SO it begins.....

I partially agree, partly disagree. You see the logic - making the child independant, giving them equal respect for both genders, hopefully freeing them from feeling obligated towards a stereotype...

Then you look again and see just how hard they're hammering that nail, ramming it in the faces of others, forcing it on their kids without thinking about potential future consequences in society, and apparently ignoring that it's because of their attitude to child upbringing that their five year old is being ostracised.

A little less pretentiousness, a little more acceptance of the current attitude of society's current attitude towards cross-dressers whether they like it or not would be nice.

Sakurelf wrote:

And it doesn't always work to have each person come up with whatever they, personally wnat to be called. That's still confusing to common folk. one person may still want to be called "He" until they are post-op, then "She" One person may want to be called "She" regardless of looks or lifestyle.

Which op? :p
After facial feminisation surgery, maybe, especially if they had an especially masculine bone structure and couldn't escape the 'man in a dress' look. Since no-one's going to be able to tell from looking at you what's going on in your underwear, why acknowledge it? On a more practical note, SRS requires a period of living as your target gender, so even if an MTF wanted to be called 'he' she'd have to put up with being called 'she' for a while first.

Quote :

It's the same as asking which one of a gay couple is the "mom or dad". Some people just want a way to differentiate parents without saying their name. Not as a referral of strict gender roles.

But by phrasing it in terms of mum and dad, you are doing just that. Those two words do have gender roles attached, and using them as though they don't doesn't change that. I don't think there's a universal term, but 'parent' and 'other parent' are neutral enough.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Jesus Christ Harley I will beat you to death with Grunge's corpse

just shut up

just shut your fucking mouth

Was that Cyberwulf threatening another woman with bodily violence? How dare you promote violence against women, Cyberwulf?! You utter hypocrite!

Sutremaine wrote:

Quote :

It's the same as asking which one of a gay couple is the "mom or dad". Some people just want a way to differentiate parents without saying their name. Not as a referral of strict gender roles.

But by phrasing it in terms of mum and dad, you are doing just that. Those two words do have gender roles attached, and using them as though they don't doesn't change that. I don't think there's a universal term, but 'parent' and 'other parent' are neutral enough.

I guess, key word = want to. They don't mean to attach centuries of gender roles and stereotyping, but a lot of people come up with a blank when trying to think of something correct. They fish around for something but a lot of things sound awkward, or just as bad, especially on the fly.


Oh, and bless my dad for still thinking that trannie = transmission.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

[...] logic[...]

I thought you were banned from using that word?

Grunge wrote:

Quote :

The couple’s 5-year-old son, Jazz, “keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids,” his favorite color is pink and “he loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear.” What’s more, the reporter describes a booklet Jazz wrote titled, “Gender Explorer.” Inside, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!” [URL="http://politicaljunkiemom.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/what-liberal-child-abuse-looks-like-the-genderless-child/"]link[/URL]

It just doesn't seem like an issue a child of their age should have. As for the kids booklet seems more like things he heard his parent saying over and over. Brainwashing him to believe thats what he wants. I don't have a problem with the clothing or the nail polish, let the kids have fun it's just the over all agenda the parents have.

Fucking hell, what overall agenda? You mean like the sooper sekrit agenda that all gay people have for turning America gay? Because enforcing the gender binary itself isn't "brainwashing" or an agenda or anything...

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I partially agree, partly disagree. You see the logic - making the child independant, giving them equal respect for both genders, hopefully freeing them from feeling obligated towards a stereotype...

Then you look again and see just how hard they're hammering that nail, ramming it in the faces of others, forcing it on their kids without thinking about potential future consequences in society, and apparently ignoring that it's because of their attitude to child upbringing that their five year old is being ostracised.

A little less pretentiousness, a little more acceptance of the current attitude of society's current attitude towards cross-dressers whether they like it or not would be nice.

What the fuck are you going on about? This family has no "agenda" other than trying to live their own lives, free from the pain and anxiety caused by strangers trying to enforce their views of what gender should be. Allowing their young sons to wear dresses in public is "ramming it in the faces of others"? Yeah, simple self-presentation as something other than total compliance to the gender binary is OMG SO OFFENSIVE.

And their five year old was ostracized BECAUSE OF OTHER PEOPLE'S SEXIST ATTITUDES! NOT because of the parents' choice to raise their child a certain way. That's like saying that gays get bashed because they act gay in public, not because of the bashers' intolerance. Wait a minute, why the fuck am I wasting my time on Harley...

Anyway, as far as the "unschooled" thing, I don't think it's as big a problem as some people seem to think here. Just because the children aren't going through the traditional school structure of homework and class periods and soul-crushing boredom doesn't mean they're not learning discipline and responsibility. It really depends on what the home is like. What it does mean is that they're probably much more creative and self-sufficient: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if the kids aren't being "home schooled," there's tons of other ways for them to get socialized than in school. And even if one of these kids decided, for whatever reason, that they wanted to go into the public school system I seriously doubt the parents would tell them no.

[quote="Owlish"]

Grunge wrote:

Quote :

The couple’s 5-year-old son, Jazz, “keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids,” his favorite color is pink and “he loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear.” What’s more, the reporter describes a booklet Jazz wrote titled, “Gender Explorer.” Inside, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!” [URL="http://politicaljunkiemom.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/what-liberal-child-abuse-looks-like-the-genderless-child/"]link[/URL]

It just doesn't seem like an issue a child of their age should have. As for the kids booklet seems more like things he heard his parent saying over and over. Brainwashing him to believe thats what he wants. I don't have a problem with the clothing or the nail polish, let the kids have fun it's just the over all agenda the parents have.

Quote :

Fucking hell, what overall agenda? You mean like the sooper sekrit agenda that all gay people have for turning America gay? Because enforcing the gender binary itself isn't "brainwashing" or an agenda or anything...

The father read a children s book back in 78' and decided he wants this to become a reality. So the agenda is these hippys want their children to go through with what they view as right. I'm indifferent if these children would of chosen this path themselves and the parents just stood by encouraging it. The agenda here is their parents came from a different up bringing and thought "Oh geee lets have these kids make our ambitions come true." I was raised in a house with four women, so as a guy i learned that people are people not gender based. I chose to be hetro with a semi-regular upbringing., but these kids didn't even have a chance. Their parents have fed them bullshit they were unsure how to convey to other adults.

Guys, I'm pretty sure Grunge is a troll.

Azzandra wrote:

Guys, I'm pretty sure Grunge is a troll.

What makes you think so?

Yes Grunge, I'm sure you "chose" to be hetero.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Yes Grunge, I'm sure you "chose" to be hetero.

> implying i didn't and was pre-programed to be

Unschooled kids named "Jazz" and "Kio" have more problems than their just parents raising them gender-neutral.

Can't wait for them to be thrown into the real world, I wonder if they are also indigo children.

Grunge wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Yes Grunge, I'm sure you "chose" to be hetero.

> implying i didn't and was pre-programed to be

Yes, most people have a fixed sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is also not something people choose. Most people have a particular gender identity too - it just doesn't necessarily match the gender assigned them at birth based on the appearance of their genitals. Are you sure you even understand the differences between biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation?

It seems like I'm seeing a lot of "THE PARENTS SHOULDN'T DO THIS THING WITH GENDER BECAUSE IT'S MESSING WITH SOCIETY AND SOCIETY WILL RETALIATE!". As if our society and notions of gender/sex/sexuality aren't fucked up and don't deserve to be challenged.

From what I understand, these kids aren't transgender girls, they're boys who just like dressing in "girl" clothes and doing more stereotypically "feminine" things, but what if they were actually trans? What if these parents were letting their kids act as they wanted and live as they wanted -- wear dresses 24/7, use the girls' bathroom, play with girlie toys, and say that they were girls, even though they currently (presumably) have male genitals?

Would any of us then be saying that the parents shouldn't do that because it's going against society's norms and society will lash back at the kids? And if we said that, wouldn't we be saying that of adult trans people too? Where being trans might mean you don't get a job, you don't get a house/apartment, you get accused of being a pervert if you try to use a certain restroom, you get threats of being beaten, raped, or killed because you're trans? I mean, gee, wouldn't going back into the closet make all that magically go away?

This article is pretty much how a lot of society views this family.

Quote :

Referring back to the opening statement – that if you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs – I strongly disagree. What's between everyone's legs is wildly important. It defines God's purpose for you. Did He make you male or female? I'm grateful – not hostile – that He made me the latter.

I don't think that writer means ill, but I also think that her head would fucking explode if she ever met an intersex person -- or realized they exist.

Also, there's the possibility (which I haven't seen anyone else consider) that baby Storm is intersex, in which case the parents' reason for not revealing the child's sex could be a matter of preserving the child's privacy and right to intact genitals as much as anything else. Hell, for all we know, one, two, or all three of these kids could be intersex.

Malganis wrote:

It seems like I'm seeing a lot of "THE PARENTS SHOULDN'T DO THIS THING WITH GENDER BECAUSE IT'S MESSING WITH SOCIETY AND SOCIETY WILL RETALIATE!". As if our society and notions of gender/sex/sexuality aren't fucked up and don't deserve to be challenged.

It's just that parents pushing any agenda, to me, seems harmful. Crazy is crazy, it doesn't matter which end of the spectrum we're talking about.

Now I have to admit I'm being lazy and didn't read the article, so I can't form an actual opinion on this particular set of parents... but then again I'm not sure that an opinion based on an article is necessarily very close to the truth (yeah, I'm just rationalizing my laziness here). The thing is that I already don't believe in homeschooling, much less "unschooling". It all sounds very HIPPIE ALERT to me, and parents pushing a hippie agenda are just as capable of fucking up their children as parents pushing a religious wing-nut agenda.

So, parents who don't force their kids into outdated gender roles, I'm all for that. I'm not entirely convinced these particular parents don't go a bit beyond that, though.


PS I feel like Pierre is necroposting, in the sense that they came back from the e-grave. Hello, Pierre. Joined the Fresh Start Club yet?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Unschooled kids named "Jazz" and "Kio" have more problems than their just parents raising them gender-neutral.

Meh, "odd" names are pretty common for kids these says. At least those are easy to remember.

Things like what clothes kids wear depend on the culture and the era anyways. In the 1800s it was common for kids of both genders to wear dresses until they were around 6 or 7. You can easily find a photo online of Franklin Roosevelt, taken in 1884 when he was 2 and a half, wearing a dress, having long curly hair in a style we'd think of as feminine, and holdihng a feather trimmed hat. Or to use another example pink was considered a boy's colour in the early 20th Century while blue was considered a gilrl's colour.

tim gueguen wrote:

In the 1800s it was common for kids of both genders to wear dresses until they were around 6 or 7.

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I meant to and then forgot. Harley, it's not that we as a society are not to that point yet where little boys can wear dresses. We aren't there anymore.

Azzandra wrote:

Guys, I'm pretty sure Grunge is a troll.

I'm starting to agree with you. Odd though, because I thought I remembered the username being a legit poster before...

Malganis wrote:

Also, there's the possibility (which I haven't seen anyone else consider) that baby Storm is intersex, in which case the parents' reason for not revealing the child's sex could be a matter of preserving the child's privacy and right to intact genitals as much as anything else. Hell, for all we know, one, two, or all three of these kids could be intersex.

In another article I read the parents said that Storm is not intersex (haven't seen anything on the other kids).

Sakurelf wrote:

I know many people who want to be respectful and courteous of gays and transgendered people, but they don't know what word to use in what context. (Ok, so this person is MTF, do you refer to them as "he", "She" or just sort of balk and shy away out of ambarassment?)

Oi! Stay out of my head!

Really though, I think these parents (open-minded to a fault, I find them) are opening a can of worms that doesn't really need to be reached for, let alone opened. Bring the child up with no pre-concieved concept of gender: so what are they going to do about the media? Other kids? They're expecting little Storm to grok a concept that many (if not most) adults can't really get a handle on (as on vivid display in this very thread). The "unschooled" thing is simply the cherry on top.

I'm with those who think they're treating Storm like an experiment, and not their child.

Freezer wrote:

They're expecting little Storm to grok a concept that many (if not most) adults can't really get a handle on (as on vivid display in this very thread).

Mostly with you, except for this. Children can learn to see anything as normal. If you really want to teach someone that "boy" and "girl" are just words and you can be whoever you want to be, then that's the time to do it. Old dog, new tricks and all that.

Freezer wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

I know many people who want to be respectful and courteous of gays and transgendered people, but they don't know what word to use in what context. (Ok, so this person is MTF, do you refer to them as "he", "She" or just sort of balk and shy away out of ambarassment?)

Oi! Stay out of my head!

Here is a relevant article:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The gist of it: you ask.

You don't need to be specially 'bred' to be respectful and open-minded towards homosexuals.

Some people are born hetero. And some people are born homo. And it seems that some people ARE born with the ability to choose, and that's what we call "bisexual". And some people are born with the ability to find just about anything sexy, which is what gives us Furries and people who can see the attraction in giant robots.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

And it seems that some people ARE born with the ability to choose, and that's what we call "bisexual".

Uh, bi people don't get to choose who they're attracted to. It's not like bisexuals wake up in the morning and think "I decided I'm gonna be attracted to men today!" They don't have a little switch in their head that goes from "straight" to "gay" on command.

Azzandra wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

And it seems that some people ARE born with the ability to choose, and that's what we call "bisexual".

Uh, bi people don't get to choose who they're attracted to. It's not like bisexuals wake up in the morning and think "I decided I'm gonna be attracted to men today!" They don't have a little switch in their head that goes from "straight" to "gay" on command.

I think that Harley's point was that bi people can choose to live their lives as straight, bi, or gay in respect to their romantic partners. Someone can be bisexual but still choose to go into relationships with only members of the opposite gender, or only members of the same. It's not that they choose who they are attracted to, but more that they choose who their romantic/sexual partners are.

Azzandra wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

I know many people who want to be respectful and courteous of gays and transgendered people, but they don't know what word to use in what context. (Ok, so this person is MTF, do you refer to them as "he", "She" or just sort of balk and shy away out of ambarassment?)

Oi! Stay out of my head!

Here is a relevant article:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The gist of it: you ask.

Saying that people just need to ask is all well and good but not everybody feels comfortable doing that when they've just met a person incase they offend them. That's not to say that this is the only instance of this, until you get to know somebody, asking any question beyond the most benign is a bit of a social stumbling block for most.

Edit:- grabbing this lot too.

Knight wrote:

Azzandra wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

And it seems that some people ARE born with the ability to choose, and that's what we call "bisexual".

Uh, bi people don't get to choose who they're attracted to. It's not like bisexuals wake up in the morning and think "I decided I'm gonna be attracted to men today!" They don't have a little switch in their head that goes from "straight" to "gay" on command.

I think that Harley's point was that bi people can choose to live their lives as straight, bi, or gay in respect to their romantic partners. Someone can be bisexual but still choose to go into relationships with only members of the opposite gender, or only members of the same. It's not that they choose who they are attracted to, but more that they choose who their romantic/sexual partners are.

Not really, if your bi yes you find members of both genders attractive, but if you fall for somebody you fall for them, you don't get much control over who that person is. A Bisexual has as much choice in appearing homo or hetero to teh outside world as the rest of us do about our hearts skipping a beat when we first see somebody we really fancy.