• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Raising a theybie: the parent who wants their child to grow up gender-free

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
    The post I replied to used the word naturally, and I'm asking for clarification if any level of parental gender imprinting is natural, I'm also interested if any level of gender imprinting from parents is moral - because that has interesting ramifications.

    Some of the posts imply being raised by robots would be beneficial for children; complete absence of corruption by parental prejudices.
    I've not seen those posts. Care to point them out, or are you just having a gammonfest, in which case my work here is done?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
      I've not seen those posts. Care to point them out, or are you just having a gammonfest, in which case my work here is done?
      Why are you so fragile, triggered and prone to slurring people?

      I'm happy for the poster that I was replying to, to tell me I've interpreted this wrong:

      It would be really fantastic if gender differences happened naturally without being imposed/expected from day 0
      You'll notice my post was a question.

      You look like a complete imbecile arguing on their behalf, classic "gammon" behaviour.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
        Why are you so fragile, triggered and prone to slurring people?

        I'm happy for the poster that I was replying to, to tell me I've interpreted this wrong:



        You'll notice my post was a question.

        You look like a complete imbecile arguing on their behalf, classic "gammon" behaviour.
        Nothing about robots? Disappointing.

        Comment


          #34
          And then it is this:

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by GigiBronz View Post
            And then it is this:

            Sorry you feel you're emasculated.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
              I'm all for autonomy for children allowing to traverse gender as they see fit - but are you suggesting parents imprinting gender on children isn't natural?
              Yes it's natural, that's why I said we naturally do it. The gender reveal party with pink balloons and pink cake, the blue babygros, describing her as "a little princess", him as "what a chunk". But I do think avoiding those stereotypes as much as possible and giving a child equal access to playthings is only a good thing. Just about every parent does it to a greater or lesser degree - seems to me that these parents are allowing the child to develop without those prejudices.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                Yes it's natural, that's why I said we naturally do it. The gender reveal party with pink balloons and pink cake, the blue babygros, describing her as "a little princess", him as "what a chunk". But I do think avoiding those stereotypes as much as possible and giving a child equal access to playthings is only a good thing. Just about every parent does it to a greater or lesser degree - seems to me that these parents are allowing the child to develop without those prejudices.
                I agree with that, but I'm not convinced the family in the article has any less imprinting than a heterosexual / gender-typical household.

                The facts of the article are: they say the female labelling as a child was inaccurate, they claim "non-binary trans – meaning they are neither a man nor a woman", yet they eventually went on to have a biological child of their own (a process only possible by biologically female of the species). The buy in from society to normalise this scenario is gigantic.

                Comment


                  #38
                  0.6% of all people are feeling they are transgender, to raise 100% of people in a gender neutral way is just ridiculous, if they feel later they are in the wrong body feel free to transfer.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
                    I agree with that, but I'm not convinced the family in the article has any less imprinting than a heterosexual / gender-typical household.

                    The facts of the article are: they say the female labelling as a child was inaccurate, they claim "non-binary trans – meaning they are neither a man nor a woman", yet they eventually went on to have a biological child of their own (a process only possible by biologically female of the species). The buy in from society to normalise this scenario is gigantic.
                    And I guess that's why they are in the paper, to some degree. Change comes when people publicise what they're hoping to achieve.

                    As MS says, it's far too easy to be gendered in the way you treat children because that's what society does all the time. Gender seeps into pretty much everything we do, all the way through our lives.

                    The utopian vision is that gender should have nothing to do with 90% of the things that affect/influence your life. Only those things that are literally tied to your biological sex (having kids is the most obvious one) should reference your chromosomal make up. You can't give a trans woman a cervical smear, for example, but a trans man who still has their womb (and maybe ovaries?) intact may still want a check up (not sure how if post-op but I'm not a doctor!).

                    [OT] I was disappointed on discovering recently that a wedding certificate doesn't name the mother. It is still literally a contract of ownership transfer from the father to the husband. (It's currently being thought about via a Private Members' bill) [/OT]

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by TheGreenBastard View Post
                      I agree with that, but I'm not convinced the family in the article has any less imprinting than a heterosexual / gender-typical household.

                      The facts of the article are: they say the female labelling as a child was inaccurate, they claim "non-binary trans – meaning they are neither a man nor a woman", yet they eventually went on to have a biological child of their own (a process only possible by biologically female of the species). The buy in from society to normalise this scenario is gigantic.
                      Originally posted by Eirikur View Post
                      0.6% of all people are feeling they are transgender, to raise 100% of people in a gender neutral way is just ridiculous, if they feel later they are in the wrong body feel free to transfer.
                      If "we" raise children as non-binary and that is considered as PC; surely and more importantly "we" should raise children religion free and let them choose what they want to believe. We should not be scarring kinds with bullying nuns, nor the fear of going to hell nor should we be teaching kids that we are God's special chosen race or the true word of God is from a fake messenger and you will burn in hell if don't do what the book says.
                      "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X