This topic is a little hit and miss for me. In general, I both agree and disagree with the idea of a genderless child. I agree with the fact that children should be raised without the constraints of gender stereotyping (pink for girls and blue for boys is an example of this) and they should be allowed to explore whatever avenue they're interested in. Whether that is playing with dolls or army figures. However, I do not agree that a child's biological gender needs to be so private that even close family members don't know. Keeping a child fairly unisex is quite a revolutionary way to raise children, in my opinion anyway. The fact that not so many parents choose to raise their children like this is the main reason that it comes under such scrutiny from others. Parenting is a subject that many people feel the need to get involved in, as well as giving their opinion on how they feel a child should be raised.

I saw a parenting blog before about how a mother and father raised their daughter in a way that she would not be labeled and would not be forced to do things that she didn't want to. An example would be when she asked to get a mohawk, rather than say no as the vast majority of parents would to a five year old girl, they said yes. Many people saw this as 'abusive' to the girl as the style belongs to a subculture that no child should be a part of. They also raise her in a way that is somewhat gender neutral, but not to the extent of the couple in the video.

I would say that children raised this way are likely to be bullied in mainstream schooling. Society is conditioned in such a way to dislike things that are different. However, the couple in the video have already agreed to home-school their children, so I guess the subject of bullying has been dealt with by them. Alas, my views on homeschooling would fit into an entirely different debate, as would what I think about the idea of a child's education being controlled by their curiosity. There are many skills in life one needs to learn in order to function as a 'normal' human being. Not just life skills, but also maths and languages. If the child wasn't curious in these areas, they would not be forced to learn them. Right off the bat they're at a disadvantage to everyone else. It's at this point that I feel there should be some sort of intervention from officials to at least have standardized material that children need to learn that fits in with both public and home schooling.

The fact that she is forcing her five year old to play with dolls probably has contributed to his choice in being transgender. However, there also has to be some underlying desire to be female in there, otherwise he wouldn't have requested to be brought up feminine in the first place. I do feel that in some way the mother probably did have some factor in aiding his decision, as children copy what they see (that point just completely contradicts my argument, but oh well). I wouldn't say that she 'made' him become a girl though.

To be honest, I don't see what the big deal is. "Genderless" is the default -- when a child is born, zie has no gender. They're taught what gender is, and have one applied to them, and are trained from the moment they're born to live according to that role. Deciding to skip those last two steps is just allowing your child to be who zie wants to be and live without worrying that there's something "wrong" with what zie finds appealing. Sure, zie'll likely be bullied, but I find it a little bit disturbing how quick we are to see that as the fault of the victim and the parents who raised them that way, rather than the fault of the bully and the parents who raised them *that* way. I mean, how different is it really to say that raising a child the way they were born, without a gender, is asking for them to be bullied and is tantamount to child abuse for not engaging in proper social training, and saying the same thing about a child who is attracted to the same sex? Should we be condemning the parents who knew their children were gay, but didn't immediately start training them to view their attractions as unnacceptable, especially given all the suicides of gay teens that likely would not have happened were they not gay? And what of the straight, gendered children who are still victims of bullying, despite their parents' lifelong, successful social training? Or the ones who try very hard to be straight yet are not, or who live according to their assigned gender roles but know it isn't really them, and who are bullied based on other factors? The problem with victim-blaming -- and that's all this is, at its heart -- is that, when you say x, y, and z cause victimization so don't do them, you have nothing to say when someone spends all their energy not doing x, y, or z, putting hir potential in a box to do so, and yet is still victimized.

EDIT: As an aside, I would like to say this: I wish I had been raised without a gender. My parents allowed me to be a "tomboy", in many respects, but in other ways pushed femininity onto me. This, to many people, would be an acceptable neutral, with one balancing out the other. But that extreme, forced femininity affects me to this day. I'll start to do something or wear something or cut my hair a certain way, and then I'm terrified that it'll be interpreted as "butch" (which, being gay, is a bit bigger of a deal for me than it might be for a straight woman). On some level, I know it doesn't matter. I know that all that matters is that that's what I want and what I like. But because I was trained to see those things as masculine, and myself as feminine, that worry is still very much there. And it works the other way as well; I don't allow myself to be overly feminine, as I've been trained to view the feminine as un-serious and childish and everything I don't want to appear as. If I'd been raised genderless, I might have been bullied (though I was anyway, partially for not being feminine ENOUGH), but I wouldn't have that self-doubt and self-editing. And I still ended up bucking my social "obligations", so it's not like it mattered a whole lot in the end.

I think it's cool. The importance we as a society place on gender identity is disgusting. I personally wouldn't try to keep my child's biological sex a secret, but I would stress to him that he does not have to fit the stereotype of associated with that sex. Aside from that, I would consider doing this very thing with my own children.

just from what I know about this from reading news articles.. I don't think it's a good idea to raise a child genderless.
Against gender stereotypes, maybe.. but completely genderless? The child would probably grow up extremely confused and teased. Whether we like it or not, genders are separated in our society.

Although personally I would never have a problem with my boys liking pink and barbie dolls or my girls like blue and GI joe, some people feel that boys are SUPPOSED to be blue and girls are SUPPOSED to be pink.

I think when I have children, my boys are going to be green and my girls yellow.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

I agree. I would most likely dress my little girl in a flurry of fluffy pink and sparkly outfits when she was a baby, but if she started showing a preference for less frilly things, then that's fine--I won't hold her back. I think the main issue here is that the parents won't even admit to a biological gender. At least tell the child what it is biologically, and then proceed to let it do whatever it wants with its tastes and inclinations.

It's also true that you can usually have a pretty good idea about whether or not a child will grow up to be a transgender when they're young. I think more-so with boys than girls, though, because it's far more acceptable for girls to be tomboys than for boys to be femboys. For example, I'd say it's less weird, in most people's minds, to see a girl playing with toy cars and only wanting to wear pants than seeing a boy who plays with dolls, wears dresses, and has a favorite color of pink.

I kind of think boys have it harder than girls now when it comes to social constrictions in several ways.

I notice this stigma where I work and with parents I work with. I work at a day care, and there is a little boy who has claimed on several occasions that he is a "girl" and his mother has expressed concern because he claims that his favorite colors are purple and pink. Now, I don't think colors should be "genderized". I'm a girl, but my favorite color is blue- so obviously I must be gender-confused. :roll: Today, even with toddlers, things are labeled as "boy" and "girl". The kids I work with, who are all between the ages of two and four, have already started forming ideas as to what is "girly" and what is "boyish" and what is acceptable for boys and girls.

I think it's very important for society to move from the idea of labeling "boy" and "girl". I think it would be a big step for our society, and also healthy for the masses if these ideas were worked out of our culture... but I have to say, I disagree with what this family is doing. Like Jellysundae said, I believe it will only cause more confusion than good for the kids.

Originally Posted by jellysundae

Hmm. I totally and absolutely agree with not raising a child by gender stereotypes. But I think there's a world of difference between not behaving like, "This is a girl, so she has to wear pink and be giving dolls and toy vacuum cleaners to play with!" and basically messing with a child's head.

If a child is going to turn out to be transgender, that will come out probably before they start school anyway. If the child's being raised in a sympathetic environment that should be no problem. But I almost feel like situations like this would cause more confusion than anything else. Needless confusion, at that.

I kind of stand exactly here. I don't believe its right to not tell the child there gender. But in the same breath I will not choose my childs actions based on gender. If a son of mine wanted to play with a barbie doll then I would let him play with a barbie doll.

I haven't watched the video, as I can't right now, so I may be missing some things. Excuse my possible bluntness as well whenever it occurs.

I personally find it disgusting and troublesome. First, there is a major difference between teaching a child to not live their life according to gender-stereotypes and refusing to give them a gender. We're born with a thing between our legs, whatever it is, it may be the wrong thing but it's there. Whilst I will not say "raise it according to the thing between the legs", gender and sex is not a matter of nurture, it's a matter of nature. Like gay parents raising a baby will not make that baby "become" gay, raising a genderless child will not make them any genderless when they hit puberty.

The whole concept is wrong! A person can not choose their gender/sex, we're born with it. A male is born male and a female is born female (regardless of vagina and penis so for the love of whatever do NOT misinterpret me). A male born in a female body. What is he? A male. he's not genderless, he's just born in the wrong gender. By raising then, a genderless child, and "allowing them to choose" they are stating basically that:

gay people choose to be gay;
transgenders choose to be male/female despite being born with a vagina/penis;

which, I hope everyone understands, will open doors for transgender people with depression to not be treated because if they didn't want to be depressed, they shouldn't have chosen to be transgendered, they should have kept their assigned sex. Gay people should not be allowed to be married/raise babies because they can choose what to be and who to love and as such they are making the wrong choices.

These parents are bringing the word "choice" to a realm where "choice" shouldn't exist, because in fact it just doesn't. We're born the way we are and parenting has nothing to do with it. Does it influence us? Yes. Of course it does. Like someone said above, gay people struggle to be straight because they have probably been influenced by their parents, even on accident and even if the parents are accepting of homosexuality. Same for transgendered.

This... Experiment? Is just.... Wrong. On so many levels. And also because it's experienting on humans. What the shits.

Um, the problem with both of your arguments is that gender is neither chosen nor innate. The idea of gender, including how it's defined, is entirely cultural. You're not born with a gender any more than you're born with a favourite colour or fashion sense, nor can you choose it any more than you can choose either of these. There's a reason why trans* advocates use the term "assign" when referring to what gender parents choose to raise a child as; quite simply, they do not know. Thus, these parents aren't refusing to tell the child or other people what gender zie is, because they straight-up do not know and any assignment would be exactly that, a label applied based on what they want and what society wants and with absolutely no consideration of who the child actually is. The child might have no gender, or hir gender might be so complex as to be impossible to label. Those parents who assign gender are ignorant at best, either not understanding gender or assuming they can somehow tell who their child will be, and cruel at worst, believing that it simply does not matter what their child wants. And given the stigma against those who go against their assigned gender (especially by their own parents), I have to believe that most of it is the latter.

^ I actually think children ARE born with a gender. I mean, gender is almost entirely physical. It's just the stereotypical aspects of gender that they aren't born with lol. Which I assume is what you meant.

Anyway. Interesting issue here. o: On one hand, I don't /entirely/ think a parent choosing to with hold their child's gender is a huge deal in itself. I mean, chances are they're going to find out naturally what they truly are - on the other hand the idea... ugh it makes me mad. If they find out and realize they're different than the norm that could cause major major confusion in the child :/ I'm sorry if this offends those who don't agree with me.... ^^;

Going psychologically is the major problem the child would have to deal with.... I'm not an expert on how children think ... initially the child might be able to mingle with children because they weren't really restricted to just 'barbie dolls' or 'action figures', but once this stuff started to matter like... pre-middle school I can see them starting to wonder just where they belong

Anyway, I do not agree with the parents. After children learn the basics of what gender they were born as, they can decide for themselves if that's who they really are. Parents under no circumstances should be able to pull them away from all this - I mean, this is their childhood. The first years of their lives. Let them live 'stereotypically' as what they were born, gain some kind of look on the world, experiment a little... WHATEVER. And THEN the parents can let the child choose where they would like to be. Transgendered obviously happens anyway, so why...?

It seems there's a misunderstanding here between the terms "Gender" and "Sex." What you're referring to, NeuzaKC is sex, not gender. Sex is what you're born with between your legs, gender is a long list of things you identify with that may or may not identify with a sex. There is the female gender, the male gender, the in-between gender, and a whole freaking list of other genders that psychologists are only beginning to understand/discover in recent years.

With that said, I have to disagree with Philomel. There is plenty of proof that children are born with a gender. Male babies, for example, make significantly less eye contact with their mothers straight out of the womb than female babies do. Female toddlers who have just begun to walk bend down at their waist to pick things up, while boys squat. David Reimer, as mentioned before, was "assigned a gender" by his parents--he was turned into a girl--but it was always rather obvious that his gender was male despite his castrated penis. I have to argue that children are born with a gender.

Also, just out of curiosity, Philomel, what are you referring to when you're saying "zie" and "hir," etc.? I have never heard those terms. They look German to me.

Also, Haru, you are also referring to gender wrongly. What you're talking about is a mixture of sex and gender. :yes: But I do get what you're saying.

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

With that said, I have to disagree with Philomel. There is plenty of proof that children are born with a gender. Male babies, for example, make significantly less eye contact with their mothers straight out of the womb than female babies do. Female toddlers who have just begun to walk bend down at their waist to pick things up, while boys squat. David Reimer, as mentioned before, was "assigned a gender" by his parents--he was turned into a girl--but it was always rather obvious that his gender was male despite his castrated penis. I have to argue that children are born with a gender.

And I have to argue that it is not. I know the studies of which you speak, and they are extremely biased and subjective. For instance, they assume that penis = boy, and vagina = girl. So if a child with a penis does something, it is assumed that it is a characteristic of boys, when in fact the child may be closer to a girl. They also do not take into account the gender training that has already happened at that stage, wrongly assuming that the "blank slate" state of infancy (if there is such a thing) continues on into childhood; one such study actually suggested that, when given dolls, boy children will use them as "guns", seemingly not realizing the problem with that statement and their claim that it is innate. Nor do they take into account their own biases, which will lead them to see correlations where there aren't any and ignore examples that go against their preconceived notions of gender. Furthermore, defining such minor things as what you've mentioned as "gender" is quite the stretch, and if we are to actually trust that, it would seem that "gender" is fluid and changes so much as we age as to be rendered useless in describing a person. Finally, these studies do not account for cultural differences: they assume the idea of gender is cross-cultural, and it most certainly is not. I can almost guarantee that if they conducted the study in a culture that, say, doesn't recognize gender, or has more than just two genders, or has two genders but defines them completely differently from how we do, they would find completely different results. The problem with saying anything is innate is that there is always, ALWAYS at least one culture that defies that statement, and to say "this is human" when some humans are not like that is to either claim something as universal and yet not at the same time, or to claim some humans are less human than others. Which is rather a problem, and has been used numerous times to justify genocide and cultural extermination.

Also, just out of curiosity, Philomel, what are you referring to when you're saying "zie" and "hir," etc.? I have never heard those terms. They look German to me.

They are singular, non-gendered pronouns. "They" is plural and just looks silly, so students of gender theory, trans* advocates, grammar Nazis, etc. often use "zie" and "hir" when referring to either someone whose gender they don't know, or someone whose gender doesn't fit "she" or "he".

Originally Posted by ElysiumFate

It seems there's a misunderstanding here between the terms "Gender" and "Sex." What you're referring to, NeuzaKC is sex, not gender. Sex is what you're born with between your legs, gender is a long list of things you identify with that may or may not identify with a sex. There is the female gender, the male gender, the in-between gender, and a whole freaking list of other genders that psychologists are only beginning to understand/discover in recent years.

I know that. I am speaking of both, which is why I used both terms and not only one. They might not be the same thing but they are connected to one another.

Philomel, give me proof of what you're stating. That's a bold move you're doing and I for one think you're a bit out there if you actually believe that, but proof would be nice. Of all the research I've done I haven't found a single one that supports your theory.

Um, what theory exactly? Everything I mentioned is pretty much accepted as fact by those who study culture and gender and how the two are related, so while you're welcome to disagree with me, you're a bit off-base if you find anything I've said "out-there" or even "bold".

Neuza, the problem with what you said is that you're acknowledging that a person can have the genitals of one sex with the opposite gender identity, yet you're advocating the standard method of raising those people to identify with the gender of their sex organs. This will only cause horrible psychological problems for them down the road.

I personally would like to abolish the entire idea of gender identity (which I imagine is precisely how these parents who are raising their children genderless feel), so no one feels pressured to fit in to one or the other, and boys don't have to be ashamed if they enjoy wearing makeup and playing with dolls.

I don't really think it's right or wrong, each of us has a certain amount of nurture built into us by our parents and this is just another one of the many hard choices someone as a parent has to make. I doubt it will screw the kid up but rather teach him or her that there is no big deal about genders, it's just anatomy and you can be whoever you want.

Originally Posted by NeuzaKC

I know that. I am speaking of both, which is why I used both terms and not only one. They might not be the same thing but they are connected to one another.

While the case can be made that they are connected to each other, the important point to note is that this connection is mediated through cultural and historical context.

What I want to know is that if, say, a guy decides he wants to be a girl, and likes other girls, does make him/her a lesbian?

...Yes? This isn't exactly a theoretical situation :/ Also, a guy doesn't "decide" he wants to be a girl. If she's a woman, she's a woman. There's no "deciding" or "wanting" to it, and to suggest so seems to almost border on transphobia, or at least a severe misunderstanding of what it means to be transgender.

Artifex: I suppose it would depend on how you look at the situation. If a male chooses to have a sex change, then he will technically be a female after the surgery and hormone treatments are complete, so he would then be a heterosexual man who likes women, thus "he" wouldn't be a lesbian. If you continue to look at this man as a female despite his sex change, I guess he would be considered a lesbian. However, since HE never considered himself psychologically or emotionally a female, I would say that you would need to consider him a heterosexual man, not a lesbian. His body will never be that of a biologically male man's, but he was always male on the inside, so thus, I'd call him heterosexual despite what his body was/is. *shrugs* It's an interesting concept, I agree, and it's definitely a bit hard to muddle through.

O.o wow. I think I had to read that over like three times to wrap my head around it. lol, thanks.

Elysium, it's not a "concept" :/ Seriously, have you people never spoken to trans* individuals? Just ask them what they want to be called, ffs.

We were discussing how this could be looked at. I don't know what any certain trans individual wants to be called, because we don't have one here to tell us what they'd want to be called in this situation. So it IS a a concept right now. If we had a couple of trans individuals around who were in this situation, we'd ask them, but we don't, so we're discussing it. So, ffs, we would ask if they were here, but they're not. As it is, we don't know if any specific trans individual would like to be called lesbian or heterosexual in this instance. It could go either way, depending on how they view their gender and sexuality. I simply laid out the options.

With that said, I will kindly ask you to leave my debate. I prefer this to be an environment where people can ask questions and discuss the topic at hand without getting their heads ripped off. It's one thing to have an opinion and add to the discussion, and another entirely to tell them that they have no opinion at all, and that they have a case of transphobia when they simply didn't know the terminology. Not everyone knows as much as you, and it's not okay to punish them for not being as "educated".

As you wish. But you ought to look up things written by the individuals you're talking about, next time you decide to start treating human beings as theoretical concepts.

I wasn't saying that trans people were "theoretical concepts," I was saying that my whole example was "theoretical." I have nothing against trans people. The whole situation I was describing was "theoretical" so the people in it were "theoretical" despite the fact that people with those experiences exist. The fact that EVERYTHING in my example was theoretical, would make it a theoretical set of conclusions, now wouldn't it? My concept was NOT theoretical. I never said that, which is the problem here.

With that said, enough arguing. It's ridiculous. These red herring conversations are irritating. I'm tired of people who want to pick on a tiny word just to win an argument. You are the one who needs to stay out of debates if you're that picky and touchy.

With that, this argument is done. It will not be continued, period. It is dropped.

Anyway. Please feel free to continue the debate/conversation, everyone.

I don't see how it would harm the child really? They're gonna figure it out eventually: either when they start school, when they start hanging out with other kids or when they learn how to use the internet (whichever comes first). I think the benefit of that would be, should the child be transgender or gender neutral, they'll be more comfortable about it. And I'd like to think parents who raise their children gender neutral would be comfortable with whatever the outcome and be equipped to explain to their child what this means. My friend and her boyfriend (who's transgendered) want to do this with their children.

@ElysiumFates Transgender individuals are considered heterosexual and use the same gender pronouns as whatever gender they consider themselves. The real confusion comes from people who consider themselves gender neutral. I've gone to several trans groups with my friends and, though I'm no expert, am pretty well equipped to answer any questions.