It is only after puberty that secondary sex characteristics become noticable. I have three kids (2 girls, one boy), when they were born, they were all almost exactly the same size. My kids’ doctor mentioned that when kids are born, there are slight differences in size, wieght, etc. between girls and boys. As they grow, especially after 1 year, those differences become a little more pronounced. It is only once they reach puberty that the differences really start to show. Was this considered? Could the secretion of sex hormones that ramps up during puberty impact the development of the brain?

How can one jump to the conclusion that it is these roles thrust on us by society that causes such changes to a child’s brain? The variables, as you presented are too great to write off the impact of biological sex, and instead jump on the culture band wagon.

[defenderofTruth]

[quote]otar wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

There are lot more varieties of gene grouping than what you mentioned, and they are more common than you think. For example, guys with XXY is about 1 in every 2000 though not all show physical symptoms of it, like extra breast tissue, a more rounded (feminine) build. Wikipedia can be useful here. Also, there is the hormonal response to be considered here. Male bodies, in some case, do not process testosterone or its blocked (or something) and will develop visually as females. The there is the whole girls with testes instead of ovaries (inside the body). Visually, in both these cases the person would be considered female although there bodies internally say something else.

Also, about 1 out of every 10000 kids are born with not readily identifiable genitalia. Doctors will quickly alter the babies body to meet social convention. In case that the alteration is more profound the doctors then consult the parents.[/quote]

I think they have started phasing out doctors altering anyone’s genitals at birth due to a string of suicides, had to watch a documentary on that one. In addition you can have XY females and XX males if there is a crossover event in which the SRY portion of the Y chromosome gets transferred to an X chromosome in the sperm cell.[/quote]

I remember a Spanish Olympian who won the gold in the women’s 100H. When her drug tests came back, they noticed that she was a XY, and were threatening to strip her of her medals for being a tranny. However, she was obviously female, with no surgical alterations. At the same time, there was some guy who pressed the theory of a “supermale” with an XYY makeup. The theory was that most violent criminals had the XYY configuration. If I am not mistaken, someone wanted to use that theory to lock up all the guys with XYY configuration.

Along those lines, I remember several geneticists say that with sex, XY or XX provide the genetic blueprint, but physical situations within the babies development, particularly within the first three weeks or so, can alter the expression of those genes.

[defenderofTruth]

[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 wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss homeschooling.

Depending on the geographical region, homeschoolers generally fare better on benchmark assessments and have a higher acceptance rate into colleges than public and private school students do. For example, in Pennsylvania (a state which is homeschool friendly), homeschool students score Proficient (which is just passing) or Advanced on all tested categories on the PSSA in higher percentages than their public school counterparts (in areas where public schools aren’t very strong, the percentages are much higher). However, according to my sister (who lived and worked in Louisiana as an Army wife for 3 years), most homeschooling parents in Louisiana simply didn’t want their kids to have to go to school. Hence, homeschoolers didn’t fare as well.

[DragnCarry]

defenderofTruth wrote: How can one jump to the conclusion that it is these roles thrust on us by society that causes such changes to a child’s brain? The variables, as you presented are too great to write off the impact of biological sex, and instead jump on the culture band wagon.

No-one has jumped on the culture band wagon, but the evidence in favour of biology has been strongly contested on scientific grounds. This does not mean “it’s definitely culture” but it does mean “we actually can’t say that it’s biology”.

There used to be a belief that the brain developed based on fixed biological factors - it’s genetic blue-print. We now know that this is not true, and that our environments influence the brain far more than we used to think. If the studies claiming that there are biological differences between male and female brains is methodologically unsound then we can’t really put forward those claims.

[roybot]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

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. [/quote]

Actually the face powder was to hide small pox scars.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece:

Everything you think you know about homosexuals in ancient Greece is bullshit. The actual Attic word for homosexual is ‘kinaidos’, literally ‘causer of shame’

• Root: ‘Kineo’ - to move
• Stem: ‘Aidos’ - shame

Aido was the Goddess who punished moral transgressors.

source Liddell and Scott’s Advanced Greek Lexicon.

The Spartan laws are not known as they were transmitted via word of mouth. All we know of the Spartan constitution comes from Xenophon’s ‘The Politeia of the Spartans’ and it doesn’t cover laws relating to homosexuality. However we DO know about the laws in Athens, the most liberal citystate in all of Greece:

From Aeschines:

If any Athenian shall have ‘Etairese’(same sex relations) he shall not be permitted to:

1. Become one of the nine archons.

2. Nor to discharge the office of priest.

3. Nor to act as an advocate for the state.

4. Nor shall he hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad, whether filled by lot or election: he shall not be sent as a herald.

5. He shall not take part in debate, nor be present at the public sacrifices

6. He shall not enter within the limits of the place that has been purified for the assembling of the people. If any man who has been convicted of illegal sexual activities contrary to these prohibitions he shall be put to death.

And Demosthenes:

…nor shall they have the right to speak, nor bring a charge before the court.

Plato’s Laws:

‘…male does not touch male for this purpose(sexual gratification) as it is unnatural’

and

‘When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is natural, but is contrary to nature(i.e. unnatural) when male unites with male or female unites with female, and those guilty of such enormities are impelled by their slavery to pleasure’

and

‘No one should sow any unholy and barren seed in sodomy’

Aesopos:

‘When Zeus created humans and their souls’ properties he ingrained them in every human being. However he left shame out. Since he didn’t know where to insert it, he commanded that it be inserted in the anus. From this day forth may every sexually inclined person who chooses this method be shameful!’

On homosexual depictions on Greek vases:

ALL depictions are of SATYRS - evil and degenerate demons.

Ancient Greek ‘scholars’ who have built up the lie that homosexuality was common place and normal in Greek society:

Walter Pater
Michael Foucault
John Boswell
John Winkler
David Halperin

ALL of them are/were homosexuals themselves!

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions.[/quote]

Exactly what “misconceptions” are you pointing out? Poor personal hygiene was indeed a contributing factor; as for the Spartan issue, where did I call them ‘homosexuals’? Nice work on doing in-debate research btw. Going from a vague statement to a highly detailed one with references gave the game away.

[SexMachine]

[quote]roybot wrote:

Exactly what “misconceptions” are you pointing out? Poor personal hygiene was indeed a contributing factor; as for the Spartan issue, where did I call them ‘homosexuals’? Nice work on doing in-debate research btw. Going from a vague statement to a highly detailed one with references gave the game away.
[/quote]

What ‘misconceptions’? This one:

‘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)’

• Here’s the non-homo-freak-revisionist-scholar version:

‘Xenophon in his Constitution of the Lacedaimonians(Politeia of the Spartans) says that the relationship among Spartan man and boys ‘were opposed to’ pederasty, that man should make ‘ideal friends’ out of boys, and if the man was sexually attracted to the boy, it was considered ‘an abomination’ tantamount to incest’

and

‘Plutarch also describes the relationships as chaste, and states that it was as unthinkable for a ‘lover’(Platonic love) to sexually consummate a relationship with his beloved as for a father to do so with his own son’

Sorry, I forgot I’m supposed to carry these quotes around in my head and not do any research. I feel so foolish that I’ve given myself away. I must remind myself not to include the word ‘source’ followed by the place where I did my research. It gives the game away.

[roybot]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What ‘misconceptions’? This one:

‘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)’[/quote]

So I’m not allowed to make a tongue-in-cheek remark now?

• Here’s the non-homo-freak-revisionist-scholar version:

‘Xenophon in his Constitution of the Lacedaimonians(Politeia of the Spartans) says that the relationship among Spartan man and boys ‘were opposed to’ pederasty, that man should make ‘ideal friends’ out of boys, and if the man was sexually attracted to the boy, it was considered ‘an abomination’ tantamount to incest’

and

‘Plutarch also describes the relationships as chaste, and states that it was as unthinkable for a ‘lover’(Platonic love) to sexually consummate a relationship with his beloved as for a father to do so with his own son’

Your bias is pretty clear on this. The classical definitions of homosexuality and pederasty are not the same as modern ones. In fact, nobody knows quite how the ritual of paiderasteia operated, but it did exist.

The problem is that people (including you) are interpreting ‘pederast’ by its modern definition, and concluding that anybody who dares to suggest ancient Greeks indulged in pederasty are trying to promote a pro-gay agenda. It’s a little more complicated than that.

[quote]
Sorry, I forgot I’m supposed to carry these quotes around in my head and not do any research. I feel so foolish that I’ve given myself away. I must remind myself not to include the word ‘source’ followed by the place where I did my research. It gives the game away.[/quote]

Don’t be facetious. You gave a source after a definition. If you have to go away to research a topic on the hoof to win an argument maybe you shouldn’t be arguing in the first place… you certainly aren’t in a position to make condescending remarks like “I hope this clears up your misconceptions”, when you only just looked up the info yourself.

EDIT: If your sources classify satyrs as “evil, degenerate demons” then you should not be basing any kind of an argument on them. We can get into that in greater depth if you want.

[otar]

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]otar wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

There are lot more varieties of gene grouping than what you mentioned, and they are more common than you think. For example, guys with XXY is about 1 in every 2000 though not all show physical symptoms of it, like extra breast tissue, a more rounded (feminine) build. Wikipedia can be useful here. Also, there is the hormonal response to be considered here. Male bodies, in some case, do not process testosterone or its blocked (or something) and will develop visually as females. The there is the whole girls with testes instead of ovaries (inside the body). Visually, in both these cases the person would be considered female although there bodies internally say something else.

Also, about 1 out of every 10000 kids are born with not readily identifiable genitalia. Doctors will quickly alter the babies body to meet social convention. In case that the alteration is more profound the doctors then consult the parents.[/quote]

I think they have started phasing out doctors altering anyone’s genitals at birth due to a string of suicides, had to watch a documentary on that one. In addition you can have XY females and XX males if there is a crossover event in which the SRY portion of the Y chromosome gets transferred to an X chromosome in the sperm cell.[/quote]

I remember a Spanish Olympian who won the gold in the women’s 100H. When her drug tests came back, they noticed that she was a XY, and were threatening to strip her of her medals for being a tranny. However, she was obviously female, with no surgical alterations. At the same time, there was some guy who pressed the theory of a “supermale” with an XYY makeup. The theory was that most violent criminals had the XYY configuration. If I am not mistaken, someone wanted to use that theory to lock up all the guys with XYY configuration.

Along those lines, I remember several geneticists say that with sex, XY or XX provide the genetic blueprint, but physical situations within the babies development, particularly within the first three weeks or so, can alter the expression of those genes. [/quote]

Yea if she was XY her Y chromosome was likely missing sex determining region Y thus she developed as a female. As for XYY and XXX individuals these people are almost always just normal people, the vast vast majority have no idea they have an extra chromosome. I believe both have a slightly increased chance of less than average mental development but for the most part are pretty normal. I can’t find any research on increased violence in XYY individuals.

Edit: Also if anyone was serious about locking up all XYY individuals since it happens in about 1/1000 males (pretty common as far as genetic disorders go) they’d be talking about imprisoning about 160K people.

[SexMachine]

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What ‘misconceptions’? This one:

‘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)’[/quote]

So I’m not allowed to make a tongue-in-cheek remark now?

• Here’s the non-homo-freak-revisionist-scholar version:

‘Xenophon in his Constitution of the Lacedaimonians(Politeia of the Spartans) says that the relationship among Spartan man and boys ‘were opposed to’ pederasty, that man should make ‘ideal friends’ out of boys, and if the man was sexually attracted to the boy, it was considered ‘an abomination’ tantamount to incest’

and

‘Plutarch also describes the relationships as chaste, and states that it was as unthinkable for a ‘lover’(Platonic love) to sexually consummate a relationship with his beloved as for a father to do so with his own son’

Your bias is pretty clear on this. The classical definitions of homosexuality and pederasty are not the same as modern ones. In fact, nobody knows quite how the ritual of paiderasteia operated, but it did exist.

The problem is that people (including you) are interpreting ‘pederast’ by its modern definition, and concluding that anybody who dares to suggest ancient Greeks indulged in pederasty are trying to promote a pro-gay agenda. It’s a little more complicated than that.

[quote]
Sorry, I forgot I’m supposed to carry these quotes around in my head and not do any research. I feel so foolish that I’ve given myself away. I must remind myself not to include the word ‘source’ followed by the place where I did my research. It gives the game away.[/quote]

Don’t be facetious. You gave a source after a definition. If you have to go away to research a topic on the hoof to win an argument maybe you shouldn’t be arguing in the first place… you certainly aren’t in a position to make condescending remarks like “I hope this clears up your misconceptions”, when you only just looked up the info yourself.

EDIT: If your sources classify satyrs as “evil, degenerate demons” then you should not be basing any kind of an argument on them. We can get into that in greater depth if you want. [/quote]

A satyr is a mythical creature associated with ‘subversive and dangerous’ behaviour. Is that better? Sounds close enough to demon to me.

Also, don’t give me any semantics bullshit or I’ll go and get Liddell and Scott and translate every fucking word with every conjugation and declension. Every quote I have given is clear as sunshine and Xenophon sent his own sons to Sparta to be raised.

Lastly, I didn’t mean to be condescending. Revisionist history is a pet hate of mine.

[Bujo]

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[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.[/quote]

“Homeschooled.” “Unschooled.” They are just buzz words. They mean the same thing. The parents are taking on the responsibility of educating their children instead of using a public or private establishment. I know a few people who are taking a similar route with their kids. It’s a “you walk the dog or the dog walks you” situation. The kids can dictate the direction of the class instead of he parents/teachers. The kids always seem to have fun, and they are learning in a general sense. Still the skill and knowledge base of the parents will be a deciding factor in how well the children are prepared for life outside the home. Eventually the kids will have to sit down and decide are they going to do something useful with their lives or are they going to be liberal arts majors. It would be sad if the kids were forced down the path of liberal arts major because their parents didn’t/couldn’t teach them anything useful.

[Bujo]

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

[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!
[/quote]

I wish I could watch the vid but bandwidth is pretty limited.

I get that there are all kinds of differences between boys and girls, and men and women. Mental. Physical. Metaphysical. Tangible. Intangible. I’m not trying to write a doctoral thesis. I’m just experimenting on children.