The Future of Gender(lessness)?

[CJ]

Hi all,

Here's a story from the Toronto Star that generated more than 400 comments (most of them negative). What do you think of this? Read the article and then let us know what you think by voting in the poll.

Love,
CJ

Parents keep child's gender a secret

[DonnaT]

I don't know if it's one or the other, time will tell.

[Carol Ann]

CJ,
I didn't vote on this one as I can see both sides of the story but down deep I feel Storm has made up his own mine by saying he wants to be called a boy.

Nice read anyway

[Carolynn]

Hi CJ. I suppose we are seeing another experiment, intentional or not. John Money didn't do so well in the case of David Reimer (sp?), but the results, negative as they were, did suggest that gender is nature rather than nurture. If it is so, then I think Storm will be able to tell them his gender in a few years. Right now, I suspect ze may be enjoying extra attention without understanding. I thought it interesting that Jazz knows he is a boy, and selectively wants some people to know that, but otherwise is cool with being somewhat indeterminate. He may be copying his parents in attitude in going his own way. Other than mentioning that the other child preferred purple, the version of the article I read on line(with 1600 comments, over 3/4 negative toward the parents) didn't talk about the third child all that much.

As to whether it is good or not, many people in the TS "community" are split on it, a majority wishing they had the opportunity at that age to be acknowledged and accepted by parents for whomever they felt they were.

I do think it illustrates the intense pressure brought about by the bigendered society to make a person be boy or girl, and shows just how early those pressures are brought to bear. It also, I think, shows the amount of courage and conviction in their own identity of the pre-adolescent TS kids that have been on Oprah and in the newspapers over the last couple of years, and in another thread on this site). I have known personally the adult versions of these kids who did all they could to be themselves, often against very strong opposition and pressure, some beaten badly by their own parents, some being raped by their brothers and his friends, trying to force them to conform to some socio-religious ideal. I would not wish that on anyone in the interests of forcing some kid to conform to society's expectations, ya' know? So if the experiment does some good in forcing society to question the way it works, it may be good.

As to whether the parents are doing Storm and their other kids any favors by setting them at odds with society at such early ages, I suppose we will see in a few years. As Ralitsa and others have been thinking, this may raise kids that are very independent in thought and action, though I am not sure how they will be able to deal with society's attitudes toward them. There will surely be some carryover into their later lives, but hopefully any lingering resentment by those who are being thwarted in knowing their gender may be directed toward the parents. It might have served the kids better for the parents to have been less public in their grand experiment.

Carolynn

[Gillian]

Under the average conditions, I agree that the childs gender will show itself before their third birthday. If the parents choose to do this, it is there business, and everyone else should butt out. The real poll is, male, or female. I'm going with female, because they are looking for a strong confident woman to fit into a male world. That's just my opinion.

[Anthony Simon]

I can't help feeling this is going to end in tears. Society is full of people who don't enjoy being flouted - and that is what this is doing, flouting the mores of society. It's not even necessarily that people think it's bad (though I'm sure people will be very moral about this, IMHO that's just a screen), it's the flouting of their power that they don't like.

Is it a good thing, in abstract? If it were in a bubble, maybe. Like if the child really were allowed to make up its own mind without society knowing about it. I think parents have a responsibility to bring up their child with the idea that it's going to fit into society as an adult. So they'd have to convey to the kid that it was being brought up in a different way. Tell it that other kids do have firm and set gender roles. If then the child grew to adulthood in a strong and integrated way - and without all the public knowledge - I can't see why it shouldn't be OK, anyway notionally.

What bothers me is the publicity. I know, when I read the version of the story on Rony's link (links of interest), my first thought was "attention-seeking parents" - kind of like "Stage Mother".

[Anita]

Hi Anthony--
I can't know, but I don't see her as "stage mother." I see her like you, in another post, who said that at times you feel a compulsion to speak what you feel is the truth, and you know that you will do this no matter what the consequences.

This article showed me my own reaction to what these kids must go through. They may benefit from it as adults, as it does encourage independent thinking. But it can be hell for a child to be at odds with the other kids, and society in general.

It can be argued that given the family background, Storm would almost certainly be different in some ways even if the parents didn't withhold gender info. They're assuring the process by doing this.

I can't vote on this one. It has too many sharp edges. Gender tyranny needs to be challenged, but I'd prefer that the parents challenge it with their own lives, and not use their children's lives to prove a point.

If the parents want to withhold gender ID in their own household, of course, that's a different thing.

So there's the dilemma for me: nothing will change about gender unless people do radical acts such as this one. (good thing) I just wish it weren't involving a child who can't speak for their own preference about it. (bad thing)

[Anthony Simon]

Hi Anthony--
I can't know, but I don't see her as "stage mother." I see her like you, in another post, who said that at times you feel a compulsion to speak what you feel is the truth, and you know that you will do this no matter what the consequences.

Hi Anita,

I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive. I mean you can both want attention and need to speak out. And, indeed, if you don't get attention, some people would feel there is no point in talking at all. I can certainly relate to that. But then there's issues to do with things that relate to truth -like integrity - you can get into one of those moral maze situations where you may feel the truth is so important, you're prepared to cut corners to get it out.

I see these as one of those situations, where the child's welfare is put in doubt in, I suppose, the name of some greater cause - like the mother isn't acting with perfect integrity as a parent. I just think (and it's a kind of instinctive judgement) that that sort of thing comes back to haunt you - and messes the whole thing up. That if you take these sorts of decisions everything pretty much needs to be right. Maybe this is naive - and it's one good reason I would never make a politician - but that's my credo.

There are situations where one feels a thing needs doing and one can see a way of doing it. But then, with me anyway, I stand back and go "well how do I feel about this?" And I don't just do it once, I do it in an ongoing way for quite a while, until I'm quite certain that yes I really do feel like that. If it feels OK, I'll do it - otherwise no. With this (albeit someone else is doing it) my instincts are saying there is an unresolved problem to do with the mothering.

Because of the names of the 2nd and 3rd children - Jazz and Storm - I get the sense of children that, in the parent's minds anyway, are supposed to make an impression in the world - Jazz it up and Create a Storm. And it looks quite likely that that is what Storm is going to do, so perhaps that's not such a dumb response. But, anyway, that's where my original idea of "attention-seeking parents" came from, my instinctive response to those names.

[Anita]

I went back and re-read the article, because there's some confusion about names in our answers. Storm is the new baby. Jazz and Kio are the two siblings.

[Carolynn]

I can't help feeling this is going to end in tears. Society is full of people who don't enjoy being flouted - and that is what this is doing, flouting the mores of society. It's not even necessarily that people think it's bad (though I'm sure people will be very moral about this, IMHO that's just a screen), it's the flouting of their power that they don't like.
<snip>.

There is a vast diffenence in being moral and being judgemental. Being moral is being ethical in it's basic sense, being judgemental is beiing bigoted or prejudiced because something does not agree with one's view(s). People who make such a big deal of a personal decision are being judgemental.

Carolynn

[Absaroka]

The whole thing seemed a little silly to me. A good case can be made, I think, for letting a child with ambiguous gender decide for themselves what they are. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, there was no mention of Storm being biologically ambibuous. It seems that it is more an attempt to shield Storm from socialization regarding gender. As such I think it has been clumsily done.

First of all, the two older brothers have been told Storms biological gender. Since at that age siblings perceptions are important, the parents have already defeated their own purpose. Additionally the parents can not avoid imposing their own expectations, it's just not feasible. It seems in this case that they are quite comfortable with their children not subscribing to societies norms, which is fine. But here's an example from raising my own kids: we brought my eldest daughter up to be sort of sex role free. She played with boys, dug up worms, did lots of traditional boy stuff. So lo and behold in an attempt to find herself at about age 4 she announced that girls do not wear jeans and tees, they wear pretty dresses, and when were we going to buy her some? I was admittedly a bit dismayed by this and she caught on quickly, which led her to want still more pretty dresses. The point being how will Storms parents react when she want's a horde of Barbies or he wants a bunch of GI Joes and boxing lessons?


Secondly, by refusing to specify gender they actually support the duality of gender. Rather than saying "you are a boy' or "you are a girl" and then making it clear that these are fluid categories, they are attempting to ignore the categories on the grounds that the categories are too rigid. They are if anything giving added weight to the duality of gender. Better, I think, to have followed the route they took with Jazz, let him be a boy who is defining for himself what this means.

Moreover parents lead best by example. By accepting a feminine boy or a mannish girl they will do far more to let Storm know hir choices are acceptable than by labeling hir as "unlabeled"


It all reminds me of a childhood experiece of my own.

I grew up in the 50's and early 60's. Cowboy shows and army movies were all the rage. Most boys liked to play soldier or cowboy and shoot each other with toy guns. My parents were very idealistic and thought children should not play with toy guns or glamorize such things. What they succeeding in doing was making me different from other boys (and I was very much a boy), not to mention the fact that forbidden the use of toy guns my brother and I made bows and arrows and shot each other with real albeit flimsy arrows.

They made two mistakes. One was that at age 5 I and every other boy I knew understood the difference between toy guns and real guns or even bb guns. Second was that by making me "different" they increased my isolation, anger, and hostility. They used the "if everyone else jumps off the Brooklyn bridge does that means you should to" arguement to justify not jumping off a small rock into a wading pool.

I had serious questions about their Storm's parents educational philosophy as well. I am in absolute agreement that learning works best when it's a product of a childs curiosity. But there is a bunch of discipline and rote learning neccesary. Let's face it, math isn't going to be fun if you have to figure out basic arithmetic each time you do it. That's why we memorize our times tables, even as we also learn what exactly multiplication is. A good teacher can make this enjoyable and purposeful. A great deal of schooling is really just building on the knowledge of those who went before us, and it's best if every child doesn't have to reinvent the wheel in their every endeavor.

Without knowing any more about this family than what one newspaper article says, I think they are perhaps making a similar mistake. The answer is not to eliminate gender, but to aknowledge that not everyone fits into two boxes.

Last thought. Teenagers rebel. The more tolerant the parents, the more the teenager must search for something to rebel against. I predict they may be raising conservative Republican teenagers.

Zari

[Elizabeth]

Hi CJ,

I selected neither choice as I do not see it as either good news or bad news. I just see it as one set of parents trying something different. I do not see it as having any long term consequence.

I come from the camp that says what gender we are is an innate part of who we are. I don't see how the parents actions help the children, unless one of them turns out to be transsexual and it surely will cause their children unwanted attention. This may or may not prove to be harmful.

In the end, we all know that if a child has a feeling of gender different than that of what their physical body is, it will come to pass. I find it easier to just let my children know that no matter what they are, not just gender but any trait, they are still a valuable person and I will still love them.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Susan]

Here is the BBC's take on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835

I am in two minds regarding this. I will let you know (eventually) what I decide.

[Kimberly Kael]

I come from the camp that says what gender we are is an innate part of who we are.

Thinking purely in terms of the gender binary, I tend to agree. When considering the broader spectrum? I'm not so sure. We've certainly seen plenty of evidence that telling girls that "math is hard" shapes how they think about their gender identity. Ditto the idiocy of excusing bad behavior with trite statements like "boys will be boys."

Imposing gender stereotypes is a part of imposing gender, and it strikes me that this is an interesting way to try to avoid both.

I don't see how the parents actions help the children, unless one of them turns out to be transsexual and it surely will cause their children unwanted attention.

Attention isn't inherently bad or good. Some children thrive one it and others find themselves shying away. The parents do seem committed to wanting to let their children find their own way, and I can only applaud that. Second-guessing child rearing decisions is an iffy business. I'd rather see a wide range of approaches yielding a diverse society than insist that everyone has to follow the same philosophy.

[Joan]

Hi all

The parents decision to androgenise a baby/child is more likely to give rise to problems for the affected child/person than solve anything. The child will be confused and subject to stereotyping or being osrtracised or even bullied when exposed to other children, especially at school.

The sterotyping will have always happened from pre-history - Male a focused hunter, female always working on a broad spectrum nad gathering berries, also multitasking to give her family and children (teaching as well as feeding) the best chance of survival.

We fall into a minority, reviered in history by Native American, despised by many others. By education and media coverahe things are changing, but to use a child in one's rebellion cannot be right.

Joan