Principia Discordia

Oh, what the fuck.....
:roll:
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112--parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret

that is -bad parenting-
IMO, these people got an outlandish idea in their heads and decided to roll with it, despite the onslaught of valid and important arguments against it, and at the cost of their child's well being.

They named the child storm.  :horrormirth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw&feature=fvst

Not saying a fucking word.......   :argh!:

Meh.

Well, I probably wouldn't do it to any kids I would have... but I think they brought up some valid points about social assumptions. If nothing else, its an interesting social experiment. If their kids went to school, I think it would be a very bad idea. Since they don't, well...

"To each their own" said the old lady as she kissed the cow.

If the kid socializes at all it is a bad idea.  and not socializing your kids at all is also a bad idea.

Sure there are bullshit assumptions about gender, it's still a real thing and poor Storm is gonna have all sorts of issues when e grows up.

 :lulz: hippies.

and the father teaches at a school that teaches "through the lens of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability," social justice issues and where everyone's a winner, and competition is likely taught to be the root cause of all of the world's problems.

Wonder how they work in any meaningful mathematics and science curriculum based around "social justice".

Well, Starbucks will always need people to work for them while they await their imminent discovery as a talented, world famous artist.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 03:13:44 PM
If the kid socializes at all it is a bad idea.  and not socializing your kids at all is also a bad idea.

Sure there are bullshit assumptions about gender, it's still a real thing and poor Storm is gonna have all sorts of issues when e grows up.

Depends on the kind of groups they socialize with. Besides they're 5, 2 and <1... if they make their decision well before puberty, they may be just fine.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 03:22:02 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 03:13:44 PM
If the kid socializes at all it is a bad idea.  and not socializing your kids at all is also a bad idea.

Sure there are bullshit assumptions about gender, it's still a real thing and poor Storm is gonna have all sorts of issues when e grows up.

Depends on the kind of groups they socialize with. Besides they're 5, 2 and <1... if they make their decision well before puberty, they may be just fine.

They'll get to school, and have gender identity inflicted upon them.  Kids are fucking vicious about that sort of shit.

Quote from: Luna on May 24, 2011, 03:23:24 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 03:22:02 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 03:13:44 PM
If the kid socializes at all it is a bad idea.  and not socializing your kids at all is also a bad idea.

Sure there are bullshit assumptions about gender, it's still a real thing and poor Storm is gonna have all sorts of issues when e grows up.

Depends on the kind of groups they socialize with. Besides they're 5, 2 and <1... if they make their decision well before puberty, they may be just fine.

They'll get to school, and have gender identity inflicted upon them.  Kids are fucking vicious about that sort of shit.

You don't even need that last part.  The GF just started substitute teaching the last few months and some of the stories she brings home reminds me all over again of my own childhood and how vicious kids can be.

Parents who decide to turn their children into social experiments need to be tied to snow plows in the Colorado Rockies in December.

kid probably gonna be bullied more than average.

this story reminds me of that kid from eastern asia which has had three arms instead of two. all three arms seemed to be fully functional. the parents let the third arm be cut off, so the kid could live a normal life. i didn't follow that story further.

storm's parents confront themselves with a similiar question. they have to decide for their kid to be either outstanding and revolutionary with a high probability of future media attention and so on, or to be raised like everyone else, with the possibility of being normal. i say revolutionary because i think there's lot of potential to improve the gender system of the world i know. and saying "fu i'm neither male nor female" seems to be one step in the right direction.

of course that experiment could go terribly wrong and the kid could sustain lasting damages because of it or commit suicide or whatever. and it would be the parents fault, without question. on the other hand, imagine how many kids probably sustain lasting damages by being put into a bipolar gender system. even if this is totally socially accepted. maybe even because it is socially accepted.

I wish the parents and their kids good luck. oh and btw i think storm is a boy.

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 03:35:54 PM
Parents who decide to turn their children into social experiments need to be tied to snow plows in the Colorado Rockies in December.

This. Kids are not lab rats.

Quote from: Luna on May 24, 2011, 03:23:24 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 03:22:02 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 03:13:44 PM
If the kid socializes at all it is a bad idea.  and not socializing your kids at all is also a bad idea.

Sure there are bullshit assumptions about gender, it's still a real thing and poor Storm is gonna have all sorts of issues when e grows up.

Depends on the kind of groups they socialize with. Besides they're 5, 2 and <1... if they make their decision well before puberty, they may be just fine.

They'll get to school, and have gender identity inflicted upon them.  Kids are fucking vicious about that sort of shit.

According to the article they aren't going to go to school. They're going to have some kind of experimental education. (I think that's more of a concern than their gender ID :| )

Well, at least the kids are gonna get a best-selling memoir out of this one day.

Heh, I like the idea, it's at least cool that they are doing it.

The kids may have it a little rougher when they do start socialising more, but I'm sure they'll get through it, be a little smarter for having realized conforming is optional, and turn out to be some what more interesting and self-comfortable/confident than most people on this planet. It's just a guess, but I don't imagine they'll be going to their first day of middle school in a dress, or refusing to tell their gender too long. Fucking with peoples assumptions is fun, but it is also a lot of effort and I don't know how much I'd have appreciated it at that age, because I never thought about it until I cut my hair short around 15.

Plus, having just had a long discussion about female infanticide + social constructs/social stigma in India,

e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301

it's nice to see someone drawing attention to the fact that the gender might not be the most important thing to know about a child.

Also, you gotta think, there's a lot of tom boys around these days, and they don't really draw that much attention. But it's worse to think about isn't it, the stigma a boy dressing as a girl would face...?

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 24, 2011, 04:03:36 PM
Well, at least the kids are gonna get a best-selling memoir out of this one day.

No, they will grow up to host a show on OWN.

Stupid parents are stupid.  

And they also aren't giving their child much credit.  

It matters less how they are viewed and treated by strangers and matters more how the parents view and treat the child.  If you foster the ability of your child to grow up and become their own person, and to be proud of the person they are becoming, it means fuck-all what others' preconceived notions of the child are.  They can't protect their child from every problem with society, big or small.  And this really isn't a battle worth fighting as it is likely to create more scars for the child, not less.

My daughter, on her own, decided she was going to be a little girl that liked to play with Thomas Trains instead of Barbies and baby dolls.  My son, on his own, has decided he likes to play Kitchen.  I didn't have to do anything special to keep them from locking into the typical boy and girl stereotypes.  They just did what they did and do what they do.  And even if my daughter had become a Barbie girl, and even if my boy was the typical Tonka Truck boy, so the fuck what?  If that's who they want to be, and they are comfortable in their own skin, fuck the rest of society.  

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 04:06:01 PM
Stupid parents are stupid.  

And they also aren't giving their child much credit.  

It matters less how they are viewed and treated by strangers and matters more how the parents view and treat the child.  If you foster the ability of your child to grow up and become their own person, and to be proud of the person they are becoming, it means fuck-all what others' preconceived notions of the child are.  They can't protect their child from every problem with society, big or small.  And this really isn't a battle worth fighting as it is likely to create more scars for the child, not less.

My daughter, on her own, decided she was going to be a little girl that liked to play with Thomas Trains instead of Barbies and baby dolls.  My son, on his own, has decided he likes to play Kitchen.  I didn't have to do anything special to keep them from locking into the typical boy and girl stereotypes.  They just did what they did and do what they do.  And even if my daughter had become a Barbie girl, and even if my boy was the typical Tonka Truck boy, so the fuck what?  If that's who they want to be, and they are comfortable in their own skin, fuck the rest of society.  

Oh dear god, your son is going to grow up to be ECH.

I actually am not in favor of having children "explore their gender", as these parents seem to be. The idea of keeping a small child genderless is fine and harmless, IMO: without social pressures they don't naturally really become aware of sex or gender until about age 4, but these kids seem to be unusually gender-aware.

Quote"What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious," says Stocker.

What a hypocrite. Not only must parents make decisions for their children, but by using their children to play out a social experiment and making them aware of gender roles at an unusually early age, they are doing exactly what they claim to decry.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
I actually am not in favor of having children "explore their gender", as these parents seem to be the idea of keeping a small child genderless is fine and harmless, IMO: without social pressures they don't naturally really become aware of sex or gender until about age 4, but these kids seem to be unusually gender-aware.

Quote"What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It's obnoxious," says Stocker.

What a hypocrite. Not only must parents make decisions for their children, but by using their children to play out a social experiment and making them aware of gender roles at an unusually early age, they are doing exactly what they claim to decry.

I thought exactly the same thing when I read that.

Quote from: Weltbürger (NSFW) on May 24, 2011, 03:59:09 PM
storm's parents confront themselves with a similiar question. they have to decide for their kid...

That's the problem right there and why this is all wrong.  They shouldn't be deciding for their kid that the kid is going to be genderless.  That is something the child can decide on their own when they are old enough to understand what it means and if that is something they want to do.  Parents need to shape their kids in certain areas, such as how to be a safe person, how to be a kind person when dealing with others, etc., etc.,

But the parents should not be imposing their gender-based ideology upon a young defenseless child.  

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 24, 2011, 04:03:36 PM
Well, at least the kids are gonna get a best-selling memoir out of this one day.

:lulz:

The kids will probably be fine, just as a large percentage of my entire generation, raised by fucking hippies, is fine.

It's not like this has never been done before. At least these stupid hippies aren't trying to do communal childrearing, which is almost always just an excuse for parents not to take responsibility and bond with their children as nature intended.

Fucking stupid hippies.

Quote from: frogsicle on May 24, 2011, 04:04:54 PM
Heh, I like the idea, it's at least cool that they are doing it.

The kids may have it a little rougher when they do start socialising more, but I'm sure they'll get through it, be a little smarter for having realized conforming is optional, and turn out to be some what more interesting and self-comfortable/confident than most people on this planet. It's just a guess, but I don't imagine they'll be going to their first day of middle school in a dress, or refusing to tell their gender too long. Fucking with peoples assumptions is fun, but it is also a lot of effort and I don't know how much I'd have appreciated it at that age, because I never thought about it until I cut my hair short around 15.

Sure, fucking with people's assumptions is fun, when you are aware that you are doing it.  In this case, the parents are doing the fucking using their child as their proxy.  It's just not right.  It's no better than the WBC or some anti-abortion outfit using unwitting children as pawns to spread their ideological message. 

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 04:10:45 PM
That's the problem right there and why this is all wrong.  They shouldn't be deciding for their kid that the kid is going to be genderless.  That is something the child can decide on their own when they are old enough to understand what it means and if that is something they want to do.  Parents need to shape their kids in certain areas, such as how to be a safe person, how to be a kind person when dealing with others, etc., etc.,

But the parents should not be imposing their gender-based ideology upon a young defenseless child.  

this is a valid point. maybe i 've mistaken letting someone decide for making someone decide.

maybe the most useful result of that experiment will be the public discussions about it.

Quote from: Weltbürger (NSFW) on May 24, 2011, 04:19:10 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 04:10:45 PM
That's the problem right there and why this is all wrong.  They shouldn't be deciding for their kid that the kid is going to be genderless.  That is something the child can decide on their own when they are old enough to understand what it means and if that is something they want to do.  Parents need to shape their kids in certain areas, such as how to be a safe person, how to be a kind person when dealing with others, etc., etc.,

But the parents should not be imposing their gender-based ideology upon a young defenseless child.  

this is a valid point. maybe i 've mistaken letting someone decide for making someone decide.

maybe the most useful result of that experiment will be the public discussions about it.

Yeah, generally speaking, 4 month olds aren't really capable of deciding much.  So it's going to be hard for Storm to have a say as to whether or not he/she participates in this cockamamey experiment.

An experiment, which by the way, has already failed miserably if you read the whole article.  They talk about how tiring this whole thing is because of how often they have to explain it to other people.  This experiment is a failure because it places even MORE emphasis and importance on gender than if they had just left it alone.  If you raise a curious and self-assured child, it matters fuck-all what other people think about their gender.  The child defines who he/she is.  They should concentrate their time on imparting THAT message to their children instead of engaging in goofy nonsense. 

Hrmmm, I got a slightly different view from what the parents were saying. It didn't seem to me that they were saying "Child should be genderless" but rather:

We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share"

QuoteJazz doesn't mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn't like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he's a boy.

I mean to me it seems that they aren't enforcing gender stereotypes... ie, if you want to have long hair and wear a dress, go for it. The 5 year old seems to get that he's a boy and is comfortable with his gender... he's just also comfortable with wearing what he likes and doing what he likes.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Hrmmm, I got a slightly different view from what the parents were saying. It didn't seem to me that they were saying "Child should be genderless" but rather:

We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share"

QuoteJazz doesn't mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn't like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he's a boy.

I mean to me it seems that they aren't enforcing gender stereotypes... ie, if you want to have long hair and wear a dress, go for it. The 5 year old seems to get that he's a boy and is comfortable with his gender... he's just also comfortable with wearing what he likes and doing what he likes.

You don't think it really odd that he wants his parents to write a note saying he is a boy?

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 04:40:20 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Hrmmm, I got a slightly different view from what the parents were saying. It didn't seem to me that they were saying "Child should be genderless" but rather:

We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share"

QuoteJazz doesn't mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn't like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he's a boy.

I mean to me it seems that they aren't enforcing gender stereotypes... ie, if you want to have long hair and wear a dress, go for it. The 5 year old seems to get that he's a boy and is comfortable with his gender... he's just also comfortable with wearing what he likes and doing what he likes.

You don't think it really odd that he wants his parents to write a note saying he is a boy?

Well, the way I read that was that based on his choice of clothes etc he looks like a girl, but since he likes these people, he wants them to know he's a boy. Maybe he tried to say "I'm a boy" and the people just thought he was confused. I dunno, without the full story,  its hard to say.

When I first heard about this I thought "WHy the fuck would anyone else care what someone else does with their kid if they aren't beating it?"... which is my basic 'MYOFB' philosophy.

Then it later occurred to me... how did the news outlets even discover this story? 

Then it began to leave a bad taste in my mouth.



Oh, and I didn't read the link in the OP, since I had read others... did this one mention the parent's philosophy of "unteaching"?

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Hrmmm, I got a slightly different view from what the parents were saying. It didn't seem to me that they were saying "Child should be genderless" but rather:

We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share"

QuoteJazz doesn't mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn't like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he's a boy.

I mean to me it seems that they aren't enforcing gender stereotypes... ie, if you want to have long hair and wear a dress, go for it. The 5 year old seems to get that he's a boy and is comfortable with his gender... he's just also comfortable with wearing what he likes and doing what he likes.

Sorry but I think that's bullshit.  Kids that age aren't barraged with gender-stereotype messages without the parent's knowledge.  That is, unless they are dropping off their toddlers at the Mall for hours on end or letting the TV babysit them.  No, if a parent is doing what a normal parent does, messages are being filtered by the parent.  Your little child sees all the girls playing with dolls but says she doesn't want to play with dolls, that's when you explain to her that she can play with whatever she wants to play with.  Just because those girls are playing with dolls doesn't mean ALL girls have to play with dolls.  I didn't have to put my daughter through some stupid sociological experiment to get that point across when she asked those questions.  

Again, I think they are basically saying that their kids aren't going to be smart enough or strong enough on their own to navigate gender and to decide what it means for them.  So they need to help them by keeping them in the dark for awhile.  Like gender is some kind of behavioral health disorder and they need to stage an early intervention.  You raise self-assured kids with good heads on their shoulders you don't need to put them through stupid experiments that are likely going to scar them for life.  Or at least for most of their childhood.  

Just when you think you've seen it all someone goes and invents a whole new kind if retarded. We live in a brave new world where we'll probably never run out of dumb shit to laugh at :lulz:

You don't even have to explain anything about dolls. You just get your kid the toys they prefer to play with, and let it go from there. These parents are deliberately introducing gender concepts to children young and isolated enough that they would otherwise not know or care.

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 04:54:03 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Hrmmm, I got a slightly different view from what the parents were saying. It didn't seem to me that they were saying "Child should be genderless" but rather:

We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share"

QuoteJazz doesn't mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn't like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he's a boy.

I mean to me it seems that they aren't enforcing gender stereotypes... ie, if you want to have long hair and wear a dress, go for it. The 5 year old seems to get that he's a boy and is comfortable with his gender... he's just also comfortable with wearing what he likes and doing what he likes.

Sorry but I think that's bullshit.  Kids that age aren't barraged with gender-stereotype messages without the parent's knowledge.  That is, unless they are dropping off their toddlers at the Mall for hours on end or letting the TV babysit them.  No, if a parent is doing what a normal parent does, messages are being filtered by the parent.  Your little child sees all the girls playing with dolls but says she doesn't want to play with dolls, that's when you explain to her that she can play with whatever she wants to play with.  Just because those girls are playing with dolls doesn't mean ALL girls have to play with dolls.  I didn't have to put my daughter through some stupid sociological experiment to get that point across when she asked those questions.  

Again, I think they are basically saying that their kids aren't going to be smart enough or strong enough on their own to navigate gender and to decide what it means for them.  So they need to help them by keeping them in the dark for awhile.  Like gender is some kind of behavioral health disorder and they need to stage an early intervention.  You raise self-assured kids with good heads on their shoulders you don't need to put them through stupid experiments that are likely going to scar them for life.  Or at least for most of their childhood.  

Valid points, RWHN.

These people are setting their children up to be ridiculed for most of their lives.  

I am more than willing to bet these kids will run as fast as they can when they graduate, change their names and never look back.

That's what I would do  :|

I will grant the parents that their hearts are probably in the right place.

Their minds, however, are clearly somewhere in the Kuiper belt. 

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:45:23 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 04:40:20 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:35:57 PM
Hrmmm, I got a slightly different view from what the parents were saying. It didn't seem to me that they were saying "Child should be genderless" but rather:

We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share"

QuoteJazz doesn't mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn't like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he's a boy.

I mean to me it seems that they aren't enforcing gender stereotypes... ie, if you want to have long hair and wear a dress, go for it. The 5 year old seems to get that he's a boy and is comfortable with his gender... he's just also comfortable with wearing what he likes and doing what he likes.

You don't think it really odd that he wants his parents to write a note saying he is a boy?

Well, the way I read that was that based on his choice of clothes etc he looks like a girl, but since he likes these people, he wants them to know he's a boy. Maybe he tried to say "I'm a boy" and the people just thought he was confused. I dunno, without the full story,  its hard to say.

Most likely, he gets a lot of approval from his parents for not following traditional gender roles, so as much as he would like to be recognized as a boy, parental approval outweighs that.

These parents are totally sick fucks who have no idea how the brains of developing children work. They aren't tiny housemates; their very biological development is dependent on parental approval. The parents are setting up a conflict in which the child must defy social gender roles to win their approval.

I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Quote from: Hoopla on May 24, 2011, 04:51:34 PM
When I first heard about this I thought "WHy the fuck would anyone else care what someone else does with their kid if they aren't beating it?"... which is my basic 'MYOFB' philosophy.

Then it later occurred to me... how did the news outlets even discover this story? 

Then it began to leave a bad taste in my mouth.



Oh, and I didn't read the link in the OP, since I had read others... did this one mention the parent's philosophy of "unteaching"?

Yeah... this isn't news. And it's been done before... I specifically remember hippies of my mom's generation being on this gender-ambiguity thing (which is a little different, because these parents are teaching their kids about gender roles and actively encouraging them to defy them).

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

HEY THERE KAI!  WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS?


:popcorn:

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Why?

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:15:44 PM
I will grant the parents that their hearts are probably in the right place.

Their minds, however, are clearly somewhere in the Kuiper belt. 

I would believe the parents' hearts were in the right place if I heard about this from a friend... the fact that it is in city newspapers worries me.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Quote from: Hoopla on May 24, 2011, 05:19:29 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:15:44 PM
I will grant the parents that their hearts are probably in the right place.

Their minds, however, are clearly somewhere in the Kuiper belt. 

I would believe the parents' hearts were in the right place if I heard about this from a friend... the fact that it is in city newspapers worries me.

Good point. 

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

This.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

And the 4-month old agreed to this? 

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 04:11:08 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 24, 2011, 04:03:36 PM
Well, at least the kids are gonna get a best-selling memoir out of this one day.

:lulz:

The kids will probably be fine, just as a large percentage of my entire generation, raised by fucking hippies, is fine.

It's not like this has never been done before. At least these stupid hippies aren't trying to do communal childrearing, which is almost always just an excuse for parents not to take responsibility and bond with their children as nature intended.

Fucking stupid hippies.

Depends on how it's done.  Extended family is traditional and has tended to work well.  Something similar in a commune setting can also work well.  IE This is mom and dad, these are your many aunts and uncles.  No mom and dad, or a crapload of them sounds pretty awful.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

Which really only serves to draw attention to the gender, doesn't it?

Isn't it counterproductive?

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:34:36 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

And the 4-month old agreed to this? 

Trust me, if that kid has a winkie, he will be talking about it soon enough.  They all do.

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

It's not the treatment of the 4-month-old that is so telling, it's the older children. A baby doesn't have a gender, it has a sex and gender roles don't exist for infants aside from those imposed by family and society. I am not opposed to concealing an infant's sex from onlookers. But they are giving the message to their older kids that their approval is based partly or largely on gender role defiance and/or ambiguity, and so, naturally, the kids are going to do what kids do, which is seek approval from their parents by acting out the roles that have been defined for them, in this case creating a dissonance between what the oldest child wants (social recognition of being a boy) and what the parents want (a child who defies gender roles).

Is it really so hard to see what they're doing wrong?

Quote from: Hoopla on May 24, 2011, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

Which really only serves to draw attention to the gender, doesn't it?

Isn't it counterproductive?

YES.

And, in addition, they are seeking publicity. Bad move.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:38:29 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

It's not the treatment of the 4-month-old that is so telling, it's the older children. A baby doesn't have a gender, it has a sex and gender roles don't exist for infants aside from those imposed by family and society. I am not opposed to concealing an infant's sex from onlookers. But they are giving the message to their older kids that their approval is based partly or largely on gender role defiance and/or ambiguity, and so, naturally, the kids are going to do what kids do, which is seek approval from their parents by acting out the roles that have been defined for them, in this case creating a dissonance between what the oldest child wants (social recognition of being a boy) and what the parents want (a child who defies gender roles).

Is it really so hard to see what they're doing wrong?

Sounds like what they are doing is actually a mirror image of what they are trying to point out as wrong.

Trans and genderqueer children get forced into gender roles that don't fit them through basically exactly this process.

I was a very tomboy when I was a kid, and my mom found it pleasing when people assumed I was a boy because it satisfied her egotistical requirement to be noticed as a parent who "wasn't reinforcing gender roles". But I didn't want to be assumed to be a boy, because I wasn't. I wanted to wear pretty princess clothes, and ruin them in trees and dirt. My mom was reinforcing gender role stereotypes by making me be perceived as a boy rather than allowing me to be a girl who played in trees and dirt.

Attaching a sex (male or female) to behavior (playing in trees and dirt or playing with pretty clothes and dollhouses) reinforces gender role stereotyping. It doesn't break it down. Sex is biologically determined. Behavior is not, and enforcing sex-linked behavior expectation is stupid.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 05:43:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:38:29 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

It's not the treatment of the 4-month-old that is so telling, it's the older children. A baby doesn't have a gender, it has a sex and gender roles don't exist for infants aside from those imposed by family and society. I am not opposed to concealing an infant's sex from onlookers. But they are giving the message to their older kids that their approval is based partly or largely on gender role defiance and/or ambiguity, and so, naturally, the kids are going to do what kids do, which is seek approval from their parents by acting out the roles that have been defined for them, in this case creating a dissonance between what the oldest child wants (social recognition of being a boy) and what the parents want (a child who defies gender roles).

Is it really so hard to see what they're doing wrong?

Sounds like what they are doing is actually a mirror image of what they are trying to point out as wrong.

Trans and genderqueer children get forced into gender roles that don't fit them through basically exactly this process.

YES, YES, YES.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:46:43 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 05:43:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:38:29 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

It's not the treatment of the 4-month-old that is so telling, it's the older children. A baby doesn't have a gender, it has a sex and gender roles don't exist for infants aside from those imposed by family and society. I am not opposed to concealing an infant's sex from onlookers. But they are giving the message to their older kids that their approval is based partly or largely on gender role defiance and/or ambiguity, and so, naturally, the kids are going to do what kids do, which is seek approval from their parents by acting out the roles that have been defined for them, in this case creating a dissonance between what the oldest child wants (social recognition of being a boy) and what the parents want (a child who defies gender roles).

Is it really so hard to see what they're doing wrong?

Sounds like what they are doing is actually a mirror image of what they are trying to point out as wrong.

Trans and genderqueer children get forced into gender roles that don't fit them through basically exactly this process.

YES, YES, YES.

Okay, yes, I definitely agree with this. I just didn't want this to turn into a drama shitstorm with me screaming "fuck your gender bullshit". Because I have done that before, and probably will again at some point.

Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:50:34 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:46:43 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 05:43:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:38:29 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

It's not the treatment of the 4-month-old that is so telling, it's the older children. A baby doesn't have a gender, it has a sex and gender roles don't exist for infants aside from those imposed by family and society. I am not opposed to concealing an infant's sex from onlookers. But they are giving the message to their older kids that their approval is based partly or largely on gender role defiance and/or ambiguity, and so, naturally, the kids are going to do what kids do, which is seek approval from their parents by acting out the roles that have been defined for them, in this case creating a dissonance between what the oldest child wants (social recognition of being a boy) and what the parents want (a child who defies gender roles).

Is it really so hard to see what they're doing wrong?

Sounds like what they are doing is actually a mirror image of what they are trying to point out as wrong.

Trans and genderqueer children get forced into gender roles that don't fit them through basically exactly this process.

YES, YES, YES.

Okay, yes, I definitely agree with this. I just didn't want this to turn into a drama shitstorm with me screaming "fuck your gender bullshit". Because I have done that before, and probably will again at some point.

As long as the choice, or lack of choice, is left up to each individual no one should have any issues with it. When it is forced on children, regardless of what gender it is, then that is our issue.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

Maybe,  It's a lot easier to give someone hormone therapy than to change society and the portrayal of gender though.

Without hormone therapy trans people tend to depression, due to the mismatch with hormone receptors, with hormone therapy the incidence of depression is greatly reduced.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:01:46 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

Maybe,  It's a lot easier to give someone hormone therapy than to change society and the portrayal of gender though.

Without hormone therapy trans people tend to depression, due to the mismatch with hormone receptors, with hormone therapy the incidence of depression is greatly reduced.

Well, god knows we should just take the easiest route rather than trying to change what's actually wrong.  :lulz:

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:01:46 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

Maybe,  It's a lot easier to give someone hormone therapy than to change society and the portrayal of gender though.

Without hormone therapy trans people tend to depression, due to the mismatch with hormone receptors, with hormone therapy the incidence of depression is greatly reduced.

well, is it just a teensy weensy bit possible that the depression is a side effect of "social norm" pressures?

Especially at the expense of the healthy bodies of young men and women, who can simply be carved into the niches we want to force them into, and live marginalized lives of never being fully accepted, rather than appreciated as the healthy whole beings they already are.

And fuck gay marriage too... also, WTF with equal rights, emancipation, and suffrage?

TOO HARD

WHERE'S MY AMERICAN IDOL?

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
Especially at the expense of the healthy bodies of young men and women, who can simply be carved into the niches we want to force them into, and live marginalized lives of never being fully accepted, rather than appreciated as the healthy whole beings they already are.

And fuck gay marriage too... also, WTF with equal rights, emancipation, and suffrage?

TOO HARD

WHERE'S MY AMERICAN IDOL?

Gods forbid we cure the disease instead of treating the symptoms, ya know?

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 07:07:36 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
Especially at the expense of the healthy bodies of young men and women, who can simply be carved into the niches we want to force them into, and live marginalized lives of never being fully accepted, rather than appreciated as the healthy whole beings they already are.

And fuck gay marriage too... also, WTF with equal rights, emancipation, and suffrage?

TOO HARD

WHERE'S MY AMERICAN IDOL?

Gods forbid we cure the disease instead of treating the symptoms, ya know?

That might cause change, and change is BAD! Also, who would profit? We need to think about the bottom line, here.

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 07:04:53 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:01:46 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

Maybe,  It's a lot easier to give someone hormone therapy than to change society and the portrayal of gender though.

Without hormone therapy trans people tend to depression, due to the mismatch with hormone receptors, with hormone therapy the incidence of depression is greatly reduced.

well, is it just a teensy weensy bit possible that the depression is a side effect of "social norm" pressures?

If it were caused by social pressure then the hormone therapy wouldn't fix it.  Trans people on hormones are still trans, especcially M2F, without reconstructive surgery they generally don't look all that feminine.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

GOD FUCKING AMEN HALELUJIAH! KILL THAT GENDER! DESTROY IT! FUCKING GENDER CAN GO DIE IN A HOLE!

LONG LIVE THE QUEERS! LONG LIVE THE QUEERS! LONG LIVE THE QUEERS!

BH, bullshit.

How about we do both and work to threat the root cause while also treating the symptoms by giving hormone therapy (which is relatively cheap and harmless compared to things like genital reconstructive surgery or facial reconstructive surgery.)

How about we let people take hormones if they really want to, as no different than any other body modification, and at the SAME time, destroy gender categories completely? IT'S WIN WIN.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:18:53 PM
How about we let people take hormones if they really want to, as no different than any other body modification, and at the SAME time, destroy gender categories completely? IT'S WIN WIN.

Couldn't agree more. At the same time I struggle with the assumption that BH posited that genital or facial surgery is harmful.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:14:04 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 07:04:53 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:01:46 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

Maybe,  It's a lot easier to give someone hormone therapy than to change society and the portrayal of gender though.

Without hormone therapy trans people tend to depression, due to the mismatch with hormone receptors, with hormone therapy the incidence of depression is greatly reduced.

well, is it just a teensy weensy bit possible that the depression is a side effect of "social norm" pressures?

If it were caused by social pressure then the hormone therapy wouldn't fix it.  Trans people on hormones are still trans, especcially M2F, without reconstructive surgery they generally don't look all that feminine.

:facepalm:

That's simply not  true. Aaaaagh. I can't even... I don't know where to start. Um. How about, chemical depression that is caused by environmental pressures responds to chemical treatment, but is only fully resolved by removal of the causative environmental pressures.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:18:53 PM
How about we let people take hormones if they really want to, as no different than any other body modification, and at the SAME time, destroy gender categories completely? IT'S WIN WIN.

That's what I said.

It looks to me like Nigel and Charley are downing the hormone treatments, which while they may not be perfect they do save a large number of trans folks from depression and allow them to live much happier lives.

They're a medical treatment though, distinct from body mods like piericings, breast enhancement/reduction etc and whether or not they will work to reduce depression and other mental side effects of gender dysphoria is something best determined by a doctor.  

If you want to modify your body to look like the other gender, or like a dolphin for that matter it's just a matter of time and money, if you are going to tinker with your internal body chemistry it is probably a good idea to get medical advice so as to do it properly.

I did not assert that genital or facial surgery is harmful as in it shouldn't be done.  I am just saying it is major, painful, expensive surgery.  If you're trying to avoid doing physical harm to young people's bodies an arguement could be made against reconstructive surgery, the same arguement doesn't make any sense against hormone therapy.

I'm all in favor of trans folks being able to get their bodies reshaped to match their internal gender.  It's a major step in a way that hormone therapy is not however.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:18:53 PM
How about we let people take hormones if they really want to, as no different than any other body modification, and at the SAME time, destroy gender categories completely? IT'S WIN WIN.

I don't want to stop people from taking hormone treatments. I want to destroy the social pressures that cause people to believe they need hormone treatments. I want to attack the problem, not the patches that people attempt to apply to it.

I DO want, as part of attacking the problem, to try to convince people not to do things that are destructive to their bodies or psyches, nor to do things that will compound their experience of marginalization. Like facial tattoos, and in some cases, hormone treatments. Every person who lives the life they want to live without succumbing to social pressure to "normalize" their body to fit social gender role expectations is a kind of freedom fighter, IMO.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:26:58 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:18:53 PM
How about we let people take hormones if they really want to, as no different than any other body modification, and at the SAME time, destroy gender categories completely? IT'S WIN WIN.

That's what I said.

It looks to me like Nigel and Charley are downing the hormone treatments, which while they may not be perfect they do save a large number of trans folks from depression and allow them to live much happier lives.

They're a medical treatment though, distinct from body mods like piericings, breast enhancement/reduction etc and whether or not they will work to reduce depression and other mental side effects of gender dysphoria is something best determined by a doctor.  

If you want to modify your body to look like the other gender, or like a dolphin for that matter it's just a matter of time and money, if you are going to tinker with your internal body chemistry it is probably a good idea to get medical advice so as to do it properly.

I did not assert that genital or facial surgery is harmful as in it shouldn't be done.  I am just saying it is major, painful, expensive surgery.  If you're trying to avoid doing physical harm to young people's bodies an arguement could be made against reconstructive surgery, the same arguement doesn't make any sense against hormone therapy.

I'm all in favor of trans folks being able to get their bodies reshaped to match their internal gender.  It's a major step in a way that hormone therapy is not however.

I had a reply all worked out, but what Nigel said.

Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

To tie all this together.

What these Scandinavian whackjobs are trying to do is serve as a model for how to eliminate societal gender pressures.

They're doing it wrong.

How might it be done right?

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 07:33:34 PM
To tie all this together.

What these Scandinavian whackjobs are trying to do is serve as a model for how to eliminate societal gender pressures.

They're doing it wrong.

How might it be done right?

By simply respecting the individualism of individuals.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

I normally don't get into these huge debates, but speaking as someone who is trans, hormone therapy is NOT a harmless thing compared to facial or genital surgery. There can be major health complications due to hormones causing sweeping changes throughout the whole body. I'm personally really reluctant to go on hormones because the huge variety of side-effects caused by such including mood swings, a dead sex-drive, and risk of blood clotting.

Also, as was stated, hormone therapy isn't going to fix depression. Being comfortable with oneself and having a caring support network will. For example, I was often times depressed before I came out, and once I did come out and switched out my wardrobe for more feminine clothes and didn't lose any friends over it, I haven't felt depressed since. I really don't need hormone therapy at the moment.

Quote from: Zenpeanut on May 24, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
I normally don't get into these huge debates, but speaking as someone who is trans, hormone therapy is NOT a harmless thing compared to facial or genital surgery. There can be major health complications due to hormones causing sweeping changes throughout the whole body. I'm personally really reluctant to go on hormones because the huge variety of side-effects caused by such including mood swings, a dead sex-drive, and risk of blood clotting.

Also, as was stated, hormone therapy isn't going to fix depression. Being comfortable with oneself and having a caring support network will. For example, I was often times depressed before I came out, and once I did come out and switched out my wardrobe for more feminine clothes and didn't lose any friends over it, I haven't felt depressed since. I really don't need hormone therapy at the moment.

Thanks for chiming in, personal experience always appreciated (by me, anyway).

Quote from: Zenpeanut on May 24, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
I normally don't get into these huge debates, but speaking as someone who is trans, hormone therapy is NOT a harmless thing compared to facial or genital surgery. There can be major health complications due to hormones causing sweeping changes throughout the whole body. I'm personally really reluctant to go on hormones because the huge variety of side-effects caused by such including mood swings, a dead sex-drive, and risk of blood clotting.

Also, as was stated, hormone therapy isn't going to fix depression. Being comfortable with oneself and having a caring support network will. For example, I was often times depressed before I came out, and once I did come out and switched out my wardrobe for more feminine clothes and didn't lose any friends over it, I haven't felt depressed since. I really don't need hormone therapy at the moment.

Yes, this. I didn't bother busting out any science about the dangers of hormone treatment (I am reluctant to call it "therapy" in this case because I have much doubt that it is therapeutic) because the rest of that argument was already based on an interesting reinterpretation of science.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

1) What it means is that a queer wishing to be accepted as female legally must present herself stereotypically as female for one year before "the gates will open". Not that this says anything about her family's acceptance, or her friends, or her workplace, or that shithead down the street.

2) The psychological community likes to talk about "that which is considered normal by society at large", but since there really is no normal, they tend to settle on "that which is normal by cultural stereotype" and "that which I see as normal". So, and yes, it's scary, medicine and the psychological community decide what gender means. Never mind it's a cultural construct, never mind that they often equate sex with gender.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

1) What it means is that a queer wishing to be accepted as female legally must present herself stereotypically as female for one year before "the gates will open". Not that this says anything about her family's acceptance, or her friends, or her workplace, or that shithead down the street.

2) The psychological community likes to talk about "that which is considered normal by society at large", but since there really is no normal, they tend to settle on "that which is normal by cultural stereotype" and "that which I see as normal". So, and yes, it's scary, medicine and the psychological community decide what gender means. Never mind it's a cultural construct, never mind that they often equate sex with gender.

Yes, exactly. I like to frame those as questions in order to get people to actually think about it, and maybe even ask themselves whether they live up to these artificial gender standards that are defined in part by a community that exists to sell gender reassignment. I'm certain I don't, other than having long hair and occasionally wearing a skirt. But you nailed it: The medical and psychological community are defining gender roles and simultaneously conflating their invented roles with biological sex. And, there's money in it.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:40:11 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

1) What it means is that a queer wishing to be accepted as female legally must present herself stereotypically as female for one year before "the gates will open". Not that this says anything about her family's acceptance, or her friends, or her workplace, or that shithead down the street.

2) The psychological community likes to talk about "that which is considered normal by society at large", but since there really is no normal, they tend to settle on "that which is normal by cultural stereotype" and "that which I see as normal". So, and yes, it's scary, medicine and the psychological community decide what gender means. Never mind it's a cultural construct, never mind that they often equate sex with gender.

Yes, exactly. I like to frame those as questions in order to get people to actually think about it, and maybe even ask themselves whether they live up to these artificial gender standards that are defined in part by a community that exists to sell gender reassignment. I'm certain I don't, other than having long hair and occasionally wearing a skirt. But you nailed it: The medical and psychological community are defining gender roles and simultaneously conflating their invented roles with biological sex. And, there's money in it.

There definitely is. Surgical operations on breast and genital tissue are very expensive, as are lifetime prescriptions of various hormones and required psychiatric visits. And that's not including all the other things queers will do, like facial surgery, laser depiliation, and clothing/cosmetics. I refuse to fall into that bullshit. I refuse to jump through their hoops for their bullshit ideas.

Call me crazy... but I always kinda figured that there were things more important about a person than what clothes they like to wear, what other consenting adult (or adults) they want to rub body parts against, or what body parts they were dealt at birth.

Maybe if there was more of THAT idea floating around, the rest of the arguments here would matter a fuckload less.

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:17:08 PM

Quote from: Zenpeanut on May 24, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
I normally don't get into these huge debates, but speaking as someone who is trans, hormone therapy is NOT a harmless thing compared to facial or genital surgery. There can be major health complications due to hormones causing sweeping changes throughout the whole body. I'm personally really reluctant to go on hormones because the huge variety of side-effects caused by such including mood swings, a dead sex-drive, and risk of blood clotting.

Also, as was stated, hormone therapy isn't going to fix depression. Being comfortable with oneself and having a caring support network will. For example, I was often times depressed before I came out, and once I did come out and switched out my wardrobe for more feminine clothes and didn't lose any friends over it, I haven't felt depressed since. I really don't need hormone therapy at the moment.

Yes, this. I didn't bother busting out any science about the dangers of hormone treatment (I am reluctant to call it "therapy" in this case because I have much doubt that it is therapeutic) because the rest of that argument was already based on an interesting reinterpretation of science.

All I need to know about hormones;

Premarin is made from pregnant mares urine.

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:51:10 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:40:11 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

1) What it means is that a queer wishing to be accepted as female legally must present herself stereotypically as female for one year before "the gates will open". Not that this says anything about her family's acceptance, or her friends, or her workplace, or that shithead down the street.

2) The psychological community likes to talk about "that which is considered normal by society at large", but since there really is no normal, they tend to settle on "that which is normal by cultural stereotype" and "that which I see as normal". So, and yes, it's scary, medicine and the psychological community decide what gender means. Never mind it's a cultural construct, never mind that they often equate sex with gender.

Yes, exactly. I like to frame those as questions in order to get people to actually think about it, and maybe even ask themselves whether they live up to these artificial gender standards that are defined in part by a community that exists to sell gender reassignment. I'm certain I don't, other than having long hair and occasionally wearing a skirt. But you nailed it: The medical and psychological community are defining gender roles and simultaneously conflating their invented roles with biological sex. And, there's money in it.

There definitely is. Surgical operations on breast and genital tissue are very expensive, as are lifetime prescriptions of various hormones and required psychiatric visits. And that's not including all the other things queers will do, like facial surgery, laser depiliation, and clothing/cosmetics. I refuse to fall into that bullshit. I refuse to jump through their hoops for their bullshit ideas.

Right on. It's an industry; like any other machine, it will grind you up. And it's interesting how, in this town at least, it's very unpopular to speak out against it. People's first reaction tends to be "YUO ARE OPRESSING TEH QUEERS!"

Quote from: Luna on May 24, 2011, 08:54:13 PM
Call me crazy... but I always kinda figured that there were things more important about a person than what clothes they like to wear, what other consenting adult (or adults) they want to rub body parts against, or what body parts they were dealt at birth.

Maybe if there was more of THAT idea floating around, the rest of the arguments here would matter a fuckload less.

:mittens:

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:56:26 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:51:10 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:40:11 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

1) What it means is that a queer wishing to be accepted as female legally must present herself stereotypically as female for one year before "the gates will open". Not that this says anything about her family's acceptance, or her friends, or her workplace, or that shithead down the street.

2) The psychological community likes to talk about "that which is considered normal by society at large", but since there really is no normal, they tend to settle on "that which is normal by cultural stereotype" and "that which I see as normal". So, and yes, it's scary, medicine and the psychological community decide what gender means. Never mind it's a cultural construct, never mind that they often equate sex with gender.

Yes, exactly. I like to frame those as questions in order to get people to actually think about it, and maybe even ask themselves whether they live up to these artificial gender standards that are defined in part by a community that exists to sell gender reassignment. I'm certain I don't, other than having long hair and occasionally wearing a skirt. But you nailed it: The medical and psychological community are defining gender roles and simultaneously conflating their invented roles with biological sex. And, there's money in it.

There definitely is. Surgical operations on breast and genital tissue are very expensive, as are lifetime prescriptions of various hormones and required psychiatric visits. And that's not including all the other things queers will do, like facial surgery, laser depiliation, and clothing/cosmetics. I refuse to fall into that bullshit. I refuse to jump through their hoops for their bullshit ideas.

Right on. It's an industry; like any other machine, it will grind you up. And it's interesting how, in this town at least, it's very unpopular to speak out against it. People's first reaction tends to be "YUO ARE OPRESSING TEH QUEERS!"

To which I would reply, NO, /THEY/ ARE OPRESSING THE QUEERS!

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:50:34 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:46:43 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 05:43:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:38:29 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 05:30:50 PM

Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 24, 2011, 05:21:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:20:01 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 05:17:32 PM
I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep my mouth shut. I will keep...

Being opposed to this kind of twisted parental manipulation is not the same as being opposed to allowing your child to be gender ambiguous or supporting your child in gender role exploration.

Exactly.  My whole thing is that the child isn't in on this.  It is being decided FOR the child.  Because a 4-month child obviously can't make an informed decision on this matter. 

But the only thing they decided was not to tell people the kids gender...

It's not the treatment of the 4-month-old that is so telling, it's the older children. A baby doesn't have a gender, it has a sex and gender roles don't exist for infants aside from those imposed by family and society. I am not opposed to concealing an infant's sex from onlookers. But they are giving the message to their older kids that their approval is based partly or largely on gender role defiance and/or ambiguity, and so, naturally, the kids are going to do what kids do, which is seek approval from their parents by acting out the roles that have been defined for them, in this case creating a dissonance between what the oldest child wants (social recognition of being a boy) and what the parents want (a child who defies gender roles).

Is it really so hard to see what they're doing wrong?

Sounds like what they are doing is actually a mirror image of what they are trying to point out as wrong.

Trans and genderqueer children get forced into gender roles that don't fit them through basically exactly this process.

YES, YES, YES.

Okay, yes, I definitely agree with this. I just didn't want this to turn into a drama shitstorm with me screaming "fuck your gender bullshit". Because I have done that before, and probably will again at some point.

So then don't impose your personal values and ideas about gender (which you've had a lifetime to accumulate and refine) on a conversation about whether or not these idiots' method of parenting is effective or ethically sound. I don't see anyone ITT saying that people who have the ability to choose a gender role (or lack thereof) for themselves shouldn't be free to so so as they please.

Meh.  People like getting upset and outraged.  These parents like attention from people getting upset and outraged, as it allows them to be smugly superior.

Sucks for the kid, but since they're almost certainly going to be sold into lifetime serfdom or act as advanced target practice for jihadis, in the grand scheme of things, I'm struggling to get a reading on my "give-a-damn-ometer".

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:15:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

GOD FUCKING AMEN HALELUJIAH! KILL THAT GENDER! DESTROY IT! FUCKING GENDER CAN GO DIE IN A HOLE!

LONG LIVE THE QUEERS! LONG LIVE THE QUEERS! LONG LIVE THE QUEERS!

What about the people who are perfectly happy and content with their gender roles? Is that not just as valid as deciding to reverse or ignore gender roles?

Your posts ITT have the distinct smell of radicalism about them. If you don't like having contrary values imposed upon you by those who conform to "societal norms", perhaps you should return the favor?

That's just what the patriarchy wants you to think, ECH.

FIGHT THE POWER!

Quote from: Luna on May 24, 2011, 08:54:13 PM
Call me crazy... but I always kinda figured that there were things more important about a person than what clothes they like to wear, what other consenting adult (or adults) they want to rub body parts against, or what body parts they were dealt at birth.

Maybe if there was more of THAT idea floating around, the rest of the arguments here would matter a fuckload less.

So much this. :mittens:

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:51:10 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:40:11 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 08:32:44 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:31:56 PM
Here's something I've noticed that ties in to your statement, Nigel.

In isolation (away from other trans/queer people), genderweird people tend to be much more fluid and uncategorized with their identification. When that changes, when they move into a more social environment with other queers, their identification becomes more contained. Why? Social pressure from other queers! People who previously didn't feel a need for any sort of medical intervention feel compelled towards that direction, because that's considered to be the socially acceptable choice, and in their need to fit in they feel themselves needing it too. And this just continues in a cycle of putting amazingly diverse queers into little gender boxes. Now, if there wasn't any such thing as social gender pressures these people would probably never have felt the need. And if they did, it would be a personal choice rather than a social pressure. Garrrgh.

Edit: speaking all this from personal experience, mistakes, and discovery.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have noticed the same thing in my local queer community... and it sucks when the community you turn to for acceptance, support and understanding tries to push you into a little box.

I don't think most people don't understand how promoting the concept of genderism, including transgenderism, reinforces sexism and sexist stereotypes. For example, a man seeking sex change surgery (euphemistically, and incorrectly, also called "gender reassignment surgery", as if a surgical procedure alters your gender) must live for a year "as a woman". Whoa... hold on. What the fuck does that even mean?

Better yet, who decides what it means?

1) What it means is that a queer wishing to be accepted as female legally must present herself stereotypically as female for one year before "the gates will open". Not that this says anything about her family's acceptance, or her friends, or her workplace, or that shithead down the street.

2) The psychological community likes to talk about "that which is considered normal by society at large", but since there really is no normal, they tend to settle on "that which is normal by cultural stereotype" and "that which I see as normal". So, and yes, it's scary, medicine and the psychological community decide what gender means. Never mind it's a cultural construct, never mind that they often equate sex with gender.

Yes, exactly. I like to frame those as questions in order to get people to actually think about it, and maybe even ask themselves whether they live up to these artificial gender standards that are defined in part by a community that exists to sell gender reassignment. I'm certain I don't, other than having long hair and occasionally wearing a skirt. But you nailed it: The medical and psychological community are defining gender roles and simultaneously conflating their invented roles with biological sex. And, there's money in it.

There definitely is. Surgical operations on breast and genital tissue are very expensive, as are lifetime prescriptions of various hormones and required psychiatric visits. And that's not including all the other things queers will do, like facial surgery, laser depiliation, and clothing/cosmetics. I refuse to fall into that bullshit. I refuse to jump through their hoops for their bullshit ideas.

That. In spades. I have an M2F friend who chases all those surgeries and alterations with the zeal of a Crusader chasing the Grail. She is fighting the good fight. She wants that societal ideal because society's concepts of 'woman' are the only thing that will validate her femininity. Which isn't true at all, because she was always more of a woman than I ever was. But she wants it, and has been doing the hormones and laser depilation and therapy and every other thing there is. If this will make her happy, more power to her.

But when I decided not to chase gender reassignment as well, we sorta lost part of that common ground.

There's a whole huge shit-long list of stuff I could talk about, relating to this topic, but I guess that's the gist. Besides, y'all say it better anyhow.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 24, 2011, 11:58:59 PM

Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 24, 2011, 07:15:05 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:59:33 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:52:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 06:31:49 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 24, 2011, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Nigel on May 24, 2011, 05:50:40 PM
Also, the very existence of the terms "trans" and "genderqueer" are based on the existence of sex-linked gender roles, which these parents are reinforcing.

Transexualism is actually a physical condition.  Trans people have hormone receptors in their brains that match the other sex.  They don't just identify as the other gender, they actually have the brain of the other sex (in many cases, not all)

I'm sorry, I think it's bullshit. :)

There's a fair amount of science backing it up.

I can link papers if you want but they tend to be pretty dry.

The physical brain structure is actually different between men and women and trans people have brains that are more similar to their identified sex than the sex indicated by their genitals.

Right, but in biological anthropology you have to be careful about attributing differences to brain structure, because brain structure is highly mutable. The brains of people who were abused as children, for instance, are different from the brains of those who weren't. Using the logic you appear to be using, that would mean that the children caused themselves to be abused by virtue of having the brain structure of someone who is abused.

Right?

I don't believe that the brain structure of the transgendered person doesn't match their bodies. In fact, I think that's so absurdly stupid an assertion as to belong in the same realm as otherkin. I think, with my brain that is part of my body, that we have assigned sex to gender, and are falsely imposing the expectation that a person with a perfectly normal healthy body must "really" be the other sex because they "think like" the other sex. That's gender role imposition.

WE CREATED THE PROBLEM. The body didn't create the problem. The solution is not to use technology to resolve the dissonance, the solution is to remove the dissonance by dissolving the artificial assignments of "gender".

GOD FUCKING AMEN HALELUJIAH! KILL THAT GENDER! DESTROY IT! FUCKING GENDER CAN GO DIE IN A HOLE!

LONG LIVE THE QUEERS! LONG LIVE THE QUEERS! LONG LIVE THE QUEERS!

What about the people who are perfectly happy and content with their gender roles? Is that not just as valid as deciding to reverse or ignore gender roles?

Your posts ITT have the distinct smell of radicalism about them. If you don't like having contrary values imposed upon you by those who conform to "societal norms", perhaps you should return the favor?

Perhaps I like to shake things up. You of all people should appreciate that. Maybe only when it's convenient for you. And me, imposing social norms?  :lulz: What fucking century are you living in?

And of course they're radical. I'm radical. Not that its very hard to be in this country.

Not fucking going to get apologetic about it either.

Coyote's stance: if she had a vagina she would go 'DUDE I HAVE A VAGINA AND IT'S FUCKING AWESOME!!!" If he had a penis he would go 'DUDE I HAVE A PENIS AND IT'S FUCKING AWESOME!!!" Everything else is just set dressing.

 :lulz:

Fucking hippies.

:lulz:

Natural progression, in the OP.

Other highlights in this progression include:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NK5u035%2BL.jpg)

(http://inforrm.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/westboro_baptist_church-kids.jpg)

PROTIP: Kids are not billboards for your Consumerism, Lite Bite Ideology or Diseased Worldview.

Wake me up when we have the technology to give me 3 sets of every kind of genitalia plus some I made up.

Until then.  :kingmeh:

I have a penis, and it's awesome.

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 25, 2011, 02:05:35 PM
I have a penis, and it's awesome.

:postpics:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_A-uHOVlfn08/SBQFBxUBRBI/AAAAAAAAANg/Kw6CT2Fv36A/s720/IMGP0084.JPG

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 25, 2011, 02:09:17 PM
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_A-uHOVlfn08/SBQFBxUBRBI/AAAAAAAAANg/Kw6CT2Fv36A/s720/IMGP0084.JPG

If you are fishing for compliments . . . Wow, there are no words LMNO

On the other hand... as parenting has evolved over the centuries, surely every new innovation was reacted to in much the same manner that we are all reacting here.

Not saying if that is right or wrong, merely bringing it up for the official record.

Quote from: MMIX on May 25, 2011, 02:11:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 25, 2011, 02:09:17 PM
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_A-uHOVlfn08/SBQFBxUBRBI/AAAAAAAAANg/Kw6CT2Fv36A/s720/IMGP0084.JPG

If you are fishing for compliments . . . Wow, there are no words LMNO

Okay.  I'm impressed.   :D

Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 25, 2011, 02:09:17 PM
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_A-uHOVlfn08/SBQFBxUBRBI/AAAAAAAAANg/Kw6CT2Fv36A/s720/IMGP0084.JPG

...

I can't believe you actually did that.

:ECH:

I am not clicking that fucking link.

It's shiny!

It is, actually, shiny. WHY LMNO WHY?  :x:1fap:

I hate you all.

Quote from: Nigel on May 25, 2011, 04:24:45 PM
It is, actually, shiny. WHY LMNO WHY?  :x:1fap:

I suspect he oiled it.

Should it have spots like that?

ITT: Why LMNO gets tail. And head. At both ends at the same time.

 :lulz:

Quote from: Payne on May 25, 2011, 06:31:02 PM
ITT: Why LMNO gets tail. And head. At both ends at the same time.

The potential side to side action makes me ghey for LMNO.

 :lulz:

LMNO: Saving this forum, one thread at a time.

Quote from: Your Mom on May 24, 2011, 05:16:24 PM

Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 24, 2011, 04:45:23 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on May 24, 2011, 04:40:20 PMYou don't think it really odd that he wants his parents to write a note saying he is a boy?

Well, the way I read that was that based on his choice of clothes etc he looks like a girl, but since he likes these people, he wants them to know he's a boy. Maybe he tried to say "I'm a boy" and the people just thought he was confused. I dunno, without the full story,  its hard to say.

Most likely, he gets a lot of approval from his parents for not following traditional gender roles, so as much as he would like to be recognized as a boy, parental approval outweighs that.

If I were in that parental position, I'd probably tell my boy "If you want people to know you're a boy, you should probably wear boy clothes.". And I'd like to add "it's the easiest way to go about it and probably works a lot better than writing a note", depending on whether the boy would get more clarity or more confused by adding that extra info (depending on age, etc).

But then, I'm not that hung up on abolishing traditional gender roles either. IMO it's most important to stress that each and every gender is not worse or better than another (i.e. no discrimination), but to deny there's gender roles (traditional or not) seems ridiculous to me. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. And sometimes but not often they'll be in between or the other way around, and that alone will most likely cause trouble for them, due to friction between confusion about their own gender identity and society's confusion about their gender identity. And that is if they can't help it, and in that case the best thing you can do as a parent is to be supportive about it.
But if on the other hand, you got a boy that really wants to identify as a boy, but also likes to dress up as a girl, that is something they can control, and it's probably best to explain them that if they dress up as X but they want to be recognized as Y, obviously that's going to confuse the hell out of a whole bunch of people. And you don't even need to wrap that into a context of gender-roles either, it can also be "a king dressed up as a poor person" (you know, from the fairytale?). It's an important life-lesson to realize that people will judge you on your appearance, whether you like it or not, yet on the other hand neither your appearance, nor people's judgement of that determines what/who you really are.

Or something like that. Does that make sense?

TL/DR: If your son that likes dressing up as a girl wants you to write a note to explain he is in fact a boy [that happens to like dressing up as a girl], IMO it's best to explain him "If you want people to know you're a boy, you should probably wear boy clothes.".

Additionally it may help him realize that <a note written by daddy> doesn't have magical powers that make everybody instantly believe what it says, and that instead his own behaviour/appearance/presence allows him to control people's perception of himself to a much greater degree, and that doing so is mainly his responsibility.



... sometimes I really wonder if I'd make a good parent or not.

Quote from: Your Mom on May 24, 2011, 07:28:23 PM
I DO want, as part of attacking the problem, to try to convince people not to do things that are destructive to their bodies or psyches, nor to do things that will compound their experience of marginalization. Like eating nothing but cheese burgers for a whole month.

Fixed for you ;-)

QuoteEvery person who lives the life they want to live without succumbing to social pressure to "normalize" their body to fit social gender role expectations is a kind of freedom fighter, IMO.

THIS WOMAN IS YOUR FRIEND
SHE EATS CHEESEBURGERS FOR YOUR FREEDOM

Quote from: Your Mom on May 24, 2011, 08:40:11 PMI like to frame those as questions in order to get people to actually think about it, and maybe even ask themselves whether they live up to these artificial gender standards that are defined in part by a community that exists to sell gender reassignment. I'm certain I don't, other than having long hair and occasionally wearing a skirt.

Heyyy that's a very interesting question.

What is it, except for my primary and secondary sexual characteristics and a few arbitrary socially defined choices in clothing, that makes me a male?

I don't particularly like cars or sports, to name something.

It's mostly that I "feel" male, right?

And vice versa, what is it that makes you, Nigel, female, except for the above-mentioned characteristics and choices?

What's it mean?

If anything, I once had an extra-curricular course on "Emotional Intelligence & Communication", which discussed gender and gender-roles a lot--although didn't dwell on transgender/queers much, it rather said some characteristics or personality traits are more "female" and others are more "male" [didn't say socially, historically or biologically btw, it even got a bit "spiritual" at some point], while there's also physical characteristics that not necessarily, but often, correspond with these, up to some extent, but hardly ever 100%.
Then I filled out a questionnaire with all sorts of stereotypes, added up the scores and was pleased to find out that I am a male with 70% stereotypical female characteristics :lol:

I dunno actually, looking back at that course, the woman giving the lectures was a highly knowledgeable sociology professor specialized in sexuality, but in hindsight I learned a bunch of other things about the subject and they don't always match up.

When I was a kid, eating cheeseburgers for your freedom, I would occasionally get into fights over being called a boy. Not because I picked the fight, but because other kids thought I was fucking with them. Everyone seemed kind of taken aback when I git puberty and actually turned out to be, for real, a girl.

But after a certain point, I stopped correcting people. I realized that I looked like a boy, I was "acting" like a boy, so for all practical purposes in my interactions with most others, I was a boy. And it didn't really matter, except as much as we assign a value to being "boy" or "girl". At the end of the day I was still a little girl; it's possibly to be socially a boy and privately a girl. And either way, my body is female.

...yet you peg every man you are with, no?
:lol:

Quote from: Iptuous on June 13, 2011, 05:57:35 PM
...yet you peg every man you are with, no?
:lol:

wat

Quote from: Iptuous on June 13, 2011, 05:57:35 PM
...yet you peg every man you are with, no?
:lol:

Erm, no. When I was married, my husband liked to be pegged. Haven't used the dildoes (on a guy) since then... it's not my thing, but I'll do it if a guy digs it.

Oh...
for some reason, i thought i recalled you mentioning that every guy you had been with was able to be convinced to receive, and enjoyed it in the end. (<-LMNuendO)
which is odd, because, if you never said such, then that means i pulled that straight out of my ass. (<-again)
so, maybe i just dreamed that.  which is really odd...
blushing appologies, ma'am.
:oops: :lol:

Quote from: Iptuous on June 13, 2011, 06:46:18 PM
Oh...
for some reason, i thought i recalled you mentioning that every guy you had been with was able to be convinced to receive, and enjoyed it in the end. (<-LMNuendO)
which is odd, because, if you never said such, then that means i pulled that straight out of my ass. (<-again)
so, maybe i just dreamed that.  which is really odd...
blushing appologies, ma'am.
:oops: :lol:

I don't think I said that...  :? but who knows, maybe I said something that strongly implied it? But at one time, both my husband and then-boyfriend enjoyed having things stuck in their bums. Space Cowboy was up for it but we broke up before it happened, and Mr. Language was like "NO FUCKING WAY".

I think Surfer Boy and the pretty one, the crossdresser, expressed interest but we never got around to it.

(It was a running joke for a while, though. About the dildoes.)

Repost. For SCIENCE!
NSFW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WoQQ-mAQeE

Ah, days gone by...

As for the OP, which I just read:

Those fuckers are assholes and I feel bad for their kids.

I was often asked if I was a boy or a girl as a child, and always resented people for asking. I was even asked this as a young adult. Some small child wrapping Christmas presents asked his mom. I gave her a look imploring her to do the right thing here. She just shushed him and kept wrapping. How disappointing.

Most folks who live around me assume I'm gay and tend to relax significantly when they discover I am indeed SOME kind of queer. It fits their worldview and pathetic gender assumptions.

Gender identity is as personal and none of my business as choices in clothes or music. It doesn't really affect my life and I don't really care. People should be free to express themselves as the please. But I would never want to destroy the concept of gender any more than I want people to fit into a specific role.

I read a book called Stone Butch Blues which I liked very much at the time, don't know how I'd feel about it now. It covered a broad range of gender and sexuality issues. If nothing else it convinced me that these deeper issues should be subject matter in education systems. Of course, not American education systems. They'd just fuck it up. 

Quote from: Alty on June 15, 2011, 06:02:28 AM
I read a book called Stone Butch Blues which I liked very much at the time, don't know how I'd feel about it now. It covered a broad range of gender and sexuality issues. If nothing else it convinced me that these deeper issues should be subject matter in education systems. Of course, not American education systems. They'd just fuck it up. 

Stone Butch Blues has become a tiny bit outdated by today, I think, but damn did Leslie Feinberg open my eyes to an entire piece of queer culture that I barely understood at the time.  :)

That's what I figured, I read it about a decade ago. :lol:


:x

Do you have any recommendations? It's still a subject that my brain clings to.
What did you think of her other one, the non-fiction one.
I liked the bit about the Church supposedly burning a rooster at the stake for laying in egg.
:lulz:

ETA: It was the same for me about queer culture. It instilled this INSTArage and propensity for sermonizing anyone stupid enough to engage in passive, socially acceptable homophobia near me.