Swedish parent's keep 2 year old's sex a secret

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Dumac
Interesting article.

The parents are basing their actions on a sentiment I agree with; gender is socially constructed.

However, you shouldn't use your child to prove a point, and this exercise is useless anyway. You can't hope to wish to isolate your child from society, so trying to banish a social construction is a futile effort.

Explain that gender is a social construct to all the animals that have behavioral differences between genders. Explain away how the genders are physically different as a social construct.

Gender isn't a social construct. Some of the things we use to signify gender ("pink is a girl's color", "girls wear dresses" are social constructs) but most fundamental gender differences are not [/b](little girls who are more interested in social connections and tend to be less violent)[/b].

Sorry, but the hypothesis is just wrong.

Do you think animals don't have social interactions?

When an animal steps of of their assigned gender role, who punishes them?

Thoughts like the bolded part of your statement is what leads to gender inequity.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Dumac

In an isolated environment, I would hypothesize that a child would act free of gender. Gender becomes a non-issue when there is no one to interact with. Gender becomes nonexistent when there is no one to learn it from.

This would be assuming that we have no natural instincts or hormones......

They have been incidents of abandoned children being found, having been raised by no parental figures. In many cases, these children don't show typical behavior or either male or female gender roles.

Not typical to us, but if you isolated a few males and a few females all separately, Im sure the females would be more similar to each other than they would be to the males.

That is common sense.

If you have two isolated environments, the people within those environments will be more similar to each other than the people from other environments.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
What if two abandoned children of opposite gender were to meet up and live together with no outside influence? The male would likely grow to be larger and stronger than the female and have a more aggressive temperament simply because of the higher levels of testosterone his body will produce. The female would probably be smaller and weaker and have a more even temperament due to lower testosterone and higher estrogen levels. If they were smart, wouldn't they divide their tasks so that their relative strengths were used to best effect even if they knew nothing of traditional gender roles?

These parents are so far removed from reality that they have lost sight of the fact that gender is not something that society just "made up", but a set of behaviors that grew from real, concrete biological differences. A better approach to what they are trying to do is not to deny gender itself, but to impress upon the child that it does not have to affect its life in any significant way. No matter what always accept fact for what it is. That the child is either a boy or a girl is a fact. That that has to limit it in any important way is not.

I have no clue what would happen in that situation, as I don't know of any recorded event like it. However, I don't think it would play out like you hypothesize.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Dumac


That is common sense.

If you have two isolated environments, the people within those environments will be more similar to each other than the people from other environments.

No, I mean they were all isolated individually.


Hormones are what shape us to an extent. There is a reason why in tribes being discovered to this day, the Men are the dominant ones, and the wifes cook, clean, make babies.

Dont underestimate the power of estrogen/testosterone. The sexes are not the same, even in a gender-neutral environment.

 

[JS80]

lol "social construction" :laugh:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Dumac
Interesting article.

The parents are basing their actions on a sentiment I agree with; gender is socially constructed.

However, you shouldn't use your child to prove a point, and this exercise is useless anyway. You can't hope to wish to isolate your child from society, so trying to banish a social construction is a futile effort.

Explain that gender is a social construct to all the animals that have behavioral differences between genders. Explain away how the genders are physically different as a social construct.

Gender isn't a social construct. Some of the things we use to signify gender ("pink is a girl's color", "girls wear dresses" are social constructs) but most fundamental gender differences are not (little girls who are more interested in social connections and tend to be less violent).

Sorry, but the hypothesis is just wrong.

Do you think animals don't have social interactions?

When an animal steps of of their assigned gender role, who punishes them?

Thoughts like the bolded part of your statement is what leads to gender inequity.

That's not gender bias. This stuff has been studied, boys, when left to themselves gravitate to different types of play than girls. Animals, when left to their own devices behave differently based on gender. Nobody forces them into these roles, it's just neurochemistry.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: zebano
Halik, I agree that it's influenced by our surrounding culture, but only to a small extent. My daughter watched almost no TV until she was 2 at which point she quickly honed in Dora as a favorite character though she does like Diego. She had already decided pink was her favorite color, dresses are better than pants, dolls and kittens are wonderful etc. Now I'm sure myself, her mother, friends, etc. did impact this to some degree, but we made a point to always offer both masculine & feminine options while not shielding her from the fact that she is a girl & how society views that. I happen to think that most of those decisions are hardwired (thus rendering what these parents are doing moot) but if you can show me some studies contradicting this I would be interested in reading them.

You do realize that the pink/blue and dresses/pants is particular cultural distinction, right? And moreover completely arbitrary.
That is, if your daughter was growing up in a different place, she'd like red color and wear a sari or something.

Mine and point of the people in the o/p is that you inadvertently program your kids to do that (like pink/dresses versus car and pants) and arguably strip them of their innocence. They've de facto learned about sex by proxy and in a way can't be kids anymore.

Trough be told, though, I think it's more a product of capitalism than anything else. The more commercials in between cartoons and Nickelodeon and what not, the earlier kids are put in these sex-based constructs. It makes it easier to sell barbies and matchbox cars.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Dumac
Interesting article.

The parents are basing their actions on a sentiment I agree with; gender is socially constructed.

However, you shouldn't use your child to prove a point, and this exercise is useless anyway. You can't hope to wish to isolate your child from society, so trying to banish a social construction is a futile effort.

Explain that gender is a social construct to all the animals that have behavioral differences between genders. Explain away how the genders are physically different as a social construct.

Gender isn't a social construct. Some of the things we use to signify gender ("pink is a girl's color", "girls wear dresses" are social constructs) but most fundamental gender differences are not (little girls who are more interested in social connections and tend to be less violent).

Sorry, but the hypothesis is just wrong.

Do you think animals don't have social interactions?

When an animal steps of of their assigned gender role, who punishes them?

Thoughts like the bolded part of your statement is what leads to gender inequity.

That's not gender bias. This stuff has been studied, boys, when left to themselves gravitate to different types of play than girls. Animals, when left to their own devices behave differently based on gender. Nobody forces them into these roles, it's just neurochemistry.

Boys have higher level of testosterone... hardly a social construct there. I think the bigger point is blue pants and cars versus pink dresses and dolls. That's just completely arbitrary.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

But the level of parental right to discretion where the surrounding society may disapprove is comparable.

What damage do you think the kid is going to suffer? S/he knows their biological gender, will develop along normal gender lines where that development is biologically influenced, and will still witness society's treatment of girls/boys and women/men. Do you think that the child is going to be mortally harmed by wearing the wrong type of clothes before the age of 5? Or will suffer trauma as an adult because parents' friends didn't say, "what a beautiful little girl" or "what a strong boy you are"?

The parents are making their kid do anything the kid wouldn't naturally be doing, they're just prohibiting others from treating the kid a certain way.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

It's probably not too far off.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

It's probably not too far off.

Eh...nobody can look at you or have normal conversation and know you are "different" in that situation.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Dumac
Interesting article.

The parents are basing their actions on a sentiment I agree with; gender is socially constructed.

However, you shouldn't use your child to prove a point, and this exercise is useless anyway. You can't hope to wish to isolate your child from society, so trying to banish a social construction is a futile effort.

Explain that gender is a social construct to all the animals that have behavioral differences between genders. Explain away how the genders are physically different as a social construct.

Gender isn't a social construct. Some of the things we use to signify gender ("pink is a girl's color", "girls wear dresses" are social constructs) but most fundamental gender differences are not (little girls who are more interested in social connections and tend to be less violent).

Sorry, but the hypothesis is just wrong.

Do you think animals don't have social interactions?

When an animal steps of of their assigned gender role, who punishes them?

Thoughts like the bolded part of your statement is what leads to gender inequity.

That's not gender bias. This stuff has been studied, boys, when left to themselves gravitate to different types of play than girls. Animals, when left to their own devices behave differently based on gender. Nobody forces them into these roles, it's just neurochemistry.

Boys have higher level of testosterone... hardly a social construct there. I think the bigger point is blue pants and cars versus pink dresses and dolls. That's just completely arbitrary.

That may be true, but you don't need to mask your child's gender to give them access to things that are not gender stereotyped. How many geek dads have given their little girls legos (and how many have been disappointed to see them not interested)?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

It's probably not too far off.

Eh...nobody can look at you or have normal conversation and know you are "different" in that situation.

And they'll be able to do that with this kid?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: So


That may be true, but you don't need to mask your child's gender to give them access to things that are not gender stereotyped. How many geek dads have given their little girls legos (and how many have been disappointed to see them not interested)?

Again why do you think that is? Are girls genetically pre-programmed to like barbies/ponies and dislike legos?

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

But the level of parental right to discretion where the surrounding society may disapprove is comparable.

I've got to disagree with that as well. A community can look at the juxtaposition of a family with a differing religion and say "Ok, we don't care for that religion" but still understand the conflict. What community can look at parents call a child "it" (well, by the third person) and easily wrap it's head around it? The answer is not many, why? Because if it wasn't a bigger deal, we wouldn't be hearing about a couple from Sweden. I don't see articles being posted about the atheist families in the Bible Belt.

Will the child suffer permanent emotional damage? I have no idea. I can't say one way or the other. But you have to concede that the chance of it happening is far greater on the side of this "gender neutrality" than on the "normal" side of things. To deny that is naive. Will the child figure things out on its own? Probably, but parents are supposed to help their child grow into the society in which they live .. not buck the foundation of the system.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: So
That may be true, but you don't need to mask your child's gender to give them access to things that are not gender stereotyped. How many geek dads have given their little girls legos (and how many have been disappointed to see them not interested)?

Ello is for girls, nub 😉

Though my daughter has built all sorts of stuff from the big Legos.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: So


That may be true, but you don't need to mask your child's gender to give them access to things that are not gender stereotyped. How many geek dads have given their little girls legos (and how many have been disappointed to see them not interested)?

Again why do you think that is? Are girls genetically pre-programmed to like barbies/ponies and dislike legos?

Barbies? No. Toys that are more conducive to certain types of play? Yes.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Are you a parent? Every kid is an experiment, no two people have the same experience in life. There is nothing wrong with raising a kid according to the parents' values. It may make it harder for the kid in life, agreed. But the same could be said for anything. Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible belt, or as a Christian in the Pacific Northwest sets them up for some social isolation.

Raising your kid as an atheist in the Bible Belt != raising your kid as an "it."

But the level of parental right to discretion where the surrounding society may disapprove is comparable.

I've got to disagree with that as well. [A community can look at the juxtaposition of a family with a differing religion and say "Ok, we don't care for that religion" but still understand the conflict. What community can look at parents call a child "it" (well, by the third person) and easily wrap it's head around it? The answer is not many, why? Because if it wasn't a bigger deal, we wouldn't be hearing about a couple from Sweden. I don't see articles being posted about the atheist families in the Bible Belt.

Will the child suffer permanent emotional damage? I have no idea. I can't say one way or the other. But you have to concede that the chance of it happening is far greater on the side of this "gender neutrality" than on the "normal" side of things. To deny that is naive. Will the child figure things out on its own? Probably, but parents are supposed to help their child grow into the society in which they live .. not buck the foundation of the system.

The question you pose in the bolded section is a good one, but my answer is this. Why can't society easily wrap their heads around it? Because we're not used to it. Society tends to reject the new and different.

Again, I think this experiment will fail, but I think it's the parents' right to do it. We don't remove kids from parents just because there's a possibility or a likelihood they're going to grow up screwed up.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: So
That may be true, but you don't need to mask your child's gender to give them access to things that are not gender stereotyped. How many geek dads have given their little girls legos (and how many have been disappointed to see them not interested)?

Ello is for girls, nub 😉

Though my daughter has built all sorts of stuff from the big Legos.

That's my point. Everyone is different, but there is a certain amount of nature to the nature / nurture question.

 

[elmer92413]

There's nothing wrong with letting a kid wear whatever they want. Boys used to were dresses until about the age of 5 not that long ago. And the traditional colors for boys/girls blue/red were actually flipped from what they used to be in the 50's (red being the color of blood was seen as to violent for girls!)

I completely agree with the parents. Especially about toys. What do you get little girls? Babies, purses, dolls, ect. What do you get little boys? Trucks, tools, action figures, ect. All designed to encase them in a predetermined gender role. Whether you want to admit it or not this happens and plays a huge role in a child's development. Freeing them from this constraint can't do them any more harm.

Gender roles have been rapidly changing in the past 60 or so years. We have more woman in the workplace then ever before. We have stay at home dads. We have split families where parents have to play the role of both mother and father. We are moving towards gender equality. Why should we continue to press are child into old gender stereotypes? This doesn't even touch though on racial issues (I remember reading about a study awhile ago about girls and the color of the dolls they play with and how black girls would pick the white baby over the black baby to play with.)

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Did anyone else see "sex" and "2 year old" in the title and think this was another MJ thread?

ZIIING


right?

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The question you pose in the bolded section is a good one, but my answer is this. Why can't society easily wrap their heads around it? Because we're not used to it. Society tends to reject the new and different.

I won't argue that at all. I'm not arguing that much of our society's gender roles are a social construction, not in the bit. I also don't believe this child should be taken away, or that the parents are guilty of any kind of crime. I just think raising a child with this specific type of gender neutrality is absurd. That these parents are loony. Is at any worse than the parent that will never say I love you? No, I'd say not, but they're still loony. 😛

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The question you pose in the bolded section is a good one, but my answer is this. Why can't society easily wrap their heads around it? Because we're not used to it. Society tends to reject the new and different.

I won't argue that at all. I'm not arguing that much of our society's gender roles are a social construction, not in the bit. I also don't believe this child should be taken away, or that the parents are guilty of any kind of crime. I just think raising a child with this specific type of gender neutrality is absurd. That these parents are loony. Is at any worse than the parent that will never say I love you? No, I'd say not, but they're still loony. 😛

Then we agree. 🙂 I think the parents are pretty nuts to try this, even though it is kind of cool from a science project perspective. I'd never do it to a kid.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
The question you pose in the bolded section is a good one, but my answer is this. Why can't society easily wrap their heads around it? Because we're not used to it. Society tends to reject the new and different.

I won't argue that at all. I'm not arguing that much of our society's gender roles are a social construction, not in the bit. I also don't believe this child should be taken away, or that the parents are guilty of any kind of crime. I just think raising a child with this specific type of gender neutrality is absurd. That these parents are loony. Is at any worse than the parent that will never say I love you? No, I'd say not, but they're still loony. 😛

Then we agree. 🙂 I think the parents are pretty nuts to try this, even though it is kind of cool from a science project perspective. I'd never do it to a kid.

Then we agree to agree! 🙂

:beer: