- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1493 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 20228
Couple reveal they are hiding the gender of their 17-month-old baby to protect them from 'unconscious bias' and didn't even tell the child's grandparents for nearly a year
A couple are refusing to reveal the sex of their 17-month-old baby to their close family because they want to protect them from 'unconscious gender bias'.
Hobbit Humphrey, 38, and Jake England-Johns, 35, who live on a houseboat in Keynsham, near Bath, said they are currently dressing 17-month-old Anoush in both boys and girls clothes.
The married couple, both members of the Extinction Rebellion climate action group, are also asking friends and family to address the toddler using the gender-neutral pronouns, 'they' and 'them'. One of the child's grandparents said they only found out the baby's gender after 11 months, when changing a nappy.
Ms Humphrey and Mr England-Johns appeared on BBC One's Inside Out last night to explain their decision was the only way to stop people treating their child differently based on gender. They said the baby, whose name was changed to Charlie in the programme, will be allowed to decide at a later age on its gender and preferred pronoun.
This is like a Daily Mail wet dream. A couple of middle class Extinction Rebellion crusties with names like Hobbit living on a houseboat deciding to name their child Ankush and raise it gender neutral. It's borderline parody; if someone said this article had been created by a machine where you input a bunch of nonsensical buzzwords and it churns out something semi-coherent then I'd believe you.
Seriously, lads. Try to create a premise that plausibly crams as many Daily Mail boogeymen into it as this.
If you look at the picture of the child then it's almost certainly a boy from the facial features. It always seems to be boys that this happens to.
|>>|| No. 20229
The worst thing about this is calling a baby a "17 month old" what the fuck is that? Just call it one year old.
|>>|| No. 20232
I wonder how many clicks the Daily Mail gets from people wanting to make fun of or criticise Daily Mail articles.
|>>|| No. 20233
I think you do it until they're two. I don't know, we should ask Mumsnet.
|>>|| No. 20234
Maybe IBU then.
I think we shouldn't stop at two. I'm 364 months old, that sounds pretty good.
|>>|| No. 20235
I'm pretty sure we established that just about everyone on Britfa is either 30 or 31.
|>>|| No. 20236
> A couple of middle class Extinction Rebellion crusties with names like Hobbit living on a houseboat deciding to name their child Ankush and raise it gender neutral.
I see decades of therapy ahead for the poor child.
|>>|| No. 20237
Unless he/she/they/shmey off shmemselves before, which I suppose is not at all unlikely.
|>>|| No. 20239
I remember reading that in the past it was common to raise young boys as fairly gender neutral until they were old enough to do manly things. Strange how things come around again.
Of course the intention is different here, and a bit too post-modern weirdo for me. I think it's fairly normal for children to question things about gender and what they play with anyway, so long as you're not some big gruff bloke that doesn't want their boy to be a poof there's nothing wrong letting boys play around with dresses and things if they want. I remember playing with "girls toys" plenty as I had plenty of girl friends when I was a kid as well as the usual boys.
|>>|| No. 20245
>If you look at the picture of the child then it's almost certainly a boy from the facial features.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. It's a baby. Babies have virtually no secondary sexual characteristics. That's how this couple are able to do this in the first place.
|>>|| No. 20247
It's quite easy to tell the difference between the face of a 17 month old boy and a 17 month old girl from their facial features. The only reason this little boy looks like a little girl is because they've dressed him up in girl's clothing.
Previous instances of children being raised gender neutral, outside of celebrities, have tended to happen to boys. It usually seems to happen because the mother really wanted a daughter but ended up with a son.
|>>|| No. 20249
>Ms Humphrey and Mr England-Johns appeared on BBC One's Inside Out to explain their decision was the only way to stop people treating their child differently based on gender.
Isn't that that the same thing, though? Granted they're not treating their child as a certain gender but differently because of gender as a concept. Or is this pedantry?
|>>|| No. 20250
I think its pedantry, at least if we take their motivations to be as pure as they claim, the goal is to let the child act and be whoever they feel they are, with no expectations based on gender.
Of course, it's entirely possible to do exactly this whilst still acknowledging and referencing the child's gender. This could either be just fine for the kid, or a new strange kind of pressure on them as they grow to be on the fence in terms of their gender. I reckon if I grew up like this I'd have a horrible crisis where I felt like I needed to carry on hiding my gender from everyone like it's an awful secret. I'm sure that's not that the parents are going for, but you get what I'm saying.
|>>|| No. 20251
This is all too mundane if you ask me. Why not raise the child as something unusual, like an accountant, you could get spreadsheet bedsheets and do a power-points presentation at bedtime.
Call it cruel all you want but doesn't every parent dream of raising a child who owns a new-build house in the midlands with an Audi A4?
|>>|| No. 20252
You've got a point in that contrary to what the couple may think, they are actually creating an environment where gender matters more than it does in other families. By trying to delay the declaration of the child's gender, they are assigning much more significance to all that than it really deserves. And what's wrong with assuming that as in over 90 percent of the population, a child will quite happily identify with the gender that their physical sex denotes. Turning all that on its head just because a few single-digit percent of children may have gender identity issues has always seemed a bit extreme to me, and as you rightly said, can probably cause confusion in children who wouldn't normally have been gender confused. Definite, but if need be somewhat flexible concepts of gender, aren't really oppressive indoctrination, but can on the contrary make identification with your own gender a lot easier, e.g. by having strong male or female role models. If you raise your kid as a genderless something, you are depriving them of that possibility.
In the end, it boils down time and again to the age old gripe that fisherpersons feel they have with masculinity, and the hope that by deconstructing gender as a concept, they can destroy masculinity itself. It never comes from a place of actually desired equality between genders.
|>>|| No. 20253
I think your assertion that they want to destroy masculinity might be going a bit far.
But I think it's fair to say that in trying to avoid gender bias, they're only going to end up imposing another unconscious bias against whatever the gender normative choice is in a given situation. Because the kid happens to be biologically male, that's going to go against the idea of masculinity.
Regarding fisherpersons in general that "gripe with masculinity" is going to decrease over time as the older and more, dare I say it bitter, fisherpeople are replaced by younger ones who have grown up in an era where it's really far less credible to claim traditional masculinity is over-represented in society.
|>>|| No. 20254
>as the older and more, dare I say it bitter, fisherpeople are replaced by younger ones who have grown up in an era where it's really far less credible to claim traditional masculinity is over-represented in society.
The younger ones that I have talked to don't seem to be all that different. A lot of them will still lay all the patriarchy talk on you that you never cared for, and claim that women are still grossly underrepresented in society. If you're really unlucky, you'll end up debating one who is deeply offended if you say anything at all in defence of your male gender. They can have a sense of entitlement that is just deeply worrying, and has nothing to do with gender equality.
|>>|| No. 20255
>Seriously, lads. Try to create a premise that plausibly crams as many Daily Mail boogeymen into it as this.
That's because they are right, and not sensational.
We're in Weimar territory.
>and then, for no reason at all, people votes Hitler into power.
|>>|| No. 20259
>It's the gay's fault for making us exterminate them!
Get ahold of yourself.
|>>|| No. 20260
Listen I know people who love the wizard of oz due to being friends of Dorothy have a fondness for strawmen, but there is no room for them in debate.
|>>|| No. 20261
Those are usually the student types who haven't seen enough of life to know better. I've witnessed myself that they usually mellow out and look back on it with a bit of embarrassment, like you no doubt do about whatever your political beliefs were in your early 20s.
Even besides that, people (normal people, not Internet dwellers like us) are gradually getting sick of that sort of thing. The big fights for fishmongery have already been won, and they are left going after increasingly petty shite like blokes spreading their legs too wide on the tube or whatever. Those sorts only make themselves look bad, in the same way as their male equivalent, the chronic masturbator society, does.
|>>|| No. 20264
>We're in Weimar territory.
>>and then, for no reason at all, people votes Hitler into power.
Seems to quite clearly be painting people who deviate from the norm as being the reason for the rise of fascism, as in
>It's the gay's fault for making us exterminate them!
Can you explain why it isn't or are you just going to go off in an angry huff?
|>>|| No. 20265
>child abuse becomes normal. fucking with a child's head's so they don't know about gender.
It's almost always some lesbian or gay couple when you get "trans" kids and it's fucking child abuse. They are denying these kids a normal life.
Of course there will be a completely reactionary response to this eventually. This shit is insane and is being touted as "stunning and brave".
Eventually, Bazza down the pub and Tone down the pub will get sick of this shit and you'll see the Overton window shift so fast there will be skidmarks.
|>>|| No. 20266
>and they are left going after increasingly petty shite like blokes spreading their legs too wide on the tube
Manspreading, I think they call it.
As opposed to mansplaining. That's what certain fishpersons accuse you of when you want to counter their entirely willful ignorance of any and all rational explanations for male behaviour with a bit of first-hand insight.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 20267
Mansplaining is far less of a problem than womendriving. We need to get people to focus on the real issues.
|>>|| No. 20268
>Eventually, Bazza down the pub and Tone down the pub will get sick of this shit and you'll see the Overton window shift so fast there will be skidmarks.
They are already sick of this shit and complain about it loudly to whoever will listen, I don't think their disapproval changes the fact that society is getting increasingly tolerant.
The whole point of the Overton window is that it shifts slowly, btw.
|>>|| No. 20269
>They are denying these kids a normal life.
Appeals to "normal" life always seem a bit crab bucket mentality to me. You keep phrasing your posts as though it's someone else who's going to kick off but it's pretty clear that you want to do it.
|>>|| No. 20270
Let's not have another big circlejerk about fishing lads.
On the subject of the OP, while I wouldn't go so far as to say it's child abuse, it at least qualifies as shit parenting. Their motivations are good and I don't think they're going to give the kid any seriously harmful lasting issues, but I would venture that the kid would grow up happier and more well adjusted if they left it at "you know it's alright if you like girl's toys too son" and then a bit later on in life "you know it's alright if you prefer noshing blokes off son".
|>>|| No. 20271
>Appeals to "normal" life always seem a bit crab bucket mentality to me.
If you think trying to minimise the amount of children who get brainwashed into going through reconstructive genital surgery (who roughly half commit suicide afterwards) is not something we should be doing...what the fuck is wrong with you?
inb4 apparently half of trannies commit suicide because of muh patriarchy or whatever
Kids are too young to know what the fuck is going on sexually. Trying to normalise queer kids will always be the line in the sand. Take a long look at yourself, for real. If you think this is Ok, then please go to a country where they agree with you. I have no desire for you to live in mine.
|>>|| No. 20272
You're so far up the red pill rabbit colon I really can't be bothered to try and untwist it.
|>>|| No. 20274
>Kids are too young to know what the fuck is going on sexually. Trying to normalise queer kids will always be the line in the sand.
The irony being that we try to shield children from anything remotely sexual in our culture until they are adults, but if nine-year-old little Jeremy wants to wear a dress and pigtails, then by George, that is what Jeremy gets to do.
|>>|| No. 20276
>we try to shield children from anything remotely sexual
>if nine-year-old little Jeremy wants to wear a dress and pigtails, then by George, that is what Jeremy gets to do.
That you think a nine-year-old boy in a dress and pigtails is sexy, is what I'm hearing here.
|>>|| No. 20278
You’re peddling that neurotic chan bollocks here? Did trannies raid your safe space? Bless.
|>>|| No. 20279
>Kids are too young to know what the fuck is going on sexually. Trying to normalise queer kids will always be the line in the sand.
I fancied girls long before I knew what sex was, you pillock.
|>>|| No. 20281
How have half the people in this thread not been banned yet? At least one person is clearly fresh off the boat from /pol/ and at least one other is under the impression they'll get reddit gold every time they start a round of dotcha-just-hate-the-daily-fail???!!!
|>>|| No. 20283
>Their motivations are good and I don't think they're going to give the kid any seriously harmful lasting issues
It's almost certainly going to go tits up when he starts going to school anyway. When my daughter started going to nursery at the local school at the age of three she suddenly decided that boys were horrible and smelly so, apart from a couple of exceptions, she didn't want to play with them and she mainly wants to invite girls to her birthday party.
You can't control that, unless you home school them or live somewhere like Hebden Bridge. I bet those crusties have enough spare time to home school the poor lad, in which case he is proper fucked.
|>>|| No. 20285
But it's not just about gender expression or sexual orientation, it's also about gender identity. If the child is trans/non-binary, raising them this way will cause them a lot less harm down the line once they assert their gender identity, which studies show can develop as early as the age of three.
|>>|| No. 20286
What studies have been done to demonstrate what happens when you intentionally isolate a child from sources of gender association during that formative period?
This kid and others like him are essentially the samples in a very informal trial of the hypothesis that gender is naturally non binary. As a scientific person I'm not going to condemn parents like this without evidence that what they are doing is harmful; but ethically I find it potentially concerning.
Consider if it was a controlled study. What ethics board would be able to condone a controlled study that proposed raising children with an intentional lack of gender identity? The list of reasons that would be unethical would be as long as your arm.
At the end of the day none of us can say with any certainty what benefits or harm such an upbringing will cause these children for another 15-20 years, when we can interview them as adults and try to discern if it messed their heads up or not.
|>>|| No. 20287
What studies have been done to demonstrate what happens when you intentionally expose a child to sources of gender association during that formative period?
There are and have been countless other cultures where they have third genders and that's been fine. They weren't forced to be pariahs and didn't commit suicide in the large numbers we see. The distinguishing feature is our culture. So the argument against it is a catch-22; we won't allow them because we're not used to having them. Our culture is the ethical problem, they are not.
|>>|| No. 20288
>If the child is trans/non-binary, raising them this way will cause them a lot less harm down the line once they assert their gender identity
Seems like a lot of hassle for something that will affect 0.0004% of the population.
Might as well spend all that effort encouraging them to be a gymnast. They'd probably have the same chance of reaching the Olympics as they did being non-binary and at least you'd be really flexible and fit shagging like a minx because of it.
|>>|| No. 20289
Why should not raising a child with one gender norm or the other be any more effort than doing so?
|>>|| No. 20290
That's not how science works lad. You make a hypothesis and test is against a control, a known quantity. You can't just point at another culture and go "welp, works for them". There have actually been lots of studies into how children are socialised, because you can easily study that without the ethical implications of forcing an abnormal socialisation process on a child.
The closest thing we have is the phenomenon of feral children growing up amongst packs of wolves and feral dogs in places like India, real life Mowglis basically. Those cases are actually instrumental in our understanding of the socialisation process. Beyond a certain age, the children appear to be simply unable to reintegrate into human society.
It would be clearly and obviously unethical to intentionally send a kid to live with a pack of wild dogs, and you'd obviously be a div to turn around and say "well there are actually loads of children who grew up as dogs in other countries, our society just doesn't want to accept it".
|>>|| No. 20292
>You make a hypothesis and test is against a control, a known quantity.
Where do you get that control from? Typically it's not against just an assumption of what's "normal".
>You can't just point at another culture and go "welp, works for them".
I can and did.
|>>|| No. 20293
All parents do is fuck their kids up, it doesn't really matter how.
|>>|| No. 20294
>Where do you get that control from? Typically it's not against just an assumption of what's "normal".
That's right. While it's more difficult with human beings to control every variable, a control group in a sociological study is a group of subjects who are observed without the variable under investigation being influenced.
Consider a drug trial. Your control group isn't healthy "normal" people, it's a selection of people who are simply not on the drug (and then usually a second group taking a placebo).
>I can and did.
Probably why you're not a scientist isn't it then m8.
But then neither are most of the people who call themselves sociologists.
|>>|| No. 20295
>Consider a drug trial. Your control group isn't healthy "normal" people, it's a selection of people who are simply not on the drug
Cool. So we can get a group of third-gender people from other cultures and see if they exhibit the same toxic gender related behaviours as some binary people from ours.
>Probably why you're not a scientist isn't it then m8.
Nor are you, clearly. You're arguing that trans people are predisposed to mental illness or self harm simply because they're trans and that this is universal. We have the historical and contemporary "control groups" of trans people in cultures that are accepting of them. In those cultures, they aren't predisposed to mental illness or self harm. Evidently, you're wrong. You're just refusing to accept the logical conclusion. As though the hypothesis that "people who are rejected by their society are unhappier than those who aren't" is controversial.
|>>|| No. 20296
>The closest thing we have is the phenomenon of feral children growing up amongst packs of wolves and feral dogs in places like India, real life Mowglis basically.
To be honest I don't believe you're arguing in good faith here. Trans-supportive parents are basically akin to feral dogs? Is that honestly what you're suggesting? (Been reading Breitbart, have we?)
|>>|| No. 20297
>You're arguing that trans people are predisposed to mental illness or self harm
I've said absolutely nothing of the sort. You're either confusing me with another poster or deliberately misunderstanding me.
My first post was purely about the ethical quandary that we have no substantial evidence that raising a child with or without gender normative identity is beneficial or harmful either way. It could be exactly what the couple in the OP hope it will be; conversely it could be the case that they'll grow up socialised as genderless and be stuck that way. As an adult the child may or may not be thankful or resentful of the decision of their parents to raise them that way.
As I said, we will simply not know if it's a good or a bad thing to do until kids in these circumstances have grown up.
As for my example of feral children, I was contrasting a known and studied example of an admittedly extreme case of "abnormal" (and I use that word in the most neutral possible sense) socialisation, and how it demonstrates that beyond a certain age a human's socialisation process is locked in, so to speak. We do not know for certain if a child raised free from gender influence will find it on their own, we do not know for certain that trans people are trans as a result of socialisation or biology, it's all up in the air; but what we do know for a fact is that once you've been socialised a certain way, the majority of it is there to stay.
>Nor are you, clearly.
Except I am. Sorry.
|>>|| No. 20298
>I've said absolutely nothing of the sort.
I'm saying the opposite and you're disagreeing with me. There are two types of people; those who can extrapolate from incomplete data and people like you.
|>>|| No. 20304
>those who can extrapolate from incomplete data and people like you.
You seem to be neither - accusing someone of reading X opinion on Y website invites the suspicion that you yourself found that opinion, and choose the strange action of wiping your snot on someone else's sleeve.
|>>|| No. 20305
Perhaps if he gets really fucked up he'll end up engaging in pointless bickering on Britain's number three imageboard for she'd enthusiasts.
|>>|| No. 20306
Cool ad hominem bro you still haven't given any evidence to the contrary.
|>>|| No. 20309
My favourite thing on .gs is when you bow out of a debate and come back later to find people still trying to be a smart arse against someone completely different as if it were the same person.
|>>|| No. 20312
I kind of feel like someone should formulate a Godwin-like law for people bringing up Breitbart in online conversations.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]