Very cool, if true

Arseholes.

Ultimately, the child has to learn how to be themselves in relation to the outside world and their own body.

From:

I disagree - both with the throwing around of insulting names, and with your implied criticism of the parents.

As with almost all stories in the media, we don't know enough to comment too specifically about the case.

However, it seems that Pop knows Pop's phenotypical sex, and is being told about social gender constructs, which both seem good steps.

I am on the transgender spectrum, and I was encouraged by their parents to express myself without too much regard to artificial social constructs. I was asked by one of my peers when I was aged about 5 whether I was a boy or a girl, and I was happy to refuse to say!

From:

And if you were my child, I would support you in this.

However, the Swedish parents *as reported* are still arseholes because they are carrying out social engineering at the expense of their child.

From:

It makes no sense to insult the 'parents as reported'.

It could equally well be bad reporting that's creating the impression.

All parents bring up their children as they think best until the child is old enough to make their own decision. Parenting is by definition a social engineering project ...

From:

"Arseholes" is shorthand for a more considered condemnation.

However, I appreciate that there is a sort of sliding scale. For example, in raising our children with a rationalist and therefore atheist world view, we are in harmony with our local mainstream. If we were doing this 100 years ago, the story might be different.

In the case of the Swedish parents, it would seem that they are using their child to make a point, being deliberately difficult, and that they are factually in error in ways that are potentially harmful.

From:

What I read in the article did not lead me to conclude those things.

I have been on the receiving end of deliberately malicious journalism.

I really do urge people not to condemn others simply on the basis of what you see in the media ... and not to use personally insulting language, either. It's more likely to make a positive difference to offer a reasoned critique of the behaviour and actions than to lob personal insults.

From:

As a parent, I can imagine all the annoying interactions one would have with this couple. They're turning their baby into a trap which they'll spring whenever anybody makes smalltalk, or tries to observe social niceties. I've met people like this and they *are* arseholes.

If they're going to continue this beyond the child's pre-verbal stage, I also have deeper concerns. The other children will treat this child as a freak, so he/she will miss out on learning vital social skills. Nice one.

Also, gender is a biological fact. Part of growing up involves engaging with the world as it is. To raise a(n average) boy to be gentle and nurturing, you have to engage with the fact that he is a boy. To raise a girl to be tough and assertive, you have to engage with the fact that she is a girl.

And, if they are a boy who wants to be a girl, or the other way around, at least on a practical level, you have to engage with the biological facts.

No, it's hard to see how more information would make me like this couple.

From:

This will have to be my last comment on this topic today, as I have to go offline. Sorry for the multiple re-edits, I got my phrases muddled!

I can't comment on the parents you've met who have annoyed you. Perhaps they have exhibited arsey behaviour, but how is it helpful in any way for you to complete write them off (as 'arseholes') on the basis of that?

You speculate that the annoying-to-you ways in which the parents you have met have behaved enables you to predict how the parents in the news story behave, but we have no way of knowing either way.

Gender is not a biological fact, and is not identical to sex. We each have attributes of biological genotypic sex, biological phenotypic sex, and biologically and socially determined personal sex identity, personal gender identity, and socially suggested gender roles, for example. None of these concepts are digital binary - they are all ranges.

Linguistic gender is different again from social gender, personal gender identity, genotype, phenotype etc.

Neutral pronouns are a useful tool. In English, the pronouns related to 'they' are neutral in number as well as in linguistic gender.

Children are adept at noticing differences, and also adept at adapting to them, and at adopting the prejudices of the adults around them. I don't see forced homogenisation of any kind as a positive strategy. You are stereotyping by talking about 'average boys' and 'average girls'.

People vary. Yes, there are some trends in that variation, correlations with certain properties. But people vary so widely that those correlations are usually rather weak. We are all capable of a wide range of positive and negative emotions and behaviours in different circumstances, although we settle into patterns as we grow up.

I submit that it is more useful to observe children and nurture them as you think best to be good *human beings*, than to look once at their goolies then close your eyes and tell them to fit into stereotypes.

None of this seems to me to relate to whether or not you would like the parents if you met them socially without prior prejudice.

Edited Date: 2009-06-29 03:29 pm (UTC)

From:

I don't disagree with much of the above. A conversation for the pub, I think.

From:

They're turning their baby into a trap which they'll spring whenever anybody makes smalltalk, or tries to observe social niceties.

I really don't think you can draw this conclusion based on the article. You seem to be taking it for granted that the parents are doing this for the sake of pushing their own ideology, without reference to what's best for the child. But you can't necessarily separate ideology from what you think is best for your child. These parents clearly believe that gender is an artificial construct, and that as soon as society has it pegged which sex you are it will attempt to push you into accepting one particular gender role. I think this is perfectly true, frankly. And I'm willing to accept the possibility that they believe that the best way to keep their child from being pushed into one gender role is to keep their child's sex secret. I don't necessarily agree that this is the right thing to do, but I accept that *they* may think so and may well be doing what they think is best for their child.

I'm also not sure why you think raising a child to be gentle and nurturing, or to be tough and assertive, requires "engaging with" their genital sex. It's perfectly possible to encourage positive traits in a child -- teaching them to be kind and gentle to others, but to be able to stand up for themselves when necessary -- without making any reference to their sex at all.

With regard to trans kids, not knowing the relevance of their sex leaves them free to do what they like and play with whomever they like without a sense of discord; the bad part of being a trans kid is being forced by one's parents and by society into one category when one knows one belongs in another. Later, when secondary sex characteristics start developing, the child will almost certainly have formed a sense of their own gender identity, and can determine whether their physical sex is in agreement with that or not.

From:

The parents - as reported - are scientifically wrong, which rather suggests that they are more interested in ideology than what's best.

It's not genitals, it's hormones and brain architecture, both of which affect very young children.

And, isn't it a tad cruel to raise a kid out of synch with the rest of society?

Finally, you can raise a kid to play how they like. It helps to be able to say, "It's OK for boys to play with dolls/girls with guns."

From:

The parents - as reported - are scientifically wrong, which rather suggests that they are more interested in ideology than what's best.

Even if it's conceded that they're wrong, that doesn't mean they don't believe what they're doing is best for their child. People deny their children immunizations because they believe it's best for the children, too, and the idea that vaccines cause autism has been far more concretely disproven than the idea that gender is largely a social construct. I don't think it's fair to insist that unless every decision parents make can be proven to be "right" by science, that decision was made without regard for the child.

It's not genitals, it's hormones and brain architecture, both of which affect very young children.

This is perfectly true (though it doesn't make sex or gender strictly dichotomous at all) but I don't see why that means that you need to explain who society thinks you're likely to be based on those hormones/brain architecture. In other words, I don't see what's lost by letting kids develop according to their own nature, without handing them a bunch of predictions about what that nature will/should be -- or letting society hand them those predictions. And those predictions are one inevitable result of labeling a child "boy" or "girl".

From:

Absolutely agree about letting kids develop in their own direction. Disagree only on the method for achieving this.

From:

And, isn't it a tad cruel to raise a kid out of synch with the rest of society?

::shrug:: In some ways, I suppose. But just telling a boy that he can be gentle and a girl that she can be tough is out of sync with society too. Any parent whose ideology doesn't strictly match the "norm" has to find some way of balancing their ideals with conformity for the sake of their child's comfort. These parents apparently feel that on this issue, their child will be better off growing up without imposed gender expectations than conforming to society's insistence on categorizing kids. Personally, I agree that the kid will take too much shit for this for it to be worth it. All I'm saying is that they don't seem to think so, and I don't think I can judge them for not agreeing with me.

Finally, you can raise a kid to play how they like. It helps to be able to say, "It's OK for boys to play with dolls/girls with guns."

Why? I'm not being facetious. It seems easier to me to just let the kid play with whatever they want to. If they come asking why the boys at school play with toy guns and the girls at school play with dolls, you can answer that question -- the child hasn't yet been told hir sex, but it's pretty clear ze will be told what sex and gender *are* -- but I don't think there's any reason to say "you're a boy and society says that boys are supposed to play with toy guns but you can play with dolls if you want because society's wrong about that."

From:

>and I don't think I can judge them for not agreeing
>with me.
I'm a parent, and I shudder when I think about what they are doing. Why not go the whole hog and refuse to tell them what species they are as well?

>Why? [etc]
Absolutely. I should have written: When asked, it helps etc.

From:

endless-psych.livejournal.com

Take heart then that for a multitude of reasons they will fail massively if there is any earnest attempt at social engineering.

Tabula Rasa my arse.

From:

endless-psych.livejournal.com

Methinks I will blog this rather irritating meme at some point.

The Voynich manuscript:- It's true noone knows it's exact purpose or exactly what it says... However it's highly likely (given the illustrations) that it's an early example of an alchemists/anatomist/botanists handbook. Written in code so as not to inccur the wrath of the church who would have been supressing certain scientific endeavours at such a time. That or an elaborate hoax.

The Antikythera Mechanism:- This is just a case of modern chauvanism, "surely no one in the ancient world could have made such a thing", pisses me off that does. The Greeks had more then enough mathematical ability to create a device of this kind. Most likely an astrolabe it works out stars positions based on a geocentric (Earth as centre of universe) model. The Greeks also had enough quality artisans to produce such a complex device. As to why there was only one? Well perhaps it was a gift got a noble dignitary or some such.

The Baigong Pipes:- More then likely this is Chinas answer to the Giants causeway...

The Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica:- Some ancient people carved some stone balls. The technology for achieving such a shape is not exactly rocket science...

The Baghdad Batteries:- I do like these. But again it's less mystery and more modern chauvanism again I fear.

The Bloop:- Who knows? I'm off to start a thread on badscience about the site maybe someone else will know?

On a bit of a point of pedantry most of these are mysterys for archaology (which although it uses elements of the scientific method is more antropological in it's outlook).

From:

Well said!

From:

henriksdal.livejournal.com

true, the Antikythera Mechanism in particular is very sensibly explained in great detail on wikipedia, for goodness sake. I liked the article's style but most of the "mysteries" seem to have been solved.

From:

endless-psych.livejournal.com

I've recently been reliably informed that you shouldn't take cracked too seriously... Opps.

From:

henriksdal.livejournal.com

well, that too :D

From:

matgb

Ask a question: "What browser do you use?" answer is likely "huh?"

Ask the question: "What software do you use to get on the internet?" and the answer is likely going to be the name of a major browser. Or possibly "I click the blue E".

I don't see a problem with users not knowing a technical term, but I do see a problem with a polling methodology designed to maximise the appearance of ignorance...

From:

nancylebov.livejournal.com

IIRC, the first issue of Ms. had a story (fictional) about parents who refused to say what sex their child was, with underlying premise that it doesn't matter until puberty.

From:

What I am wondering is why I can't comment on this entry...?

From:

Now it works. Maybe I was trying to put in too much content at once? Let me see if I can split it into two...

So the kid hirself doesn't know what gender ze is?

I 'unno, man. λ told me that in college she read a short story about this precise notion -- parents not telling their child, or anyone else, what the child's sex was. She said to me at the time, "Of course no one could ever do this in real life." ::wrinkles nose:: It's definitely going to set the kid apart and likely make hir self-conscious.

From: