I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.
I think there's two different things going on here:
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.
May I ask you a question, then? If the answer is "none of your business" or "I don't want to pursue this avenue of conversation," I understand. It's not an easy question to wrap our heads around, but how do you think your daughter would be different if she did not have a gender?
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Yeah but I think it's a good point. Since it isn't really clear that the impact is on the 7.4 billion others? I'm not saying I know one way or the other, but it should be considered, no?
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Yeah but I think it's a good point. Since it isn't really clear that the impact is on the 7.4 billion others? I'm not saying I know one way or the other, but it should be considered, no?
Well, I'm of course suggesting it would make everyone's life better.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?
except THEY arent. He is male , she is female and live as such. good enough for the child, not for the parent
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?
except THEY arent. He is male , she is female and live as such. good enough for the child, not for the parent
I think you're misunderstanding: we're not expecting P to stay gender neutral forever. We're waiting for them to express their gender identity.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.
May I ask you a question, then? If the answer is "none of your business" or "I don't want to pursue this avenue of conversation," I understand. It's not an easy question to wrap our heads around, but how do you think your daughter would be different if she did not have a gender?
Its a great question that I will honestly need to take some time to think on so I try and say what I actually mean correctly.
Off the top of my head, she is inspired by people that she believes are like her that do great things. A female plant manager of mine when she was a little girl. Dancers now. Stories like the women math wiz's that made NASA successful. It has created a way of seeing herself being successful and I believe helped her believe that great things are possible. Now, if everyone thought of themselves as the same, I suppose they would see everything and think they could do anything...but I'm really not sure the inspiration would be the same.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?
Sorry, missed this (last post on the page): yes.
Correct me if I am wrong but choosing your gender isn't a choice. As in your brain is hardwired already to your gender.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.
I think there's two different things going on here:
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Zero for me. Not once has anyone asked me about my three children like that. If they did, I'd probably punch the old codger in the nose.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So you are assuming/predicting/guessing your child might transition?
Transition from what? They don’t currently have a gender identity.
So because you and your wife are being gender neutral it is your hope that they chose their own gender naturally?
Sorry, missed this (last post on the page): yes.
Correct me if I am wrong but choosing your gender isn't a choice. As in your brain is hardwired already to your gender.
Apologies, I (erroneously, it seems) thought you were using "choose" as a stand-in for "express." I'm punting on the "is gender hardwired question" question, because it's too thorny for me to do justice here.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
Ah ok. So, in my non-prof manner of talking....having gender is a means to divide people and provide power and other things to one group and not the other group. If you are talking about the old school pre-defined roles of men and women I would certainly agree. However I do not think that is a fault of gender, it's a fault of people. Gender actually helps provide us with real differences that can help make the whole greater than the sum of it's parts if we allow people to fully participate. As I see it anyhow. Perhaps you'd say I am confusing sex with Gender, maybe I am, but I don't think so.
Yeah, I think you've got it in that 2nd sentence. I'm not sure if you're confusing gender and sex, but that's actually mostly immaterial where we find ourselves now. The heart of our disagreement it appears would be in the sentence of yours I've bolded. I'd say the balance of evidence suggests your description is not how things HAVE worked, thus I'm highly skeptical that they can work in that way. Obviously, I cannot say absolutely one way or the other how gender WILL be reimagined (though I think it's unlikely to be fundamentally reimagined), but I again assert that gender--as a specific power/knowledge--is inherently and irredeemably negative.
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
This is a question of relative good. In a world where gender continues to shape the lived experience of individuals, I'm glad to see acts (like the campaign you describe) that attempt to ameliorate inequality and/or the impact of traditional gender roles. In my dream world, such a campaign would be unnecessary. My hope/belief is that other forms of human connection would be more beneficial (i.e., have less of the harmful elements that come along with gendered groupings).
I see. I think most here would agree with the sentiment that we wish we didn't need those campaigns. I will say, being the father of an amazing daughter I want her to have every opportunity. But I also want to celebrate who she is fully and have he use all of herself to do great things. I have faith we will get there...but it's a long way off. And likely we'd sidestep into another topic after I mention that I think one of the biggest obstacles left is religion.
May I ask you a question, then? If the answer is "none of your business" or "I don't want to pursue this avenue of conversation," I understand. It's not an easy question to wrap our heads around, but how do you think your daughter would be different if she did not have a gender?
Its a great question that I will honestly need to take some time to think on so I try and say what I actually mean correctly.
Off the top of my head, she is inspired by people that she believes are like her that do great things. A female plant manager of mine when she was a little girl. Dancers now. Stories like the women math wiz's that made NASA successful. It has created a way of seeing herself being successful and I believe helped her believe that great things are possible. Now, if everyone thought of themselves as the same, I suppose they would see everything and think they could do anything...but I'm really not sure the inspiration would be the same.
I don't know if anyone know the answer to that, right? I'd like to think she would find other (non-gendered) inspiration in the world I imagine, but I have no desire to oversimplify the ramifications of my "perfect" world.
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.
I think there's two different things going on here:
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Zero for me. Not once has anyone asked me about my three children like that. If they did, I'd probably punch the old codger in the nose.
You'd think that might make you a little less aggressive with your own questions then, mrussel.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"
Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"
Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things.
Quick followup clarification, if I may. It sounds like you're saying to find out you were excited to *learn* you were having a girl, not that you decided to raise her as a girl. Is that right?
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"
Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things.
Quick followup clarification, if I may. It sounds like you're saying to find out you were excited to *learn* you were having a girl, not that you decided to raise her as a girl. Is that right?
Correct. But knowing the world in which I live in I was excited to raise a girl that could be everything (and to me she is and she has the potential to be amazing her whole life...I’m biased though).
I was excited for a girl because, in my experience, they are quicker learners, develop faster and are more thoughtful. And adorable. Boys are mainly gross
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.
I think there's two different things going on here:
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
I asked the question. I'll type it again: What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements? This is what I need to understand to understand what you are saying. You said "We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we onto the other elements". I'm asking what terms and what elements. Make that statement again, with more detail.
And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward. Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"
Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things.
Quick followup clarification, if I may. It sounds like you're saying to find out you were excited to *learn* you were having a girl, not that you decided to raise her as a girl. Is that right?
Correct. But knowing the world in which I live in I was excited to raise a girl that could be everything (and to me she is and she has the potential to be amazing her whole life...I’m biased though).
I was excited for a girl because, in my experience, they are quicker learners, develop faster and are more thoughtful. And adorable. Boys are mainly gross
I still don’t get the whole gender neutral thing. What is the purpose? Won’t a person transition either way?
Good question. The goal is to minimize the extent which they have to “transition.” Transitioning is very often a traumatic process. If no one was assigned a gender at birth, no one would have to transition. Trying to come as close to that for P as we can.
So here's where I get hung up... The metrics I have seen show that the number of trans is .6% of the population. There's probably an MOE in there, but still maybe 1% tops. It seems like a lot of effort and construction of your life for something that is very unlikely that they will identify with a gender different than their birth sex. And how do you know that there's no unintended consequences of that action, regarding the child's assimilation into the chosen gender? Perhaps they have trouble adapting and feel excluded in pre-K, etc.
As I’ve said briefly elsewhere in this thread, I believe that gender is harmful, as such. I have not emphasized that part of our motivation for fear it will chafe those here with different views.
Gender is harmful? Now that you mention it, it would be nice for you to explain what you mean.
I consider it a discursive formation without which the world would be a better place.
So you say it's harmful and you saw better place without it. Please describe for me what you believe to be harmful about it and how the world would be better off without it.
Historically, the power/knowledge of gender has justified and sustained an indescribable array of injustices and inequalities (what might broadly be called “patriarchy”).
So you mean males have caused injustices. Maybe we should all just identify as female until the time of selection (whatever that means), and then 50% of the population could cross over. Pretty sure we'll still have war, bullying, power struggles, etc. But hey, those boys won't cause any wars in their first three years of life, so that's good.
I think you're hearing what you want to hear. I've spoken only of gender as a discourse (as power/knowledge); I've made no comments about any specific subjects exercising power within that discourse.
You used the term patriarchy. How else would one interpret that comment than being an indictment of males for their injustice and inequalities. And for the record, you'll get no argument from me that men are the source of said ills in history. But I'm not sure how not identifying with a gender until the child decides will prevent the same from occurring.
Good point: I should clarify. The term "patriarchy"--in my discipline--exceeds/diverges from the etymological origins of the word. I intend "patriarchy" to refer to an historically specific set of power relations that relies upon, but is not coextensive with the discourse of gender.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
So wait a minute.. "patriarchy" for your exceeds the traditional definition, and you are applying it to any/all genders. Yet your solution is not to assign a gender. So therefore, how can it be patriarchy or gender causing the issues? And logically following, how does not assigning the gender help the problem? This whole thing is circular reasoning. You point to gender, call out patriarchy, and then say it's not reliant upon gender. It all seems like an exercise in futility, to ease the transition of the .6%.
I think there's two different things going on here:
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
I'm sorry, that first paragraph is meaningless. I read it six times and I can't draw any conclusion from it. All you're talking about is etymology. What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements?
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Since you've tried to function as tone police a few times, I'm going to do the same for you: your inability to understand what I'm saying does not make what I'm saying meaningless. Just ask me about the parts/words you don't understand. I'm really trying to simplify things as much as I can, so help me help you.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
I asked the question. I'll type it again: What terms do we better need to understand the relationship until moving onto what elements? This is what I need to understand to understand what you are saying. You said "We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we onto the other elements". I'm asking what terms and what elements. Make that statement again, with more detail.
And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward. Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.
I was trying to be polite. When I said, "we need go get the relationship of these terms figured out..." i was trying to gently say "you're entirely misunderstanding what I'm saying." Being as generous as I could with your post, I was suggesting that you might have a point about the relationship between patriarchy and gender, but you needed to back up, because your point wasn't responding to what I actually said. So, let me ask, which part of the relationship between gender and patriarchy are you struggling with?
I'm gonna let the other part drop, because I'm not trying to pick that fight. I'd just say: maybe try not to be so dismissive of academic thought.
I'm happy to answer all these questions, but I am curious: how many of you with kids get asked why you're choosing to raise them as gendered?
I'd assume very few. But you have to understand you'd be in the vast minority and while many would have negative connotations in asking, many also would just like to understand. I get asked a lot of questions about a lot of things. Specifically related to parenting choices throughout all the years. It's not uncommon or unique for people to ask questions and even judge your parenting choices.
Was your initial decision to raise your daughter as a daughter a conscious choice? I.e., did you sit down and ask "should we raise our child as a girl?"
Ummmm maybe since I wanted a girl more than anything, though certainly not in regards to marketing “girl” things.
Quick followup clarification, if I may. It sounds like you're saying to find out you were excited to *learn* you were having a girl, not that you decided to raise her as a girl. Is that right?
See all five of our kids we raise as boys and girls. What they end up choosing later on in life is up to them and I will love them all no matter what. I just don’t think the gender neutral thing benefits anyone. Imo calling them he/she has no bearing on whether or not they are trans. If anything I would think gender neutral would confuse a kid even more.
Comments
So, what do you think about things like the "Like a Girl" campaign? Is that sex/gender related and isn't a good thing if we recognize these things and see how they can be a way of empowering? And belong to a group to draw strength from? Again, I fully admit I may be confusing sex/gender as it certainly isn't always clear to me the differences.
As for your last sentence: I do what I can.
First, I specifically said patriarchy does rely upon gender, but is not coextensive with it. I'll try to be clearer. Gender is a broad discursive formation that operates in multiple forms across multiple times and spaces. Patriarchy--as I'm using it--is a specific set of power relations that has emerged (and endured) in one of those times and spaces. We need to get the relationship of these terms figured out before we move onto the other elements.
With risk of jumping the gun, however, I'll go ahead and say I'm not sure I understand the other point running through here. Gender exists as a discourse. In my perfect world, it would not. Therefore, I'm doing everything I can to resist the discourse from within it.
One last point: I may not have all the answers, but .6% of the world population is over 45 million people. I'd do a lot to make that many peoples' lives better.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Off the top of my head, she is inspired by people that she believes are like her that do great things. A female plant manager of mine when she was a little girl. Dancers now. Stories like the women math wiz's that made NASA successful. It has created a way of seeing herself being successful and I believe helped her believe that great things are possible. Now, if everyone thought of themselves as the same, I suppose they would see everything and think they could do anything...but I'm really not sure the inspiration would be the same.
Now my apologies, perhaps it's because I operate it in a financial world and we don't speak in the abstract. I worked in a heavily academic financial environment for about 10 years and it was essentially mental masturbation. You had reams of analysts and engineers flowing through with data sets where 1. they couldn't draw concrete conclusions or 2. what they were recommending was completely unable to be operational. I think my friend @benjs has suffered through this in his career as well.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm not one to pass up an opportunity: the world of finance is completely abstract.
I was excited for a girl because, in my experience, they are quicker learners, develop faster and are more thoughtful. And adorable. Boys are mainly gross
And finance is not abstract in practice. You make analytically informed decisions, weigh the risk factors, and move forward. Otherwise you get nothing done and generate only expenses.
I'm gonna let the other part drop, because I'm not trying to pick that fight. I'd just say: maybe try not to be so dismissive of academic thought.