Terminalcoffee discussion

Read this:

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/20...

What do you think?

Here's another article, in case you used up your twenty from the NY Times already...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelook...

I just posted on this topic in another group. It's odd to me. I get what they're trying to do, but think they're using the wrong method to get their message out. Way to confuse your kid?

Is there any indication how long the parents are planning on raising the child this way?

I see where they're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree with this method of gender neutrality.

SIDE NOTE: I was at a friend's house this weekend and her husband said dinosaurs were boy things, like bulldozers. Ugh.

PS. Friend had her daughter in a shirt with a dinosaur on it.

It's weird how upset people are by this. I don't think the kid will be confused. Storm will behave the way he or she feels like behaving.

I think there are other ways to be progressive in your approach to parenting. Using your child as an experiment is not one of them.

I can tell you that Storm's family would feel right at home in Olympia. We're pretty laid back here, and a lot of kids at the library are androgynous in hair and dress. Some of the college kids, and pages are, too, come to think of it.

It's just not a big deal.
:::shrugs:::

I'm still too upset that my brother got all the expensive building and engineering toys to be able to address this.

I think burdening kids with oddball names like Jazz and Storm is more of a problem then the gender thing.

I do think we are way too uptight about gender. If boys want to wear pink and sequins and sparkles, and girls want very short hair, that's fine. We shouldn't always assume that children's choices are independent of peer pressure. A girl's desire to be surrounded by nothing but pink and very girly items might come partly from within herself and partly from what she sees other girls playing with - which reinforces for her that she is a girl and thus these are the things she ought to be playing with and the colors she ought to like. Children pass through a stage where they very strongly identify with their gender and girls want to be girls and boys want to be boys. But if children in this stage are told that toy stoves are "a boy's toy" and hammers and nails are "a girl's toy" they will respond accordingly - the boys will show a new interest in the stove, and the girls will show a new interest in the hammer and nails. So it's not necessarily an inherent need to play with a certain toy, but an inherent need to be seen as doing the correct things for one's gender.

I think it's going overboard to refuse to tell people what gender your child is. There are a lot of things that make up gender (genitalia isn't the only thing, as transgendered people come to realize). But at a young age, genitalia are the primary marker of gender. Maybe your kid will end up being staunchly male, staunchly female, or somewhere in the middle, but when they're a child they haven't arrived at that point yet. And before they do arrive at that point, I think it's perfectly appropriate to let other people know if your kid is a boy or a girl (regardless of what they're wearing or their hairstyle).

I'm with Barb on this issue. Something I read in one of the articles said that their home schooling is very loose. Whatever the child expresses an interest in is what they focus on. How many times did we whine in math class, "Why do we have to learn this? We'll NEVER use it." Just try making a quilt without math.

Isn't it bad enough that the clueless neo-hippie parents - obvious warts on the ass of progress - named Jazz after an insufferable genre of music in which it sounds like everyone is playing something different all at the same time?

Chaz Bono? What the fuck? I channel surfed across its reality show the other night just in time to see it getting some sort of injection in its fat ass from its girlfriend. As good a harbinger as any that we'll soon be choking on hoof dust from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

What does Chaz Bono have to do with anything?

Sarah Pi wrote: "What does Chaz Bono have to do with anything?"

It was mentioned in one of the links contained in the article RA posted.

This is OK for a baby and even toddler, but even the article stated that the oldest became quite concerned about his genitals. There comes a time when a child wants to make gender identification, and personally I think this approach leads to confusion and perhaps even places more emphasis on gender identity. Even a toddler will see that mommy and daddy are different.

The one facet of this that throws me a little is the idea that someone has a choice as to be "gender-identified" or not. I'm not sure that's a choice. You, uh, either have a penis or you don't, unless you're transgendered/hermaphrodite/whatever term you want to use that won't get me in trouble or sound disrespectful. I consider that a different category. I've heard this before, that people can "self-identify" as a gender. I don't think so, unless we're defining "self-identify" differently. I think you can self-identify your sexuality (e.g. if you're gay or bi or straight) but you can't self-identify your gender. That doesn't mean girls can't play with trucks or boys can't dye their hair pink. I can't say "I'm a woman" and walk into the woman's locker room at the Y without expecting to make the local news and get arrested.

I appreciate the thought behind what the parents are doing, I guess, in trying to set up their child to transcend stereotypes, but I'd hate to have them as neighbors because I get the feeling they'd criticize me for drinking the environmentally incorrect beer, lecture my children as to why they shouldn't use sticks to represent guns (something about how that wasn't mother earth's intention), and stage drum circles on the lawn during the solstice.

RandomAnthony wrote: "You, uh, either have a penis or you don't, unless you're transgendered/hermaphrodite/whatever term you want to use that won't get me in trouble or sound disrespectful."

I believe the word you're seaching for is "freak."

Your sex is the genitals you were born with. Not a choice, but changeable if you undergo reassignment.

Your sexuality is the question of who you are attracted to. Again, not a choice.

I would argue that gender is the hardest to define of these three components of identity. To some extent, it's a set of societal assumptions, such as in the story above about the dinosaurs and bulldozers. To some extent, it's biology: testosterone and estrogen in action. And it comes together in this weird mix that asks a lot of questions of us:
If you don't wear makeup are you less of a woman?
If you're a boy who plays with dolls are you less of a boy?
If you're a guy who cries easily are you somehow less of a man?
Gender is a spectrum. I'm not sure "choice" is the right word here either. It's not a choice if you're trans and your sex and your gender don't match up, though you can choose whether or not to undergo surgery. But there are also plenty of people all over the spectrum who know how they identify sexually - gay or straight - are comfortable with their genital sex, but don't fit into the traditional gender roles.

Contrary to Clark's knee-jerk there, it doesn't make that person a freak. It makes them self-aware.

Sarah reminded me of the dinosaur remark - my parents were the most unenlightened people (I should be a nurse, but my brother of course was urged to be a doctor) but I loved dinosaurs in the way the young can become obsessed. My parents had no problem with this.

Look, I know that there are societal pressures even from the start about how boys and girls are supposed to be. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's both environmental but also genetics. Jake only watched PBS, but at the age of 9 months was pointing a banana like a gun. Sure, he could have picked that up from the playground. But he could have picked up a lot of other things from the playground too, but he didn't. I also got him a doll at around the same time, which he proceeded to use as a hammer. And at 1 year he became obsessed with construction. There was major construction near my house, which we went to every day. So again, he could have seen older boys playing with construction toys, but he picked up on it because he as a little person loved it.

On the other hand, he sure loved his play kitchen!

My feeling is that the child has a sense of who he or she is without anyone having to label it. It's not a secret from Storm, who he or she is.

By not telling other people, you don't get the pigeonholing effect, the "oh, what a pretty girl, you must love such and such."

Okay, this family may be kooky, but I just don't see the harm here. Kids are kids, and we should be reacting to them as individuals anyways, how they present themselves, not by putting a label on them first.

I don't know how long this experiment will work. They'll get a babysitter sooner or later. They'll have to choose a bathroom when at a public event. I do think it would be interesting just for those first couple of years, and I don't think any harm will be done.

Agreed - not for the first 2 years. Even then it will be interesting - even younger are very interested in their genitals.

But this means that the grandparents won't be allowed to be alone with the baby.

I think taking it into the teen years would be difficult. Taking it even into the school years would be difficult.

Heh.

Well I do like that the older boy is free to choose his wardrobe. You can bet that if he was in pre-school or elementary school he sure wouldn't be wearing that!

But that brings me to another thought. I know many people who home school who acknowledge that social interaction is one of the most important facets for young kids. I think the article said the above parents have a group of similar minded parents and the kids do get to play and learn social behavior. But I wonder how long they will insulate the kids to this small group, and if it's a good thing?

This isn't far from taking a boy and raising him as a girl. Or vise versa. That experiement has already been done. Trying to prove nurture over nature. It didn't work! So why subject your child to that?! To me it seems like abuse and someone needs to intervine. I was raised as a very girly girl and grew up into my own and became a Tomboy.
When I read the article it didnt' seem to be temporary. Because the older children are still raised as genderless. The article says the older siblings are both boys, but the one wears long hair and dresses??? Which makes me really wonder...is he really a he? And how confusing is that?! Teach them that just because you're a boy doesn't mean you can't make cupcakes, and girls CAN play with trucks!

Plenty of boys have long hair. Dresses can be comfortable. Neither of those things makes a boy less of a boy.

As Bun said, they're not hiding Storm from Storm. They're just saying let's see what happens if you take away some of the cultural assumptions that are put on us from an early age.


As Westerners, we teach kids Patty-Cake at a young age and sing nursery rhymes. We set kids up to only know major and minor keys, and only know 4/4 and 3/4 time signatures. If you start a baby at a young age with other modes and time signatures, their ears are trained to accept those things.

I think this is similar. Expanded horizons as a baby. It doesn't mean they won't choose guns or dolls or trucks or whatever, any more than a baby taught a bossa nova beat will grow up to only listen to Brazilian music.

I can agree with that completely. My concern is if the parents insulate.

I want to clarify what I meant by "self-identify" earlier in this thread. Back when I attended a way-liberal UU church I knew a guy who acted what would probably be called effeminate. Most people, I think, assumed he was gay. And in this environment the congregation supported gay/lesbian members. But, um, this guy wasn't gay. He wanted to get hetero-laid something fierce. So even with good intentions the congregation, in my eyes, made assumptions that removed this individual's right to self-identify his sexual preference.

An overarching theme here seems to revolve around what I could best describe as the right of mastery around your own self-concept. And I get that. However, the question of whether or not one is perceived as male or female is consistently largely outside of one's control. You have to try pretty hard to transcend that perception, if you choose to do so, and face the pros and cons. I've had long hair through most of my life and been called "miss" more than a few times but I assume most people figure out I'm a guy after a couple seconds. And eventually people will be able to figure out, I assume, whether or not Storm is male or female based on her physical traits beyond her (I'm going with her) genitals. That's different than the question of whether or not one is transgendered. I don't know enough on that subject to speak.

I don't want to make too many assumptions about the parents despite my mockery of why I don't want them as neighbors. I hope, however, that, if Storm's a girl, they don't send the message that she can't play with Barbies because that's wrong or stereotypical or whatever. Letting Storm be herself means letting her wear pink, play with dolls, etc., if she wants.

Kristina wrote: "Is there any indication how long the parents are planning on raising the child this way?"

I hear it's until they max out their health-care spending account balance on trips to the ER from all of the school-yard beatdowns Storm and the rest of the Children of the Damned are sure to endure.

But that's exactly the point, you've presented yourself as the reason why the parents are doing it! Why should Storm be beat because he loves glitter and dresses?

I think that's what they're trying to see. If nobody can say "You're a boy, take this truck" or "You're a girl, play with this doll" they'll have to find out what Storm's interests are in order to bring a toy. They'll have to say "I bought YOU this (truck, doll, stuffed Cthulu)." And if Storm dresses up the Cthulu or uses the doll to hammer things, that'll be ok too. And it'll all sort itself out, because Storm will have Storm's interests.
One other note, RA, would be in the case of your straight-but-effeminate congregation member, it's actually a good example of why "sexual orientation" makes more sense as a term than "sexual preference." I'm sure it wasn't that he preferred women, any more than you prefer women. Preference implies choice. I prefer mint chocolate chip to chocolate or vanilla, but I'll eat either in a pinch. If he wanted to get hetero-laid something fierce, his interest was in women. Not a preference, an orientation.

Lori wrote: "But that's exactly the point, you've presented yourself as the reason why the parents are doing it! Why should Storm be beat because he loves glitter and dresses?"

::writhes::

Because - whether you're willing to admit it or not - that's what kids do. I didn't say I advocated it.

Bun, I agree and that's why I liked Jake's elementary school. They combined classes (K-1, 2-3, 4-5) and recess was completely a free-for-all with all the ages. Kids tended to play within a 3 year gap.

Yep, Myles, and that's the reason that right now these kids are only hanging with like-minded groups. And it does bring up an interesting question - what will happen when they branch out? How will the parents prepare for that. I'm sure they've thought about it.

It's kind of ironic. In another thread, we've been discussing whether or not a child who murders someone should get life without parole. The general thought is that children's brains are wired differently than adults' and they may not be able to reason in the same way.

Now, we're talking about whether or not a kid can decide for itself which gender it wants to identify with.

Personally, I think it's all a bunch of bullshit and the one to pay the price will be the kid.

*Nervously looks around for bats*

This isn't about which gender the child wants to identify with. It's about the expectations we have for a child once we hear their gender.

Storm is either male or female, in all likelihood. But if people know that Storm is a boy, they start early: "oh, what a strong young man." "Boys don't cry." "Man up!" "Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider."

If they know Storm is a girl, they'll say: "Oh, you're going to be a maneater. The boys will be falling all over you." "Don't get your dress dirty." "Look, she's playing mommy!"

The parents here are not denying their child's genitalia, nor are they asking Storm to decide whether to identify as male or female. They're just letting him or her get a little bit of a head start on being a person before becoming a person weighed down by the expectations of society.

So are they planning on keeping them out of society for a few years util they actually know what is going on around them? Right now he/she only knows how to eat, sleep, and use the bathroom.

See, this is what I don't understand, why people are so upset about this.
The child is who he or she is already, the parents aren't changing that by not telling others the gender. They're giving the child breathing room to figure stuff out on its own, preferences and tastes, without pressure from society to do it the "right" way.
Why is that so radical? Is it because it makes US uncomfortable, not knowing what the "appropriate" response is to this little person?

Maybe it's because the parents are choosing to do the experiment by using their child who has no say in the matter? Who knows...

I don't know if anyone is upset about it, but moreso confused as to why it's being done.

Agreed on the publicity being a bad idea, Ko.

I'm not upset about this. I just think it's silly.

On one hand we say that a child cannot make an appropriate judgement about killing someone and on the other we say they have the judgement to choose who they are. It's contradicting.

And yes, the parents do say that it is about the child deciding what it wants to be. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.

People learn as they go what they want to be regardless of outside influences. My grandson dressed up as a princess for hallowe'en one year; my granddaughter would rather ride horses than play with dolls; my daughter-in-law was thrilled with receiving a chainsaw for Christmas; and my son sewed baby clothes for his children.

What bugs me about this is that the parents have a political agenda and are using their child as an experiment.

A few thoughts:

1) I don't know that the whole "she won't get a few million of these messages" uh, message holds much water. Listen. People are going to know if this baby is a boy or girl I'm thinking in, oh, conservatively, a month. That would be a hell of a lot of messages per day to reach one million. And, as someone pointed out above, Storm's not exactly paying close attention, if my understanding of child development is correct, to the nuanced nature of questions as to whether or not she likes dinosaurs or whatever. I'd be willing to entertain evidence to the otherwise. So...this seems to be a highly symbolic gesture. I've got nothing against symbols.

2) I think it's fair to assume the parents are going to continue this effort to avoid gender stereotypes, etc. This is admirable if sane. In other words, these could be reasonable parents who try to open as many free-thinking opportunities for Storm as they can. Or they could be the equivalent of cause-oriented pageant parents who won't be satified unless Storm turns out like their vision of who she should be. I don't know them. Can't say. I also don't know, to be fair, if they're in this for the publicity. Maybe this started out very small, not from them, and took off on a slow news day. I don't know that the parents called the newspaper and said "come look at us enlightened parents!"

3) I don't agree that questioning this strategy is evidence of people being all riled up or less enlightened or whatever. I only saw one post, I think, that seemed riled up. I can't go back and check now because I started this post. But I think one message I hear coming through is that the adults' reactions to this issue is telling of further questions on gender, freedom, and the assumptions people make about each other. I have girly-girl students, for example, who have been hurt by the message that they clearly have fallen for the patriarchial societal brainwashing by wearing skirts and wanting to teach elementary school. They would tell you they like being girly-girls, it's natural to them, and to try to be otherwise would be more in the interest of those who want them to be otherwise than themselves. So this is a fascinating issue without many answers because that cognitive black box, from what I can tell, in which the self-identity emerges is very hard to perceive.

What Ko said!

Ok, I went back and read the articles and the mom says things that bug the shit out of me.

Both boys are "unschooled," a version of homeschooling, which promotes putting a child's curiosity at the center of his or her education. As Witterick puts it, it's "not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else."

I can understand why parents homeschool but I hate when, in order to justify their choice, they have to tear down traditional schools. Yes, you're so much more enlightened than everyone else. Don't send your kids to those evil, Orwellian schools! I'm sure those teachers are wearing boots and can't wait to put them on Storm's neck. You're doing the teachers a favor, actually, because I imagine you'd be the biggest pain in the ass parent with whom a teacher had to deal in a long time. I hope your kid learns how to add and subtract.

rolls eyes

Heh. I can understand why that would upset you. Even Waldorf has things on it's curriculum that a kid has to learn, altho they base it on child development. If I used that education method on Jake, he'd have an encyclopedic knowledge of fighter jets, Star Wars, and would never ever have learned math.

I'm hoping the "unschooled" business just lasts while the kids are little. The oldest is what, five?

Even homeschoolers have education goals they have to meet. At least, they do in Washington state.

Is he only 5? Then I have no problem with that. I don't even think most 5 year olds are ready for any kind of academics, and I feel bad for all the K kids because they feel lots of pressure.

RA I like what you said about the backlash against girly girls who are accused of being victims of gender assignment.

Salon has an editorial on this! http://www.salon.com/life/gender/inde...

I too wondered how much Jazz was picking up from his parents with all the free to be me talks.

BunWat wrote: "On the one hand you characterize the discussion of the life without parole argument as "we say that a child cannot make an appropriate judgement about killing someone." Can't speak for others but ..."

Yes, I didn't express myself well on that. To rephrase my earlier botched attempt at communicating what I was thinking, I am suggesting that if we think that a child's brain is undeveloped and different from that of an adult so much so that we do not hold him/her accountable for murder, then how do we think their brains are developed sufficiently enough to decide with what gender they want to identify?

BunWat wrote: "On the other hand you characterize the discussion here as "we say they have the judgement to choose who they are," as if Storm's parents are advocating letting Storm choose whether or not (s)he wants to be male or female. Again, not at all what is being said.

From http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/ba.... “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.

When the mother asks that people allow Storm to discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be, I understand the phrase "what s(he) wants to be" to mean gender and I think it means that the parents ARE advocating that the child decide whether s(he) is male or female. Afterall, the entire issue is about gender. If the issue was about careers, I would understand the phrase "what s(he) wants to be" to mean what career a child would choose.

What do others here think she is saying?

Interestingly enough, my 12 year old grandson just arrived and I briefly explained the issue (without bias) and asked for his opinion. He said that the parents should reveal the child's gender and that other people need to be mature enough not to say things like "big boys don't cry".

We talked a bit about how you change people so that they don't "judge a book by its cover" (his words). He reasoned that some things never change and that maybe the parents are right to keep the baby's gender a secret.

Yes, I enjoy having serious talks with him. It's amazing how he thinks and reasons things out. I was pleasantly surprised this last election that he has started to take an interest in politics and formulating his own opinions about it.