People are starting to sign emails like this: Tish Lovely, BA, BEd, (she, her, hers). "They" is used typically if unknown.
We use “they” for our child, who we are raising gender neutral
So - when raising a child gender neutral, what does that mean exactly?
Treating our child as if they do not have a gender until they identify.
Yeah I guess I was asking for some more specifics in how you believe you are achieving this?
Do you have kids?
Yes. I have a daughter who very early on went full on princess despite my wife and I (both engineers) trying to ensure she also had engineering toys. So today I have a great daughter that competes in various dance styles and kicks ass in math and science and building stuff.
We had friends that were having a daughter. They talked about making sure she didn’t like princesses and stuff. I laughed and said, she will like what she will like. You can do what you want and it’s a good thing, but you cannot guarantee she won’t want to be a princess. Despite their best efforts, she loved Pink and princesses pretty quickly. And they didn’t want her to. I think it’s great to try and help and make sure every child can pick what they like and be themselves. I don’t like trying to stifle them from being who they are though. I do realize there is a world of influence out there that you cannot control.
Im really not sure why you aren’t answering. I am just really curious on how to make that work. Cause we really tried to limit the boy/girl thing as much as we could. But once my daughter showed her interest, and it was at a very young age, we went with it.
Apologies. I’ve been slow responding because I’m taking care of theyby and typing on my phone. I asked my question not to avoid yours, but to help me frame my answer. I’ll respond when I’m at my computer next. Cheers.
Got it. No worries.
Just finished lowering the little one's crib (sad day: they grow so fast!) and have a second to sit down, so I'll jump back in where we left off.
Thank you for answering my question: it helps to know who I'm talking to when answering your questions. I'm not a parenting expert, but my sense is that more and more parents have taken to challenging--or at least directly recognizing--some of the more prevalent gender stereotypes (as you describe). For instance, I have good friends with a daughter; they see harmful gender stereotypes and try to combat them head on (for many reasons, but primarily because they don't want their daughter weighed down by centuries of patriarchal assumptions).
I'm VERY glad more and more parents are parenting this way. For me and my family, we've tried to take it a step further, which I'll attempt to explain briefly. What I described just a moment ago can be categorized (roughly) as "you are a girl (or a boy), but that doesn't mean you have to buy into X aspect of gender." I like this approach, but we wanted to go beyond it, cutting the first part. Thus it's merely: "you don't have to buy into gender." In other words, we do not gender are child at all. We correct others when they do, etc., etc. What this looks like on a practical level plays out in myriad forms (many of which we haven't confronted yet, because P is only 9 months old), but basically we attempt to minimize--to the extent possible--the very existence of gender as something a child should worry about.
I know I'm not being especially concrete here (I'm very tired and, honestly, this isn't something I talk about with people outside my immediate family very often), so I'm happy to answer other questions. Ultimately, like most parents, we want what is best for our kid. Gender is a social construct that, in my view, does more harm than good. This basic position is compounded by my reading in gender studies, which--I'm extrapolating here--suggests that babies literally have no gender expression; they have only the gender we assign them. So, ANY gender I assigned would be, from a certain perspective, dishonest.
This post is long enough, so I'll wrap up. I plan to respond to some other posts here, but feel free to ask any followup questions. Please keep the "you're a horrible parent" comments to a minimum.
Happy to explain if I can, mrussel. But I’ll begin with the last part of your response—we can return to the two questions later, if you want.
Children are not born with a gender identity they can express. They are assigned a gender at birth (or, often now, before birth). I’m purposely sidestepping “sex” here to focus on gender, but generally speaking the assigned gender aligns with the child’s genitals (penis = boy, etc.). Gender identity comes later—while there isn’t a great deal of research in this area, some experts suggest this happens as early as three years old. So, while I’m oversimplifying things slightly, a child will express their identity at the same age, regardless of whether they are assigned a gender at birth. Does that help make things clearer?
I understand all of that in a vacuum. But of course life is more complicated. Children get signals from their environment all the time that reinforce the sex to the gender. Whether it's the name of the child, the clothes they wear, etc. Some can be controlled by the parents and some is just all around them. I remember when my son (Nicholas, male name, named after my father who died a decade before his birth) clicked into his gender I believe. It was his grandmother's funeral. He picked up a toy in the church basement. It was a Barbie corvette. He took Barbie out of the car, chucked her across the room, and started vrooming around in the vette. He was less than 2. I'm sure he had lots of clues from me before that he was a boy.., but I don't think I forced him either.
This is true of many areas of life; we simply are opting not to be part of those negative signals.
Happy to explain if I can, mrussel. But I’ll begin with the last part of your response—we can return to the two questions later, if you want.
Children are not born with a gender identity they can express. They are assigned a gender at birth (or, often now, before birth). I’m purposely sidestepping “sex” here to focus on gender, but generally speaking the assigned gender aligns with the child’s genitals (penis = boy, etc.). Gender identity comes later—while there isn’t a great deal of research in this area, some experts suggest this happens as early as three years old. So, while I’m oversimplifying things slightly, a child will express their identity at the same age, regardless of whether they are assigned a gender at birth. Does that help make things clearer?
One of the unfortunate quirks of the English language is the double meaning of the word "sex." I feel like it causes us to conflate "sex" and "gender" because people treat the former like 7-years who think it's a dirty word. So now you have these very public "gender reveals" when it is more accurately a "sex reveal." But "sex reveal" is not likely ever to become a common term.
I appreciate how this thread has calmed down since it started in another thread. I think it's OK to have, and acknowledge, ignorance. This is an evolving topic and many people don't understand it well (myself probably included). You could argue we should understand it better, but we are where we are.
I don't have (or want) kids. If I did, it probably would have been at least 10 years ago, which for this topic was quite a different time. I truly doubt I'd have raised them gender neutrally. But I do believe I'd have been very open and accepting if their gender turned out to be a "surprise." If it happened now? I think that thanks to discussions like this thread, I'd definitely downplay gender. If, for example, the child was born a male, I would let the child* come to it on their own. It does seem to me that the more you push their sex as their gender, the harder it must be on them if that is not how it plays out.
*another unfortunate quirk is lack of neutral pronouns.
Thank you for chiming in. I will add that "sex" itself is more complicated than many think, which is why I sidestepped it. I've always thought those reveals should be called "genital reveals," because all they're really doing is saying "my baby has a penis/vagina!" Seems really creepy when you think of it that way, eh?
The term theyby was new to me so I looked it up and read an interesting article.
A couple of things that made me wonder - it seems parents of theybies cut their kids hair short and they seem to dress in the manner of what in the past would be “traditional boys”. Though they are also providing the kids with lots of toys across Both traditional marketing marketing genders.
But I guess I’m giving them the gender “traditional boys” based on the past and my perception....so Nevermind the question I was about to ask.
i get the sentiment and it’s noble. It is very hard in the world we all live in. I also would prefer a world that was ok assigning sex based on genitalia but that it didn’t really mean much.
"Theyby" is what we called P when they were still in the womb. There is not a ton of information/help out there for raising children gender neutral, but we read what we could before P was born. I most certainly don't agree with some of the things I read and, frankly, my family is trying to figure it out as we go.
I really don't see this approach as anything majorly different in how my wife and I parent; besides saying "you are a girl/female", everything we have done has been to let them decide who they are as a person. I didn't give two shits if that meant my daughters wanted to have short hair, a shaved head, join the wrestling team, play with spider man toys, drive a monster truck, marry any soul they wish to.
I still don't see it necessary to push that on others if they say "what a cute little girl" and say "we'll see if that's what they choose". I mean, yes, gender is a social construct, but biology isn't. there are two main sexes, male and female.
I really don't see this approach as anything majorly different in how my wife and I parent; besides saying "you are a girl/female", everything we have done has been to let them decide who they are as a person. I didn't give two shits if that meant my daughters wanted to have short hair, a shaved head, join the wrestling team, play with spider man toys, drive a monster truck, marry any soul they wish to.
I still don't see it necessary to push that on others if they say "what a cute little girl" and say "we'll see if that's what they choose". I mean, yes, gender is a social construct, but biology isn't. there are two main sexes, male and female.
Two serious questions: 1) how would you respond if your daughter came to you and said "I'm male? 2) would you correct someone if they say "what a cute little boy" to your daughter.
And, I'm sorry, but I have to add: science is a social construct.
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths".
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths".
Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too.
I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora.
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?
I don't see any link
I posted it twice upthread.
The relevant section:
Transition
Altering one's birth sex is not a one-step procedure; it is a complex process that occurs over a long period of time. Transition can include some or all of the following personal, medical, and legal steps: telling one's family, friends, and co-workers; using a different name and new pronouns; dressing differently; changing one's name and/or sex on legal documents; hormone therapy; and possibly (though not always) one or more types of surgery. The exact steps involved in transition vary from person to person. Avoid the phrase "sex change".
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths".
Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too.
I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora.
quora is no different than here.
I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd.
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?
I don't see any link
I posted it twice upthread.
The relevant section:
Transition
Altering one's birth sex is not a one-step procedure; it is a complex process that occurs over a long period of time. Transition can include some or all of the following personal, medical, and legal steps: telling one's family, friends, and co-workers; using a different name and new pronouns; dressing differently; changing one's name and/or sex on legal documents; hormone therapy; and possibly (though not always) one or more types of surgery. The exact steps involved in transition vary from person to person. Avoid the phrase "sex change".
where i used the word "transformation", I meant physical surgery. I know transitioning is more than that. I was just saying that the final phase is the most permanent, and should not be performed on a minor.
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths".
Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too.
I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora.
quora is no different than here.
I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd.
No, but I don't think you should cite most people here as evidence for your claims. It shows that people agree with you; it does not help you make an argument. This is a reasoned discussion, not a poll.
As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.
I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?
I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful.
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?
I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?
I don't see any link
I posted it twice upthread.
The relevant section:
Transition
Altering one's birth sex is not a one-step procedure; it is a complex process that occurs over a long period of time. Transition can include some or all of the following personal, medical, and legal steps: telling one's family, friends, and co-workers; using a different name and new pronouns; dressing differently; changing one's name and/or sex on legal documents; hormone therapy; and possibly (though not always) one or more types of surgery. The exact steps involved in transition vary from person to person. Avoid the phrase "sex change".
where i used the word "transformation", I meant physical surgery. I know transitioning is more than that. I was just saying that the final phase is the most permanent, and should not be performed on a minor.
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths".
Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too.
I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora.
quora is no different than here.
I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd.
No, but I don't think you should cite most people here as evidence for your claims. It shows that people agree with you; it does not help you make an argument. This is a reasoned discussion, not a poll.
As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.
I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?
I wasn't trying to cite anyone. just proposing alternate viewpoints without passing them off as my own. there are many there, I agree mostly with the top one, the one that stated it is both a social construct and an objective view.
and how can you be an expert on this subject when you said yourself a page or so back that there is very little scientific study in this area?
You're conflating two threads of this conversation:
I said I'm a least as much of an expert no the social-constructedness of science as the people on Quora. That's a pretty limited claim to my own expertise.
You'll have to refresh my memory: I don't recall saying anything about scientific studies recently. To what was I referring when I said there was "very little scientific study?"
Is that because surgery was not an option pre-colonization?
No, just recognizing that not all (some, perhaps?) two-spirited indigenous persons identify as transgender persons. From my understanding two-spirited aligns more closely with "gender fluid" because it denies the gender binary on which transgender identity is typically predicated.
So then, no North American persons identified as transgender in the early 1800, as the language didn't exist? I suppose this thread of thought supports this train of thought: "In the beginning... there was the word".
I actually had a long conversation with a professor of early American literature just yesterday on this topic. As a pretty strict Foucauldian, I was skeptical that transgender identity (as a discursive/subjective possibility) would go back very far. But, she had some very interesting points about the history of gender fluidity, cross dressing, early psychiatric reactions to people "misidentifying", etc. I came away less skeptical, but neither of us was aware of any extensive study in this area.
As for your last sentence, I'm must confess I don't understand it.
Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol).
well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths".
Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too.
I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora.
quora is no different than here.
I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd.
No, but I don't think you should cite most people here as evidence for your claims. It shows that people agree with you; it does not help you make an argument. This is a reasoned discussion, not a poll.
As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.
I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?
I wasn't trying to cite anyone. just proposing alternate viewpoints without passing them off as my own. there are many there, I agree mostly with the top one, the one that stated it is both a social construct and an objective view.
The top post on Quora is a bunch of empty word salad (he doesn't appear to have much sense what the word "dialectical" means, for one). My most generous reading of it is that it's saying exactly what I'm saying, though.
Is that because surgery was not an option pre-colonization?
No, just recognizing that not all (some, perhaps?) two-spirited indigenous persons identify as transgender persons. From my understanding two-spirited aligns more closely with "gender fluid" because it denies the gender binary on which transgender identity is typically predicated.
So then, no North American persons identified as transgender in the early 1800, as the language didn't exist? I suppose this thread of thought supports this train of thought: "In the beginning... there was the word".
I actually had a long conversation with a professor of early American literature just yesterday on this topic. As a pretty strict Foucauldian, I was skeptical that transgender identity (as a discursive/subjective possibility) would go back very far. But, she had some very interesting points about the history of gender fluidity, cross dressing, early psychiatric reactions to people "misidentifying", etc. I came away less skeptical, but neither of us was aware of any extensive study in this area.
As for your last sentence, I'm must confess I don't understand it.
this one
The word "science" appears nowhere in this post. I was suggesting there was to my knowledge no archaeology/genealogy of discourses around trans identity, a la Foucault's History of Sexuality.
Comments
Thank you for answering my question: it helps to know who I'm talking to when answering your questions. I'm not a parenting expert, but my sense is that more and more parents have taken to challenging--or at least directly recognizing--some of the more prevalent gender stereotypes (as you describe). For instance, I have good friends with a daughter; they see harmful gender stereotypes and try to combat them head on (for many reasons, but primarily because they don't want their daughter weighed down by centuries of patriarchal assumptions).
I'm VERY glad more and more parents are parenting this way. For me and my family, we've tried to take it a step further, which I'll attempt to explain briefly. What I described just a moment ago can be categorized (roughly) as "you are a girl (or a boy), but that doesn't mean you have to buy into X aspect of gender." I like this approach, but we wanted to go beyond it, cutting the first part. Thus it's merely: "you don't have to buy into gender." In other words, we do not gender are child at all. We correct others when they do, etc., etc. What this looks like on a practical level plays out in myriad forms (many of which we haven't confronted yet, because P is only 9 months old), but basically we attempt to minimize--to the extent possible--the very existence of gender as something a child should worry about.
I know I'm not being especially concrete here (I'm very tired and, honestly, this isn't something I talk about with people outside my immediate family very often), so I'm happy to answer other questions. Ultimately, like most parents, we want what is best for our kid. Gender is a social construct that, in my view, does more harm than good. This basic position is compounded by my reading in gender studies, which--I'm extrapolating here--suggests that babies literally have no gender expression; they have only the gender we assign them. So, ANY gender I assigned would be, from a certain perspective, dishonest.
This post is long enough, so I'll wrap up. I plan to respond to some other posts here, but feel free to ask any followup questions. Please keep the "you're a horrible parent" comments to a minimum.
I still don't see it necessary to push that on others if they say "what a cute little girl" and say "we'll see if that's what they choose". I mean, yes, gender is a social construct, but biology isn't. there are two main sexes, male and female.
www.headstonesband.com
1) how would you respond if your daughter came to you and said "I'm male?
2) would you correct someone if they say "what a cute little boy" to your daughter.
And, I'm sorry, but I have to add: science is a social construct.
My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up.
yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)".
science is a social construct?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora.
Transition
I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd.
www.headstonesband.com
and how can you be an expert on this subject when you said yourself a page or so back that there is very little scientific study in this area?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.
I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?
www.headstonesband.com
I said I'm a least as much of an expert no the social-constructedness of science as the people on Quora. That's a pretty limited claim to my own expertise.
You'll have to refresh my memory: I don't recall saying anything about scientific studies recently. To what was I referring when I said there was "very little scientific study?"
www.headstonesband.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?
And how do you establish these tests and proofs?