Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: makattak on May 25, 2011, 01:37:22 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/24/genderless-child-creates-media-firestorm-toronto/
The parents of little 4 month old "Storm" are raising him " to be free of societal norms regarding gender."
What they are going to get is a confused child who grows up to be a maladjusted adult.
YOU DO NOT EXPERIMENT ON CHILDREN. Even your own. Scratch that, ESPECIALLY your own. They are not your property, they are under your care to raise them properly. You have a responsibility to them. You have a sacred duty to them. You don't decide to try some new way because you feel like society is oppressing the gender confused.
Mr. Chesterton says it far more eloquently:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
-
You're just not sex positive.
-
I'm trying to figure out who's changing its diapers ???
All I know is that we could give our girls a toy truck, and they would wrap it up in a blanket and cuddle it :lol:
-
YOU DO NOT EXPERIMENT ON CHILDREN. Even your own. Scratch that, ESPECIALLY your own.
Is this a general principle, or just in the field of gender?
You're just not sex positive.
I begin to wonder if you remember why I first used that term on this forum.
-
Is this a general principle, or just in the field of gender?
Non-experimentation on children is a general principle. If you want to push the idea of "experimentation," there are degrees like, "let's see if he likes lemon tarts" or "let's see if she likes green beans" (the answer for my daughter on that one is a RESOUNDING no). That can be a type of experimentation that is acceptable.
"Let's see if she can make it back to shore if we drop her in the lake" or "let's see what this unknown chemical does to him" would be an unacceptable type of experiment. These parents are engaged in this latter type.
-
How about "Let us see what this innovative method of schooling does?"
-
Is this a general principle, or just in the field of gender?
It's got to be a seat-of-the pants over-generalization based on a rage reaction, which I fully understand.
Proof by counterexample:
"How do you know you don't like it unless you try it?"
"Are you ready to take the training wheels off"
"How can we tell if the water is deeper than your boots are tall?"
"Sure, try the spelling test without studying. I'll stop bugging you, but I'm emailing the teacher for the test score"
Staying out of the gender crap, but child-rearing is just one experiment after another, with no guarantee of the finished product
eta- Yea, like he said.....
-
How about "Let us see what this innovative method of schooling does?"
That depends. Is it time-limited? Is it a massive departure from traditional schooling? (Incidentally, I find the much of public schooling for the past 40+ years mainly be a deplorable experiment on children.) Will there be time to rectifiy any deficiencies in the schooling after results have been observed?
It's got to be a seat-of-the pants over-generalization based on a rage reaction, which I fully understand.
Yes it was. I am extremely angry at the damage this child will suffer because his parents want to play at being gods.
-
That depends. Is it time-limited? Is it a massive departure from traditional schooling? (Incidentally, I find the much of public schooling for the past 40+ years mainly be a deplorable experiment on children.) Will there be time to rectifiy any deficiencies in the schooling after results have been observed?
The point is, schooling only advanced by experiments. Every time a school tries a new method, there is a chance the children will end up being uneducated in a new subjects, or will be raised as little monsters.
I'm unwilling to lose the forest from the trees here.
-
Do they plan to keep the kid in solitary confinement? If not, the other kids are going to find out and peer pressure will have its way. [popcorn]
-
YOU DO NOT EXPERIMENT ON CHILDREN.
Oh, I dunno. As long as they earmark the kid or tattoo his forehead or put one of those dog finder chips in his neck so we'll know it's him, it might be fun to watch.
-
Do they plan to keep the kid in solitary confinement? If not, the other kids are going to find out and peer pressure will have its way. [popcorn]
QFT
-
When it comes to what experiments are ok to try with children, I find myself asking if it's for my benefit or theirs. If it's for mine, it's not cool. For theirs, it's probably fine.
It's very hard for me to see any way in which this is really good for the child. Interesting for the parents, sure, in all kinds of ways, sure. Not ok, as far as I'm concerned.
-
It's very hard for me to see any way in which this is really good for the child.
It's not any good for the child. It's new age hippy bullshit "Oh, let's not let gender influence the child! Heaven help us should he grow up to be a normal boy, or a she a normal girl...let's make the poor child confused as hell when s/he gets get a little older!"
This isn't the first time this crackpot *expletive deleted*it has been done with a child, either...seems like every year I hear of a couple of news stories about f*expletive deleted*tards parents trying this *expletive deleted*it.
Whatever happened to raising a kid normally?
-
It's not any good for the child. It's new age hippy bull*expletive deleted* "Oh, let's not let gender influence the child! Heaven help us should he grow up to be a normal boy, or a she a normal girl...let's make the poor child confused as hell when s/he gets get a little older!"
This isn't the first time this crackpot *expletive deleted* has been done with a child, either...seems like every year I hear of a couple of news stories about *expletive deleted*tards parents trying this *expletive deleted*.
Whatever happened to raising a kid normally?
You're just being a mean ol' conservative. You probably kick puppies and cling to guns and religion as well. Need to be more progressive now that Obama is in the White House. [popcorn]
-
You probably kick puppies and cling to guns and religion as well
I actually hug puppies but have been known to kick a hippie and/or commie every now and then again.
-
Their viewpoint is quite strange.
It is more offensive that they decided to get notoriety for what they are doing.
Using a child to make a name for yourself is unforgivable.
-
Using a child to make a name for yourself is unforgivable.
With this I agree.
Using my children to help me relive (and reclaim) my childhood - I am guilty.
-
How dare these parents have non traditional views about gender. Everyone knows that common knowledge and tradition are right.
Let's save this child comrades!
-
How dare these parents have non traditional views about gender. Everyone knows that common knowledge and tradition are right.
Let's save this child comrades!
So you think the child should be taken away from those parents? I don't believe anyone else mentioned that.
-
So you think the child should be taken away from those parents? I don't believe anyone else mentioned that.
[/quote
De selby has yet to notice that some people reserve the right to disagree with and even disapprove of some things even while recognizing that we have no right to ban them.
-
Storm, Jazz and Kio. That's a great idea. Let's give our kids names that guarantee they will be harassed and get their asses kicked on a daily basis. ;/
-
I spend a lot of my days working in Juvenile Court. I have seen a lot of "genetic material donors" come through that have made me shake my head in disbelief at what they've done. But, gender-neutral? Call me crazy, but ain't the plumbing gonna tell the kid what he/she is? Why little Storm discovers that the plumbing is on the outside or the inside, ain't that gonna give it away? And, when Storm identifies with Johnny next door, or Ann across the street, then what are these geniuses going to do?
I see this as trouble brewing, for the family, the kid, or both. Time will tell, but I'm expecting problems down the road...
-
Storm, Jazz and Kio. That's a great idea. Let's give our kids names that guarantee they will be harassed and get their asses kicked on a daily basis. ;/
Well. . . this world is rough.
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough.
-
Well. . . this world is rough.
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough.
A girl, too =D
-
Well. . . this world is rough.
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough.
And I knew I wouldn't be there to help you along.
So I gave ya that name and said goodbye...
Sawdust
-
"A Girl Named Bill"
:lol:
-
Am I the only one who doesn't have an issue with this?
First of all, the kid will determine its own gender soon enough and make what mom and dad decide mote anyway.
The goal seems to be letting the kid find its own ideal of gender, not no gender for life.
My issue with these types of things is more along the line that they say 'no gender' and then raise the kids with a distinctly female approch. Which is not 'no gender'.
-
No, it's okay.
It's just these parents are a convenient target for some.
-
Am I the only one who doesn't have an issue with this?
First of all, the kid will determine its own gender soon enough and make what mom and dad decide mote anyway.
The goal seems to be letting the kid find its own ideal of gender, not no gender for life.
My issue with these types of things is more along the line that they say 'no gender' and then raise the kids with a distinctly female approch. Which is not 'no gender'.
How do you define "soon enough"?
What qualifications do a child of the age that you suppose will be "soon enough" have for making such decisions? What kind of experience will he have on which to base that decision?
How many years prior to that "soon enough" will intercede where the child is being given mixed, confusing signals and what role do those years have for creating a stable personality? Could we toss a child to the wolves for the first 5 years of his life and then fix all the deficiencies once he "decides" that he is a person?
-
How many years prior to that "soon enough" will intercede where the child is being given mixed, confusing signals and what role do those years have for creating a stable personality? Could we toss a child to the wolves for the first 5 years of his life and then fix all the deficiencies once he "decides" that he is a person?
What is a 'stable personality'?
Do you think humanity has failed if our children are not all five-to-nine-working, suit-and-tie-wearing marriage-and-children Republican voters?
-
What is a 'stable personality'?
Do you think humanity has failed if our children are not all five-to-nine-working, suit-and-tie-wearing marriage-and-children Republican voters?
No, but these parents (and our society if we encourage it) has failed that child if we encourage him to think (excuse me, "feel like") he is something that he is not.
-
Well, literature is rife with psychological damage of medically transgendered/hermaphroditic children being forced into the wrong gender by their parents.
So where does the supposition come from that it's not also harmful to not recognize the gender of a child who arguably does have an established gender?
Furthermore, even as a rather individualistic Libertarian, I still have to recognize that Homo Sapiens is a social mammal. Therefore, what the rest of your surrounding population and embedded culture thinks does matter, at least to a degree. And if someone wants to argue that gender roles are some sort of socially constructed artifice, we have had what amounts to double-blind control studies of sorts. Isolated indigenous people around the world that have gone without outside contact by other groups for thousands of years have all had gender identities/roles present in their societies.
Also, I'll go out on a limb and state that people who hold to the idea of gender as artifice, and feel it's "imposed" from without, generally tend to be liberal politically, and secular in outlook. As such one can assume that these people take a scientific/evolutionary view of human development.
So I'd have to ask, do the "natural" great apes have gender roles and identities? Don't juvenile gorilla and chimpanzee females cradle sticks, while the males throw them?
If someone seriously wants to argue that there is no risk of harm to their children, or any possibility that their "experiment" is unethical, I'd think they'd also have to agree that the The Tuskegee Syphilis Study wasn't harmful or unethical either. =|
No one should construe what I say to mean that this gives anyone, society, or family, the right to force a gender role/identity on someone who does not feel such a role is for them, and came to that conclusion of their own free will. At the same time though, I'd argue what these parents are doing through "inaction" is no less damaging.
-
we have had what amounts to double-blind control studies of sorts. Isolated indigenous people around the world that have gone without outside contact by other groups for thousands of years have all had gender identities/roles present in their societies.
Indeed and we have societies which are more ambiguous on this topic than our own, and even allow diversions from the binary model.
I do not subscribe to the model that 'gender is entirely learned/social', but it is also not entirely natural and binary either.
-
Storm, Jazz and Kio. That's a great idea. Let's give our kids names that guarantee they will be harassed and get their asses kicked on a daily basis. ;/
It's a hat-trick of stripperific names! ;/
-
Indeed and we have societies which are more ambiguous on this topic than our own, and even allow diversions from the binary model.
I do not subscribe to the model that 'gender is entirely learned/social', but it is also not entirely natural and binary either.
What... like the Xanith's of Oman and other ME nations?
(shrug) Presumably few, if any of them were forced into the Xanith role by their families, or were raised "gender neutral" in some sort of attempt to let the child find out if they wanted to be male, female, or xanith...
Just an opinion, but gender is about 90%+ natural and binary... And people mess with it at the peril of their children's ability to be a happy functioning adult.
-
I was thinking of those fellows in the Far East who live as a woman up to a certain age and then commence living as males. However I cannot for the life of me remember where they are or what they are called.
-
I was thinking of those fellows in the Far East who live as a woman up to a certain age and then commence living as males. However I cannot for the life of me remember where they are or what they are called.
It's an interesting question, whether consciousness of gender and policing its perceived requirements contributes to a person's confidence in their identity or destroys it.
I would not be surprised if some day researchers discover that the primary cause of gender identity crises is constant delineation and reinforcement of gender roles. Telling a boy what it means to be a man may lead him to question his gender whenever he has some tendency that doesn't comport with that vision, where he might have been perfectly comfortable otherwise.
-
Storm, Jazz and Kio. That's a great idea. Let's give our kids names that guarantee they will be harassed and get their asses kicked on a daily basis. ;/
That's the thing to do these days...give the kids really oddball names, or even "normal" names with very *expletive deleted*ed up spelling...
This is the kind of *expletive deleted*it that makes kids murder their parents in their sleep.
-
It's an interesting question, whether consciousness of gender and policing its perceived requirements contributes to a person's confidence in their identity or destroys it.
I would not be surprised if some day researchers discover that the primary cause of gender identity crises is constant delineation and reinforcement of gender roles. Telling a boy what it means to be a man may lead him to question his gender whenever he has some tendency that doesn't comport with that vision, where he might have been perfectly comfortable otherwise.
That's a good question.
Or, it could just be from being forced to live in a highly stratified sex-segregated society... like the ME or an American prison.