Gender Neutral Parenting

I see. I'm not judging folks for doing this whole gender neutral stuff with their kids. Their kids and their concern, not mine.

 

We don't live in a gender neutral world, so why would we raise children as if we do?

While I'll agree that much about gender roles and expression is learned behavior and may differ between cultures, that hardly means the only difference between men and women are their reproductive organs. While there is considerable variation within the respective sexes, men are still men and women are still women (with the notable exceptions of gender dysphoria and intersex conditions, of course).

There's a balance to be found. We shouldn't stifle a child's creative expression or try to mold them according to stereotypes, but I would argue that encouraging extremes of non-conformance is undesirable. Children need the kind of guidance that will allow them to successfully navigate life, including societal expectations. We can certainly challenge whether those expectations are valid, but I think treating children as if they have no gender at all is fairly ridiculous.

 

Ok heres my opinion on this matter.

Tis whole gender neutral parenting is crap.

Kids are going to do what they want to do. That is why we call it parenting, we guide them into adulthood. When we start teaching our kids that do or dress however you want, this is normal- that is setting them up for failure later in life becuase they will be the ones picked on later in life.

There are things about people that just cannot change, such as animal nature. As males, we subconciously try to be the best we can at what ever to attract a mate. We generally get more competitive with other men in our social circles in our same circumstances.

So to me, not parenting boys along a certain guideline, is setting them up for failure later in life. Im not saying that they can only wear blue, but teaching him that every kid will socially accept him for wearing a pink dress is just setting him to be picked on and bullied.

As for girls, they generally try to attract their mates by their looks. How they dress will generally attract the type of mate they desire- an example- a woman dressed like a bulldyke generally wont attract a male.

Now im not saying that girls cant be on wrestling teams or play sports and be competitive, but for the most part cannot match up physically to the male counterparts.

All im saying is guide your kids to be successful. If your girl wants to be on sports team good, encourage her. If your son wants to be a drama major, support him unconditionally. But to confuse them to say that pink is a socially accepted boys color or its socially acceptable for boys to wear dresses is just wrong and confuses them. If your kid is gay, they will discover that themselves. If they like cross dressing, they will discover it themselves. But please dont set them up to be socially deviant.

 

This is actually where my views are. Raise a boy or a girl like their birth gender, but also be accepting if they show a little gender deviance.

 

An interesting take on gender neutral parenting from a blogger: http://slightlysuburbandad.wordpres...prejudices-number-1-gender-neutral-parenting/

 

My problem is that the theory "Gender identity by nurture" (not by nature) is based on scientific fraud and one of the most severe human rights violations in the history of mankind. It is based on the unethical medical experiment conducted or better "commited" by the popular "sexologist" John Money from John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore on the Canadian David Reimer. David Reimer was a boy whose penis accidentially was removed at the age of one. Dr. Money organized that parents grew him up as a girl and because he had an identical twin intended to find out to which part of the gender identity would be nature, which part would be "nurture". According to his fraudulent scientific reports about his criminal experiment David (Brenda) developed into a girl with a normal female gender identity. The reality was the opposite. David who had not been told about being a boy had difficulties from the first moment and never became a girl. After he (she) had shot him (her) self the case was investigated by an author from the "Rolling Stone" Magazine. Quote: Brenda Reimer resisted being classified as a girl from the beginning. The first time she wore a dress, she tried to rip it off. She preferred her brother's toys to her own. (A toy sewing machine was untouched... "until the day when Brenda, who loved to take things apart to see how they worked, sneaked a screwdriver from her dad's tool kit and dismantled the toy.") She got into fights, insisted on peeing standing up, and ran into terrible problems at school, where the other kids quickly recognized her as someone who didn't fit the ordinary sexual categories. By the time she was 10, she was declaring that she wanted to grow up to marry a woman, not a man..

As if that would not be bad enough the "Brenda Reimer" case still is (mis)used as evidence for the (pervert) "gender identity by nurture" theory. Parents growing up their children based on this theory better should know what they are doing (committing) on their children.

http://reason.com/archives/2004/05/24/the-death-of-david-reimer

 

There is a lot of ignorance in 11 pages here so let's clear it up a little.

1. Gender neutral parenting is not forcing a child to adopt stereotypical gender roles. It mean parents are willing to buy traditionally labeled "boy toys" for girls and "girl toys" for boys. The child gets to choose. It is not about gender identity, it is about breaking stereotypes. A boy who plays with a doll will not change who he is, but will mimic behaviors he sees in culture. (yes men help raise children too). It is about roles in culture not internal sets of norms about the child's sexuality.

2. Gender is a social construct and is not in-born. You can't have a genetic predisposition to an invention like a gun or broom. But gender identity forms based on your internal understanding of yourself. Gender is built around us and it happens early. People treat pregnant women differently if they know she is carrying a boy or a girl. Society shapes gender. How we create it in our kids is providing them options to be who they want to be. But we can't control it. Gender is part of the greater community we live in. It is defined by culture.

3. Forcing your child into a gender role or pattern because it is what you want is wrong. Be it the parents who try to beat the boy who wants to play with dolls or the man described earlier who dresses his baby as a stereotypical girl. In fact the guy who is doing that seems to be trying to create a new gender on his own. In a more insular culture that might be acceptable but it won't work in a society that is a gender sensitive as our own. It could be seen as a form of abuse. I would have to know more about the situation but I would be really really concerned. By the way, treating your boy child as if it were a girl using gender rules of our culture is not gender neutral.

4. Gender has redefined itself in our lifetime if you are are over 30. Since the 1980s women have been given far more freedom to step outside gender roles in our culture. What it means to be a little girl is far broader. Boys, less so but still. This is a direct result of a generation of girls growing up in the post-feminist culture. However, even in many households, daily routines are viewed in gender stereotypical ways. Women still cook, clean and do laundry more often than men, are called by child care and schools more often, and men tend to take the car to the mechanic and kill spiders. This is how children will see the world and adapt to it. Even if the family is far left liberal lectures in Womyn's Studies. Cultural and familial behaviors define gender. But that is a changing trend and my guess is the next generation of children will be far less stereotypical in their at home behaviors.

5. True gender neutral parenting starts not with putting dresses on boys, it starts with how you see yourself. Men must challenge people who suggest they are babysitting when they are with their kids. Concepts like "she wears the pants in that family" have to die away. Giving a child options and honoring them even if the child chooses stereotypical play things allows a child to explore their own gender development. Offering and pointing out a variety of role models for children with a variety of expressions of masculinity and femininity as long as they are healthy. For example. Condi Rice is a bad ass with some hard nose skills and brain power to cut through bull...I don't agree with her vision of the world to be clear...but she showed she is as knowledgeable and skilled at foreign policy as anyone on the right. (yes I know she screwed up the Al Queda thing but that was more focus not skill) but she also seems to be a fashionista and a shoe hound. Will she define the new feminine?

 

The above is simply wrong. Nature is materialized logic. Nature is function. In nature many things have double or triple functions bút nothing is without function, is ornament or artwork. Nature would have absolutely zero problems to imply procreation using one unique sex only. That nature has implemented two different sex must have a logical (functional) reason. That reason is clearly obvious. For nature it was not possible to "park" certain inherent life important abilities and features in one single exemplar of the same species. Physical power is incompatible with or even dangerous for caring for vulnerable newborns. Social abilities like negotiating through speech are superflous during hunting and impair survival. Those abilities are genetical, inherent, not produced, not a social construct. Creating a weapon like playing with dolls are expressions of a genetical transcript. They can partially be deconstructed. Women can become bad hunters and men can become bad nurses.

If your line of argumentation would be true, homosexuality also would be "socially constructed" and could be "deconstructed", others say: healed. Because nature cannot predict its own development during billions of years it has left a great variability in our own gentical "transcript". With this women can become better "men" as certain "originals" and vice versa. Homosexuality is another variation in the genetical transcript. That makes it as natural as all other, although being "rare". "Rare" does not mean "unnatural". It is certainly however not social. Homosexuality is even the proof that sex is made by heredity, not by social construct.

 

Lots of words but not a single piece of this makes sense in the context of gender. Gender is clearly constructed......it is not universal even within some cultures.

No gender and sexuality are two different things.

.

Where did you read this garbage?

Which has nothing to do with gender.........

Perhaps you should go and read the difference and come back instead of trying to sound smart, you could be smart.

 

I didn't read this garbage. I published this garbage. Working in medical research since 30 years gave me the chance to have 250 peer reviewed publications in international medical journals. That does not mean that I am the owner of the truth nor does it make me smart. To me it means however that I have learned to abstain from ad hominem attacks, to avoid insulting others during discussions. That makes me smart.

 

Then explain how you are unable to understand that gender is based the society one is in. Hijara, or berdache people would be examples.

So you publish in medical journals...so are you a sexuality expert? I find that hard to believe because you mix up sex and gender and use reason.com for a resource that has little to do with actual research. So post your credentials and by the way, calling me a liar is as hominem...... since you have yet to show anything I wrote to be wrong.

 

Except most of what you wrote here is not true in relation to the case being used as a watershed. This was a bad decision from the beginning, the children were abused by the doctor and in the end the reports about the progress of Reimer were lies. No one I know in the field still uses this as evidence. Gender is developed through a complex series of actions both biological and cultural. That is a fact. But gender as identified as what is masculine and feminine is defined by the culture. There is no doubt of that in the literature, despite what you say you have published. Again how can one be genetically predisposed to taking apart a sewing machine?

Just as I said earlier, the man dressing his baby boy up as a stereotypical girl is crazy if he thinks that will do anything except irritate people and eventually confuse the child.