Taking Gender Equality a Little Too Far?

[Wolfman]

Here's a story that I can't help but find rather disturbing; a pair of parents in Sweden who say that, "their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction."

Quote:

A couple of Swedish parents have stirred up debate in the country by refusing to reveal whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child is a boy or a girl.

Pop’s parents, both 24, made a decision when their baby was born to keep Pop’s sex a secret. Aside from a select few – those who have changed the child’s diaper – nobody knows Pop’s gender; if anyone enquires, Pop’s parents simply say they don’t disclose this information.

Not only does this sound terribly misguided to me, but I don't see how they can possibly hope to keep it a 'secret' from the child for very long...unless they're going to keep Pop (that's the child's name) from associating with any other children (and playing 'doctor', or other such games).

[Bikewer]

Seems rather misguided to me...What is their expressed purpose in this shell game? I would conjecture that if they believe "gender" is a societal construction, then perhaps the kid will somehow be free to become whatever it wants free of societally-imposed constraints.

Rubbish. No doubt they'll find the kid presenting very gender-specific behavior all on it's own.

[Wolfman]

There are basic biological features that define one's gender, regardless of what society (or the parents) may think. I agree that there are problems when society seeks to define one's role or behavior according to gender; but denying the existence of gender is ridiculous.

[Shrike]

Having both a boy and a girl, I can see how ridicolous this can become.
Of course, not all children are and act alike, but come on.
We immediately started to notice the difference. The Shrikette is interested in Grandma's dolls and doing her hair, Shrike jr. is only interested in cars, trains, aeroplanes....

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Shrike

The Shrikette is interested in Grandma's dolls and doing her hair, Shrike jr. is only interested in cars, trains, aeroplanes....

Although I agree there are difference biologically, the one you cite above have a very good chance to be led to society take on gender. Was the car / train put in the hand of the kids by the family and/or made available to him ? How was the face of people when he took a doll ? A car ? What was the amount of participation of the family in his games when he took the car ? The doll ? If he is old enough, how are his other friend reacting to him taking a doll ? Etc .... Same question for the girl.

I find the reaction of the family in the FP really strange , but they have got a point on gender role.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Not only does this sound terribly misguided to me, but I don't see how they can possibly hope to keep it a 'secret' from the child for very long...unless they're going to keep Pop (that's the child's name) from associating with any other children (and playing 'doctor', or other such games).

Pop already knows there are physical differences between boys and girls so it is not a secret from the child or within the family.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

There are basic biological features that define one's gender, regardless of what society (or the parents) may think. I agree that there are problems when society seeks to define one's role or behavior according to gender; but denying the existence of gender is ridiculous.

I do not think there is anything in the article to suggest these parents deny the existence of gender. Else why would the child know about physical differences between boys and girls?

It seems to me they are trying to minimise the imposition of gender role so far as they can. I can certainly see why they would wish to do this and it would be ideal if we ran our society along these lines so that the child's preferences and those behaviours which really are based on biological difference could be expressed as part of that particular person's way of being

I think they underestimate the extreme lengths we go to to gender ourselves however: one family cannot alter something so strong and I think they will find that the "oddity" of Pop will cause him or her some difficulties once he or she becomes part of a wider world. For this reason I find it a little questionable: but then I have the same problem with regard to atheism. If one lives in a strongly christian milieu is it wrong to bring up a child atheist and then enrol it in a religious school ? The question for the parent is the same: how far to you think it is reasonable to deliberately make or allow your child to be different from his or her peers

[merentha]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Having both a boy and a girl, I can see how ridicolous this can become.
Of course, not all children are and act alike, but come on.
We immediately started to notice the difference. The Shrikette is interested in Grandma's dolls and doing her hair, Shrike jr. is only interested in cars, trains, aeroplanes....

As a young girl, I've always liked pretty dresses and wear cute ribbons in my hair. But when it came to toys, I gravitated to my brother's toy trucks and trains. Even when I was a teenager, I wanted toy vehicles from Mask and Starcom, the more movable parts the better.

The only doll I recall playing in my childhood was one that "spoke" whenever I pressed a knob on its belly. If I remove the plastic cover on the back, a red plastic disc, like a mini-record, pops out. I presumed that's the voice media. I probably spent more time exploring that disc than playing "house" with the doll.

I guess I wasn't so gender-aware when it came to toys because my parents tend to buy gender-neutral LEGO sets for us. It solves the headache of buying separate "boys" and "girls" toys for my brother and I. The doll was a gift from an uncle when I was about 5.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Fiona

Pop already knows there are physical differences between boys and girls so it is not a secret from the child or within the family.

I do not think there is anything in the article to suggest these parents deny the existence of gender. Else why would the child know about physical differences between boys and girls?

Yes, my thought also. I wonder how Pop actually knows this without appreciating something about gender? Assuming we're talking about genitalia, why doesn't Pop simply conclude that some children have a penis and some don't, just like some have brown hair and some don't?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Although I agree there are difference biologically, the one you cite above have a very good chance to be led to society take on gender. Was the car / train put in the hand of the kids by the family and/or made available to him ? How was the face of people when he took a doll ? A car ? What was the amount of participation of the family in his games when he took the car ? The doll ? If he is old enough, how are his other friend reacting to him taking a doll ? Etc .... Same question for the girl.

And how did the family react when the child takes the doll and the train, and has the latter run over the former, and then has the other dolls embark on a grand quest to find the limbs? What? You're giving me the same look they did at the time. It's healthy for children to play imaginary disasters. It prepares them for real ones. Or causes them. I forget which.

[Jaxe]

Originally Posted by Fiona

It seems to me they are trying to minimise the imposition of gender role so far as they can. I can certainly see why they would wish to do this and it would be ideal if we ran our society along these lines so that the child's preferences and those behaviours which really are based on biological difference could be expressed as part of that particular person's way of being

Why would this be ideal? The most successful people i know of, both genders, are VERY well aware of their gender roles and play them to the maximum. Some are more successful in their roles than others.

Originally Posted by Fiona

I think they underestimate the extreme lengths we go to to gender ourselves however: one family cannot alter something so strong and I think they will find that the "oddity" of Pop will cause him or her some difficulties once he or she becomes part of a wider world. For this reason I find it a little questionable: but then I have the same problem with regard to atheism. If one lives in a strongly christian milieu is it wrong to bring up a child atheist and then enrol it in a religious school ? The question for the parent is the same: how far to you think it is reasonable to deliberately make or allow your child to be different from his or her peers

I call that 'the real world', the world where theorising about gender roles is one thing, but living in the real world another. Personally I don't think that at this stage it really makes a difference, the child will learn just as any other kid, by emulating, watching and learning. Eventually it will come to the point where Pop starts getting into his/her own role, I wonder how the parents will react then. That's when they can potentially cause some real problems for the child.

[TragicMonkey]

If that's how they're raising Pop, what are they planning for his/her siblings, Snap and Crackle?

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Although I agree there are difference biologically, the one you cite above have a very good chance to be led to society take on gender. Was the car / train put in the hand of the kids by the family and/or made available to him ? How was the face of people when he took a doll ? A car ? What was the amount of participation of the family in his games when he took the car ? The doll ? If he is old enough, how are his other friend reacting to him taking a doll ? Etc .... Same question for the girl.

I find the reaction of the family in the FP really strange , but they have got a point on gender role.

Oh, there was influence of course.
To elaborate a bit, my mother-in-law has some show dolls in a glass display, on a height of, well the floor. Shrike junior crawled by them many times without looking at them, one of the first times the Shrikette could srawl, she crawled over there to look at them.
But then again, nowadays she's happily playing with his brothers trains and cars just as you (and their mother) was.

[bjornart]

Bah, they're not going far enough. When my buddy's youngest was on the way, before they'd seen any revealing ultrasound, I suggested no one interacting regularly with the baby should know the sex.

Only green clothes, and all diapering and bathing to be done by someone living in a room separated from the rest of the house, where they baby could be passed by dumb waiter. Only way to avoid cultural gender role contamination.

Seriously though. We hardly know how much nurture matters when it comes to supposed gender specific traits. Partly because no university is willing to give me a grant for the proposed experiment above, and no parents are willing to participate. And this kid might be slightly messed up, not by "not knowing it's gender", but because of its parents' bias. Their plan might mean friends and relatives don't bombard the little one with gender specific toys, but I except their conviction will cause them to disapprove of any behaviour _they_ perceive as "wrong".

Personally I can't remember gender being important to me before I started school at seven, so unless they're going to keep the kid isolated from all other kids, and all knowledge of gender, until it's that old, I can't imagine it being harmful.

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by Jaxe

Why would this be ideal? The most successful people i know of, both genders, are VERY well aware of their gender roles and play them to the maximum. Some are more successful in their roles than others.

Could you please define what "successful" means to you, thank you.

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by bjornart

Personally I can't remember gender being important to me before I started school at seven, so unless they're going to keep the kid isolated from all other kids, and all knowledge of gender, until it's that old, I can't imagine it being harmful.

Hmm..I wonder about that.

I have a girl and twin boys (with one year between them). The girl is three and a half now. My wife and I try to be as aware as possible of how we relate to kids gender or sexual-wise. We try to be as equal as possible. It's no problem for us if our girl wants to play cowboy, or our boys want to wear skirts...go ahead, we say! What's way more important to us at this point is to try to support their growth as caring human beings, as they are.

It seems to me that the way a three year-old kid recognizes his/her gender, or plays around with their genitals, has nothing to do with sexuality, but all to do with wonder and surprise in how we are all different. I find it hard to believe that a parent could achieve the same kind of sexual-free state of mind (unconsciously) when acting and discussing their childs gender and genitals, or answering questions which naturally arise for many kids way before the age of seven...

Thus I fear that the kinds of parents mentioned in the OP might emphasize the sexuality of a child way too soon in the attempt of trying to simply be as "gender-free" as possible.

ETA: Both my wife and I consider ourselves as "feminists" of a sort. However, it's apparent (once again) that every definition has such a variety of interpretations...

[Michael C]

I can well understand their reasons. Usually the first thing that relatives or friends want to know about a new baby is "is it a boy or a girl?". Once they've got the answer, they have a category for the kid, complete with expectations of behaviour. They will buy it "girl's toys" or "boy's toy's" and they'll be surprised if it wants to wear clothes that are designed for the opposite sex. There will be certain reactions when it acts in ways that are considered normal for its sex and other reactions when it doesn't. It's convenient for people to categorise others into different boxes. The box "boy" or "girl" is probably the first box you'll be put into, before you get stuck in the "smart" or "dumb" box, the "extrovert" or "introvert" one, and hosts of other boxes later in life.

I bet that many friends and relatives of Pop's family will be playing the "guess the sex" game, and I'll also bet that they'll be having a hard time of it. When I see a small kid in the street, I can't tell its sex from its face or its behaviour: it's usually only the clothing that gives the game away.

Most reports of children spontaneously choosing toys or clothes that correspond to the gender stereotypes are anecdotes, not to be taken any more seriously than "look, homeopathy cured my kid's cough". I remember seeing the results of a study that looked at gender differences in the choice of toys. A bunch of small kids was let loose in a room filled with different toys and watched through a one-way mirror: there was no adult present in the room. When the group of kids consisted of both boys and girls, the boys spent more time with "boy's toys" and the girls with "girl's toys". The reason for this, however, was more the perceived pressure from the opposite sex group than the children's actual preference: when only boys were present, they spent just as much time with the "girl's toys" as they did with the "boy's toys". Many boys had great fun dressing up, putting on makeup or playing with dolls. Similarly, when the group consisted only of girls, they spent just as much time with both categories of toys. When only one sex was present, interest was distributed in much the same proportions between the different groups of toys. I guess if the whole group of kids was dressed gender-neutral, so that none of them could easily tell the sex of the others, there would be as many kids playing with the toys from the opposite sex as there were when only boys or only girls were in the room.

Of course this family is going through with this experiment on its own: it would be really interesting to see what happens if a lot of kids were raised "gender-neutral". The point is not to deny the child knowledge of its sex, it's to prevent it being squeezed too soon into a stereotyped category. Pop isn't being told to deny his or her sex, s/he's simply being told that the rights to wear necklaces, climb trees, play with dolls, play with tanks or whatever do not depend on the presence or absence of a penis.

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Michael C

Most reports of children spontaneously choosing toys or clothes that correspond to the gender stereotypes are anecdotes, not to be taken any more seriously than "look, homeopathy cured my kid's cough". I remember seeing the results of a study that looked at gender differences in the choice of toys. A bunch of small kids was let loose in a room filled with different toys and watched through a one-way mirror: there was no adult present in the room. When the group of kids consisted of both boys and girls, the boys spent more time with "boy's toys" and the girls with "girl's toys". The reason for this, however, was more the perceived pressure from the opposite sex group than the children's actual preference: when only boys were present, they spent just as much time with the "girl's toys" as they did with the "boy's toys". Many boys had great fun dressing up, putting on makeup or playing with dolls. Similarly, when the group consisted only of girls, they spent just as much time with both categories of toys. When only one sex was present, interest was distributed in much the same proportions between the different groups of toys. I guess if the whole group of kids was dressed gender-neutral, so that none of them could easily tell the sex of the others, there would be as many kids playing with the toys from the opposite sex as there were when only boys or only girls were in the room.

If you've ever observed the way that a group of boys tends to interact when playing together compared to a group of girls it's pretty obvious that genetics plays a large part in behaviour. That genetic behaviour will have a bearing on what toys appeal to a boy more than to a girl, and vice versa, generally speaking. There's little point in encouraging indifference between Barbie and a replica Colt 45 - the handgun will soon become the toy of choice for the boy and vice versa. Now, maybe that's partly down to gender conditioning, but unless you keep the kid in a bubble it's an inevitability, so why try to fight nature?

[HansMustermann]

I dunno, in retrospect the toys that I got as a kid, half of them would probably qualify more as girl toys than boy toys. I actually had dolls, for a start. (Mind you, most boys do, they're just called "action figures". But I had the real thing.) I can't say I found anything wrong with playing with them.

Also a friend's little boy actually wanted a barbie doll when he saw one in the toy store at one point... much to the parents' shock. They decided that he can't get whatever toy he wants, after all.

And that is the thing that kind of makes me wonder. How much of it is really innate, and how much is just noticing the little encouragements or discouragement he/she gets? Is it really that the kid is somehow genetically attracted to a lump of plastic in the shape of a hangun that didn't even exist when those genes formed? Or is it really that he notices that boys are supposed to play with those?

Of course, I can't make a proper scientific stufy, so it will have to remain at the stage of just wondering about it.

[John_Geeshu]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

There are basic biological features that define one's gender, regardless of what society (or the parents) may think. I agree that there are problems when society seeks to define one's role or behavior according to gender; but denying the existence of gender is ridiculous.

Gender is enculturated. Sex is biologically determined. We wouldn't know how to behave as men or women in our society without training, anymore than we would know how to behave in any societal role without appropriate instruction.

The interesting question about their decision is will it cause confusion about gender or sexuality in the child; and if it does, will this affect the child adversely? It could be abusive, if the child has long-term problems integrating into a gender role within society.

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

...unless they're going to keep Pop (that's the child's name)...

Actually no, it isn't. At least not according to your source.

Quote:

Footnote: Pop is not the child's real name but is the name used in Svenska Dagbladet's interview with the child's parents from March 6th.

[John_Geeshu]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

If you've ever observed the way that a group of boys tends to interact when playing together compared to a group of girls it's pretty obvious that genetics plays a large part in behaviour. That genetic behaviour will have a bearing on what toys appeal to a boy more than to a girl, and vice versa, generally speaking. There's little point in encouraging indifference between Barbie and a replica Colt 45 - the handgun will soon become the toy of choice for the boy and vice versa. Now, maybe that's partly down to gender conditioning, but unless you keep the kid in a bubble it's an inevitability, so why try to fight nature?

Presumably you've made an exhaustive study of this phenomenon and published in major social science journals? But seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think genetics and the hormones in our bodies determine which toys we prefer. We are taught which toys to prefer, just as we are taught that hair cut one way is girlish, and hair cut another is boyish. How easy is it to mistake a man for a woman if the pheotypic differences are not pronounced?

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

If you've ever observed the way that a group of boys tends to interact when playing together compared to a group of girls it's pretty obvious that genetics plays a large part in behaviour. That genetic behaviour will have a bearing on what toys appeal to a boy more than to a girl, and vice versa, generally speaking.

I think that statement is rather bold. How can you be sure of this without a "control group", meaning a group of children who've been raised in a "gender sterile" environment? Or has this been done somewhere?

I mean, I definitely think that genetics do play a role, but how significant, can't be so sure...

Originally Posted by Southwind17

There's little point in encouraging indifference between Barbie and a replica Colt 45 - the handgun will soon become the toy of choice for the boy and vice versa. Now, maybe that's partly down to gender conditioning, but unless you keep the kid in a bubble it's an inevitability, so why try to fight nature?

I'd really like to see you bring forth some evidence to support your claim...

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by Southwind17

If you've ever observed the way that a group of boys tends to interact when playing together compared to a group of girls it's pretty obvious that genetics plays a large part in behaviour. That genetic behaviour will have a bearing on what toys appeal to a boy more than to a girl, and vice versa, generally speaking. There's little point in encouraging indifference between Barbie and a replica Colt 45 - the handgun will soon become the toy of choice for the boy and vice versa. Now, maybe that's partly down to gender conditioning, but unless you keep the kid in a bubble it's an inevitability, so why try to fight nature?

This is precisely the sort of anecdotal evidence that is not supported by such studies as the one I described. When only boys were in the room, the group of boys played equally with the "girl's" and "boy's" toys. Even if we could find solid evidence that on average there is some genetic difference that causes more girls than boys to prefer playing with Barbie, this doesn't say anything about a particular boy or girl. Compare this with something we can measure unequivocally, height: we know that on average men are taller than women, but this doesn't prove that Bob is taller than Alice. All studies of differences between men and women, be they of character (aggressiveness, caring skills...) or of intelligence, show that the spread of individual differences for a particular quality is much more important than the average difference between male and female for that quality.

Just for the anecdote, I (male) never played with guns as a kid, but I did like playing with dolls. My parents didn't go as far as the parents of Pop, but I'm happy that they supported my own choices and didn't expect me to put on cowboy outfits and pretend to kill people.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by John_Geeshu

Gender is enculturated. Sex is biologically determined. We wouldn't know how to behave as men or women in our society without training, anymore than we would know how to behave in any societal role without appropriate instruction.

Beat me to it. There's a whole lot of conflation of gender with sex in this thread. Mind you, I don't think that it is accurate to say that gender is entirely socially constructed. It would be more accurate to say that gender is normatively shaped by culture to a larger degree than we generally want to admit.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Fiona

Pop already knows there are physical differences between boys and girls so it is not a secret from the child or within the family.

According to the article, Pop knows that 'people are different'. However, at least the way I read it, the child has no understanding of gender, or which sex it is.

Allow me to clarify -- again -- that I agree with the principle that forcing roles on children because of their sex is problematic. In my work with the Mosuo, one of the interesting things I found is that there is very little gender differentiation under 14 years of age. Children are dressed the same, and share the same responsibilities. It is only at 14, after going through a coming of age ceremony, that they get distinctively 'male' or 'female' clothing. But they don't pretend that different sexes don't exist, or that it is wrong to identify the sex of a child.

Trying to pretend that sex/gender is something that doesn't exist is ludicrous. There are obvious biological differences, both externally and internally. Those may not define what you play with (G.I. Joe or Barbie); they may not define how you dress (skirt or pants); but they do define distinctive physical traits which do end up defining one's 'role' to a certain point (ie. men cannot bear babies; women have smaller hearts than men; etc.)

This family is creating a taboo. It is wrong or bad to discuss sex/gender. If they feel that it is wrong for themselves to tell Pop's sex to others, then it seems rather obvious that they are going to teach Pop to do the same thing (after all, if Pop is both aware of their own sex, and tells other people what it is, then this entire social experiment is worthless, since Pop will then be identified with that sex/gender). In an age where we are seeking to get rid of taboos (discussion of sexuality, etc.), this is ridiculous.

I know of families that have let their children choose whatever clothing they want to wear -- male, or female. I know of many more families that have let their children choose what they want to play with -- G.I. Joe or Barbie. These are things that I have no real problem with.

My take on this, overall:

There are people of different sexes. This is a biological fact. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it magically disappear.

There are people with different skin colors. This is a biological fact. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it magically disappear.

There are people with all sorts of physical differences (height, weight, missing limbs, missing senses, etc.). This is a biological fact. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it magically disappear.

Being 'color blind' (in this context, I mean that one disregards skin color in relations with others) doesn't mean that you deny the existence of different skin colors; it means that different skin colors don't affect how you treat others. You treat everyone the same, regardless of skin color.

Same thing with gender. I guess I'd be in favor of 'sex blindness' to a certain degree. But that wouldn't mean we would deny the existence of sex/gender. It would mean we would acknowledge it as a simple biological fact, but not have it affect how we treat people of each sex/gender.

However, unlike skin color, I do think there is a basic biological programming that is very gender specific. Aren't we now believing that sexual orientation is largely genetically determined? If you are attracted to males, or to females (or to both) is a part of our genetic makeup. We are biologically programmed to differentiate between males and females (and if you want to argue that we're not, you've then gotta' deal with a whole legion of homosexuals who've spent generations arguing this very case).

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Beat me to it. There's a whole lot of conflation of gender with sex in this thread. Mind you, I don't think that it is accurate to say that gender is entirely socially constructed. It would be more accurate to say that gender is normatively shaped by culture to a larger degree than we generally want to admit.

Very true. I am responding within the context of the article, in which the parents themselves seem to be equating the two terms. They will not tell anyone (including the child) what its sex is, in order to avoid having it pushed into particular gender roles.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Very true. However, I am responding within the context of the article, in which the parents themselves seem to be equating the two terms. They will not tell anyone (including the child) what its sex is, in order to avoid having it pushed into particular gender roles.

That's a little messed up.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Mind you, I don't think that it is accurate to say that gender is entirely socially constructed. It would be more accurate to say that gender is normatively shaped by culture to a larger degree than we generally want to admit.

Well put. I think we are quite far from knowing exactly how much gender is shaped by culture and how much is innate.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

According to the article, Pop knows that 'people are different'. However, at least the way I read it, the child has no understanding of gender, or which gender it is.

From the article you cited

Quote:

Although Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl, Pop's parents never use personal pronouns when referring to the child – they just say Pop.

Of course I cannot know how accurate the report is, so you might be right: but it is not what the article says

Originally Posted by Wolfman

This family is creating a taboo. It is wrong or bad to discuss gender. If they feel that it is wrong for themselves to tell Pop's gender to others, then it seems rather obvious that they are going to teach Pop to do the same thing (after all, if Pop is both aware of their own gender, and tells other people what it is, then this entire social experiment is worthless, since Pop will then be identified with that gender). In an age where we are seeking to get rid of taboos (discussion of sexuality, etc.), this is ridiculous.

I cannot see evidence for this in the article either

it says

Quote:

As for Pop, they say they will only reveal the child's sex when Pop thinks it's time

Again this seems to suggest it is in no way a taboo within the family and that it is discussed. Do you have more information than this article Wolfman?

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If that's how they're raising Pop, what are they planning for his/her siblings, Snap and Crackle?

Well, obviously Snap will be raised as both a boy *and* a girl at the same time. Crackle will be the control, being raised as a third neutral gender.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

They will not tell anyone (including the child) what its sex is, in order to avoid having it pushed into particular gender roles.

That's not how I understand it. The article states that "Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl", so I presume that Pop knows its own sex. For the moment, all that Pop needs to know about boys and girls is that boys have willies and girls don't: learning about other differences can come later. For the moment the difference "penis/no penis" may be no more important than the difference "curly hair/straight hair".

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Beat me to it. There's a whole lot of conflation of gender with sex in this thread. Mind you, I don't think that it is accurate to say that gender is entirely socially constructed. It would be more accurate to say that gender is normatively shaped by culture to a larger degree than we generally want to admit.

Well, that there will be _some_ different brain wiring and whatnot, I think is pretty much a fact.

I would only debate how much of the expected gender-role behaviour does it even make sense to blame on that.

For example that replica of a .45 handgun, is just an arbitrarily shaped piece of plastic. There is no obvious link between its shape and its function, unless you already learned what it is. The same basic shape is used for a lot of hair-dryers, lighters, soldering irons, or tools. And conversely the first guns were not in that shape. Unless you already know it's a pistol, there is nothing in our ape brain wiring that says "weapon" about that particular shape.

So even _if_ somehow a 2-3 year old were to be somehow wired to want a weapon (though I think that kind of wiring gets activated later), there is nothing there saying he should go for the handgun replica. If I actually wanted to play with weapons at that age, throwing my doll or my legos would have made a better weapon than a handgun replica.

Plus, having seen kids playing with that kind of thing, I'm not convinced that they even have the full concept of "weapon" yet. They seem to think more along the lines oif "something that goes "bang, bang!"" than "thing that kills", which is really what a weapon is.

So my guess would be that anyone who wants to play with replica guns, really just does it because they've already learned that that's the toys they're supposed to play with.

[Wolfman]

Fiona,

Thanks...and you are correct. It seems I may be reading more into this than was actually there. If the parents are making the child aware of its own sex (and of sex differences in general), and simply won't tell others what Pop's gender is, I'd have less of a problem with it. Ableit, I'd still tend to agree with this quote: “Child-rearing should not be about providing an opportunity to prove an ideological point, but about responding to each child’s needs as an individual.”

My error came from the fact that the first reference I found to this story said that the child was unaware of their sex; however, all the other articles I've found (including the one I cited) do not say that, and it does seem that the first article misstated the case.

My apologies; and thanks for pointing out my error









And to those who might say I can never admit when I'm wrong...this is at least the third time I've admitted it since I became a member here! That's an average of once a year!

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Michael C

That's not how I understand it. The article states that "Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl", so I presume that Pop knows its own sex. For the moment, all that Pop needs to know about boys and girls is that boys have willies and girls don't: learning about other differences can come later. For the moment the difference "penis/no penis" may be no more important than the difference "curly hair/straight hair".

Yup...read my above comments to Fiona

[Skeptic]

The belief that little girls only want dolls, and little boys cars, because of social pressure, reminds me of Ambrose Beirce quite that the chief preoccupation of mankind is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The belief that little girls only want dolls, and little boys cars, because of social pressure, reminds me of Ambrose Beirce quite that the chief preoccupation of mankind is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue.

Depending on how you meant the grammatically ambiguous 'only', this is either an adequate restatement of the thread thus far or an unsupported expression of your own biases.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The belief that little girls only want dolls, and little boys cars, because of social pressure, reminds me of Ambrose Beirce quite that the chief preoccupation of mankind is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue.

OK, so explain to the thread why it's palpably true that boys do want cars because of something other than social pressure?

I'd love to see you spin a genetic foundation for a love of automobiles!

[volatile]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Depending on how you meant the grammatically ambiguous 'only', this is either an adequate restatement of the thread thus far or an unsupported expression of your own biases.

I think it's pretty clear he meant the second of your assumptions...

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by volatile

OK, so explain to the thread why it's palpably true that boys do want cars because of something other than social pressure?

I'd love to see you spin a genetic foundation for a love of automobiles!

Heck, I can do that.

Little boys all have small penises. Cars are phallic. Playing with cars therefore symbolizes their desire for larger penises, a biological foreshadowing of the changes that will take place at puberty.







Regretting that I have to clarify that I mean the above tongue-in-cheek, as I know there are some who would end up taking me seriously

[quarky]

Ambiguous sexuality is not uncomon. Used to be, a doctor would determine which way the kid should go, as a baby. (Female was easier)
Some of these kids have trouble later on, feeling as if they went the wrong way.

Is it possible this couple has one of those kids? And wants to wait until they can see which way the kid is bent?