Just a tad too weird/progressive for my linking. My wife has similar ideas.

The gender dichotomists love to simultaneously insist that differences between boys and girls are "natural", and then they whine and cry whenever somebody destroys their dichotomous worldview by proving gender to be completely socialized. Can't have it both ways.

In other words, why are you bitching so much. If gender differences are "natural" then environmental factors are irrelevant and boys will inevitably "act like boys". So shut the hell up.

I'm all for letting a child choose it's gender but, in this case, the child was born with a definite sex. Maybe I'm just a heartless engineer but I'd play the odds on this one. Chances are the child will identify with whatever its sex is. I'd go with that and just be open to your child deciding otherwise once it hits puberty. No need to add the social burden of being a genderless kid.

It's an interesting question. Because on one hand I can pretty much guarantee you other kids of its age are going to make that kid's life hell in elementary and middle school, and it seems like raising the kid by its biological sex is the only way to protect it from the kind of bullying when the kid is young that invariably goes on to affect how the kid thinks when it's older.

And yet on the other hand, if parents don't do this, we never get beyond a social norm that, at a minimum, is significantly socialized, if not completely so.

This is child abuse.

A predictable mixture of comments from some of the usual suspects.

Here's my dose of reality. Gender is not a choice when you are not a hermaphrodite. Even then, one gender tends to predominate.

IF these hippie idiots were truly concerned about their children, then they would simply ACCEPT that they have three SONS, and raise them as such. If one or more of these BOYS exhibit and maintain GIRLIE behavior, then, by all means, support that child's orientation without judgment.

To identify with the primary caregiver is not weird, even if that caregiver is opposite gender.

There is nothing wrong with boys. This is misandry, plain and simple.

This stupid hippie bitch needs to have her tubes tied. I would say cut hubby's balls off, but who's kidding whom? That's likely a done deal already.

Goddammit. I agree with mapleleaf.

Well, apart from that last paragraph.

Wait... maybe I'm misunderstanding. The headline says "keeps GENDER secret" and whatnot, and that was what I thought we were talking about originally. I... don't particularly agree, for reasons stated before, but I suppose I can respect it.

Then I reread and see stuff like:

"This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said."

And I just find this to be stupid. It's recklessly, immaturely and irresponsibly haphazard. This strikes me as no more than the standard issue pseudo-philosophical attempt to be "progressive" and "different" instead of an honest critique of gender assignment.

And quite frankly:

"“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker."

Yeah, ya do. I wouldn't be dating my girlfriend if she had a pair. Sex matters.

I think it's important and a worthy cause to break down gender roles. It should be a much more fluid concept - why should a man be mocked for wearing a dress? Why should there be more pressure on women to look good?

I strongly believe in this goal. Nevertheless, these parents are going about it in the dumbest possible way.

The idea that there is something wrong with treating a boy differently than a girl is pure leftist bullshit. Sorry....boys and girls are different, for all you leftist virgins out there. And beyond the plumbing, *boys and girls are different*, and it has everything to do with genetic pre-dispositions, homones, etc. All of you people that think you are somehow "enlightened" and the rest (99.999%) of the world "just doesn't get it"..."if we could only get past gender roles"....blah blah blah....well, I want ALL of you to rename yourself "Pat" and start living a gender-nuetral life *IF* it is so much better. After all, you are (apparently) enlightened and intelligent enough to live beyond your evil socialization....so DO IT. Otherwise....shut the hell up. This is child abuse.

I found some other interesting perspective on rereading too.

For one, how does this work practically, to say nothing about whether its right or not? The article says "Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby." But surely there must be a birth certificate. The Canadian government must know this baby's a boy. Or are they in this ideology so deep that he's not in the system?

How can the grandparents not know the kid's gender? Do they not change diapers?

Who takes their baby when they meet the Zapatistas? Even assuming the best of intentions of this particular group, the south of Mexico is not a safe place at all, what with the cartels and all. The article implies they went with a 3 year old and an infant. That's inexcusable.

"Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home." Whaaat? Call me old fashioned, but five year olds don't get to decide whether they go to school or not. I mean, he's got to go to school eventually. The whole "unschooling" idea mentioned in the article really doesn't seem like it prepares a child for the real world at all, but perhaps that's just a strategy for very young children. I sure hope it is, since there's no way he's gonna choose to learn about polynomials when he could just bake cupcakes or play in the mud instead.


"“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”"

How selfish. These children are not being prepared to live in the world as it actually exists. You can't expect all the people they meet in life to be so accepting of this bizarre way of looking at things. How are these kids gonna function in society when they have been living their formative years in the category of "other than other" as the mercifully sane psychologist in article puts it.

The way these children are being raised is a good way to turn them into serial killers someday. Maybe our society is too restrictive on gender issues, but that ain't changing and these children are in for a crushingly rude awakening.

@SynalonEtuul - not all men are mocked for wearing a dress. It depends upon their culture. As for those cultures where men *are* mocked for wearing a dress, it is because they are specifically, in-your-face breaking with social norms. And, for all the smarties out there, social norms actually have a purpose and are a *benefit* to society. For example, every good leftist thinks that society as a whole ought to provide free health care to every poor slob that refuses to work. Well...isn't that applying a social norm? So...the point, of course, is that all those that cry against social norms are hypocrites in the extreme, in that they aren't against ALL social norms....only the ones they don't like. It's B.S.

But, but, but......boys and girls are different for a reason...I suspect there IS a reason why the parents chose to marry someone from the opposite sex.

*n.b. -- you don't ask what's between their legs LITERALLY, fine. was speaking metaphorically.

I don’t really give a flying fuck how they want to raise their kids. The only abuse going on here is the entire world unloading their prejudices on a family who have done nothing other than try to keep private things private, and let their kids make their own decisions. All this complaining about how the kids are going to be bullied and suffer so much social trauma- well, it’s quite likely true, but it’s all due to the programming that their future tormentors have gone through; the same programming that is causing a lot of the people here to lash out at them. They make a good point that it’s not really your business what’s in someone’s pants. It’s easy to guess, and you’ll usually be right, but try asking a woman “Do you have a vagina?” and she’ll either walk away or slap you. Why should it be any different with this kid?

"Because on one hand I can pretty much guarantee you other kids of its age are going to make that kid's life hell in elementary and middle school, and it seems like raising the kid by its biological sex is the only way to protect it from the kind of bullying when the kid is young that invariably goes on to affect how the kid thinks when it's older"

Those kids are going to have awful school lives.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if they then got private tutors instead of school.

In which case...those kids are going to have awful social lives.


It's just cruel.

I'm a leftist and I don't see how thats at all relevant to my thinking on this matter...they say it's so their kids can make a choice. Are they implying that all transvestites were raised that way? They can make those choices if they *want* too at a mature age rather than have their life made hell by bullies and weirdo parents.

@Aurevir - I love when people - you for example - pretend that "the entire world <is> unloading their prejudices"....when the whole world, in this context, is like 99.99% of the people. Maybe the person with the unnatural prejudice is the person - YOU, for example - that thinks everyone else is wrong when they rightfully believe boys and girls ARE different, and thus should be treated differently.

Oh my god Krellin there are so many problems with your post I don't even know where to begin.

Alright. I'm against people saying insulting things. Should I be against all speech? I'm against people having sex without consent. Should I be against all sex? I'm against people taking photographs of naked children. Should I be against all photography? If you haven't realised already, the point here is that you don't have to be against *all* social norms because you object to *one*. There are specific reasons why people object to certain things - in this case, it's not because something is a cultural norm in general; it's because the behaviour perpetuated by the norm is harmful.

I reserve judgement on the idea that social norms are helpful - for that argument, we need a good definition of the term. Even if we accept that they are, then what we need to do is evaluate each norm individually; who are we protecting when we say "men shouldn't wear dresses", "women should stay in the kitchen" and "don't present the sole of your foot to people"? The stipulation, then, is that - in the first example at least - no-one is harmed by cross-dressing, so it should cease to be a violation of societal norms. As it stands, the only people harmed by the behaviour are the people engaged in it - they need to choose between wearing the clothes they feel comfortable in (or indeed may just enjoy wearing occasionally) and running the risk of being teased or even assaulted, *or* they can suppress themselves and wear clothes they are unhappy in.

Incidentally, the example you gave probably isn't really a social norm.

"Here's my dose of reality. Gender is not a choice when you are not a hermaphrodite. Even then, one gender tends to predominate.

IF these hippie idiots were truly concerned about their children, then they would simply ACCEPT that they have three SONS, and raise them as such. If one or more of these BOYS exhibit and maintain GIRLIE behavior, then, by all means, support that child's orientation without judgment"

My God...

I actually agree with mapleleaf!!!!!

THE RAPTURE IS UPON US!

(Also, maple, I'm HAPPY, no, I'm ECSTATIC to SEE that YOU use CAPS as WELL, eh MAPLE?)



And then on the subject, three things more:

-This is why I really wish there were a license needed to keep kids

-This comes across as a publicity stunt in part by a self-important prick of a "mother"

-WHAT about this do you love, damian? We have genders and, try as you might, try as the "gender doesn't matter!" crowd out there might, gender DOES matter! Throwing out philosophy for a moment--wow, did I just say that?--CHEMICALLY there are differences in males and females, and chemistry determines a great deal of how anything acts, including living beings, including human beings. As for this idea of throwing out gender roles or "letting their child choose," well, in the first place, it's not much of a choice if you don't tell the kid or anyone else besides the brothers what the kid is, in the second place, it REALLY isn't much of a choice when you treat your child like a lab rat and experiment on them as they are doing from Day 1, and in the third and final place, gender roles exist because of, at the very least, societal conceptions and ideals and, as much as these tofu-eating hippie parents may LOATHE the idea of gener roles or society, they are never the less LIVING IN ONE! Social Contract Theory 101--see, philosophy came back pretty quick with me, didn't it?--if you live in a society willingly, and you enjoy benefits from that society and their rules--and I assume they do, unless you're ready to tell me these parents don't ever and have never needed the services of policemen or doctors or public roads and will not send their child to public school (OK, that wouldn't surprise me, but still) and so on, as they benefit from their society, they are SUBJECT to the rules of their society formally and, informally, to the societal ideals of that society, including the idea of gender roles!

Now, that does NOT mean, *I* don't mean to say a State or Society should be obeyed no matter what, and that any and all societal rules are to be obeyed, or even that gender roles are good and necessary all the time--although I WILL state that I do think there are some gender roles and distinctions which are somewhat natural and I personally think should be adhered to for logical reasons, ie, like it or not, I think women probably ARE, on the whole, more nurturing as parents than men are on the whole, and so, while I don't mean to say that women should just never learn and become full-time baby factories and supervisors, I WOULD say that, if I had to choose who to give and orphaned baby to, a single male or single female, given that they both had the exact same jobs, income, and lifestyle, and there were no couples to give the child to, I'd probably choose the female--

But even so...

THIS is a case where societal rules matter, as the poor kid is going to have to grow up in that society and live with the choices his MOTHER is now making for him (yeah, wonderful ability to give him or her the right to choose.)

It's like if I name a child "Adolf Stalin Mao Smith."

Now, there's nothing against the law, naming my kid that, and there's nothing stopping me from doing so...

But the poor kid is going to have to walk through life with a name made up of Adolf, Stalin, and Mao...

He's PROBABLY going to be a target and not very happy, is he?

I tend to believe that, on many levels, women are superior to men. Intellectually and emotionally. Boys are a bit more stupid and tend to develop slower/later?

Maybe it has something to do with nurture, not only nature. Imagine these guys turn out to be the next Michaelangelo, etc. They are wore tights and dressed up back then.

It's definitely a bit eccentric, but they don't seem to stop boys being boys... and it's changing things.

Nothing criminal or mad, and I'm no leftist, as Putin will vouch, but I though raising kids was a family matter?

They ALL wore...

Isn't it weird that our hateful troll neighbor to the north is actually talking some sense, obiwanobiwan?

At least one of these kids is probably gonna kill some people. Children are incredibly cruel, and a boy walking around with braided hair and painted nails is going to be socially crucified. It's wrong and terrible, but that absolutely will happen at some point. The only way it won't would be for the kids to be kept in the hippie bubble of their parent's home, which raises similar problems with how they develop socially.

This is a really sad story.

Yes, because everyone not raised like us is a psycho...

Are you making the argument that Michaelangelo was able to become the artist he became because...of the freedom of dress?

And even if that is the case, as you yourself say, that sort of method of dress was ACCEPTABLE then, it was the style, so to speak...so he wasn't doing the equivalent of wearing a pink dress as a boy here in the year 2011, which apparently is what the parents already let their other boys wear.

Granted, I'm not a parent--or a father, or a husband, or a boyfriend, and I hope never to be so, I agree with good ol' George Bernard Shaw's character of Henry Higgins there, "I'd prefer a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition than to ever let a woman in my life!"--but that's going to lead to some MAJOR bullying and trauma...

But hey! As long as they have the right to choose, they have the right to choose to be unhappy, right?

(And how far does that "right to choose" stuff go anyway, parents-of-these-kids? Suppsoe your kid someday wants to shoot some heroine and share needles and all that fun stuff--it's still their bodies, so still their choice? Or if they want to by a gun and take it to class--their choice? Or if the two REALLY wanted to explore their sexuality and have sex together, brother on brother, right there on your bed--still their choice?)

"Yes, because everyone not raised like us is a psycho..."

No, but psychos tend to have dreadful childhoods because they're teased incessantly or are outcasts later in life since they can't fit in socially. Neither of those scenarios looks impossible here.

The point is they're being set up for a hard fall. I still remember when a bigger kid on the playground wouldn't let me help with a snowman in kindergarten. It was crushing. I can only imagine what these poor kids will have to go through because of how their parents have been raising them in their formative years.

"Or if the two REALLY wanted to explore their sexuality and have sex together, brother on brother, right there on your bed--still their choice?"

The article does say they all sleep in the same bed, and at least the five year old should probably be getting out of there pretty soon to keep things from getting weird. My old boss would say that it's a bad idea for boys to sleep in the same bed as their parents since the little one is spending the whole time thinking about killing the dad so he can have mommy all to himself. Yeah, it was that kind of job. His ideas were probably not based much on fact, but there's a line where you shouldn't be sleeping in the same bed any more.

Okay, since we're special pandas who haven't done lots of research on gender issues.The load of us are awfully uninformed. Some of us are even being dolts *cough* krellin.

As such I figured I'd try and do a better job of explaining gender issues, and the difference between them and sex issues. As well as explaining the difference between the ideas held by these fine people and yourselves.

Here we go.

In the traditional way of thinking there are two gendersexes
Male or Female. You are either a guy or a girl mentally and physically. (There are also hermaphrodites and unsexed people but I won't go into them at all during my discussion.)

In the present way of thinking there are two genders and two sexes

Male Sex = Has Boy parts
Female Gender = Has a traditionally female mind set, may or may not include wearing feminine clothing and make up, or it may just be a predisposition to feminine activities.
Female Sex = Has Girl parts (wee isn't this so exciting?)
Male Gender = Has a traditionally male mind set, this may include wearing male clothing, refusing to ask for direction ;) , and predisposition to masculine activities

And the new way of thinking is that person can be one of these sets, MS+FG, MS+MG, FS+FG, or FS+MG

The final way of thinking is only just starting to catch on at all, (already popular within the LGBT community =D )

This idea is that a person is born one of 'two' sexes (There are the other two I mentioned not going to cover those)
and everyone is mentally gendered. Which is to say a mix of both masculine and feminine traits.


Which is to say yes there is a difference between boys and girls, but it is entirely physical as they can both possess any mental gender. (Hopefully we'll move away from this term soon as it's kinda silly. Mental genders are accepting an archaic idea that boys and girls have these set roles, and they have to follow them.)

Basically what I'm trying to tell you is, yeah naturally a persons sex matters however their gender doesn't. You might not be attracted to a effeminate guy, however that doesn't make him any less of a guy.

Now to carry on from that point, these children will grow up to be clearly, Male of Female. You won't have to go up and ask them what sex they are, however they will be free to express themselves however they like in terms of their personality.

Rather then being told, that's for boys that's for girls they will have the option of scratching out those lines in the sand. Because quite frankly our definitions of what makes something for a girl or boy, clothing or behavior wise are arbitrary.

Now for those of you who are thinking but why if these young gents grow up and decide they want to wear make up and dresses and padded bras. Won't it be confusing? At that point these young gentlemen would either prefer to have a female body, and are transexual and should be treated as a female sex anyways, or they simply enjoy cross dressing at which point it is a matter of choice for them.

I guess that covers the basics of gender issues. Personally a fan of what these parents are doing on a conceptual level as it allows their children to develop a image of themselves with less focus on societal norms. (Something I'm not a fan of being normal is pretty boring. I feel that allowing a person to be free to be them self is the greatest gift they can be given.) Rather then having to play the role expected from them. Wear a mask, and pretend to be someone.

Anyway onto the idealogical segment of this.

Basically what we have here is a conflict between new and old. Our world is transitioning from the age of Modernism to the age of the creatively named Post-Modernism.

Many of you are adamant Modernists, which not a bad thing. Modernism has many good ideas, as well as many flaws.

The idea of modernism is one of truths, and not always corrects truths, however these truths are entrenched in society, a structured way of learning sit, read, absorb. Everyone can be taught the same way. Two gender. God is a judge, or where you go in the after life. Very structured rigid and collective.

The new age we are transitioning in as an age of post-modernism.

It is the age of the individual, of rejecting these truths, personalizing everything. Nobody can be labeled because they are all different. The chaos of everyone being an individual and expecting respect, and thinking they are special. Working and learning at their own pace.

This is the ideology of these parents, they want to let their children be inviduals and do as they please so they can find their identity. They don't want to offer them truths, instead preferring to let them figure out what their individual truths are.

One last thing we've had a lot of people talking about how the kids don't know best, wait till they are older. Well the best time to learn anything is when you're young. Sure you might not quite 'understand' the way adults do but you will develop your own understanding of the world. When given the opportunity to form these opinions on their own, about what they like, based on what appeals to them. They will without preconceived truths.

Neither is right or wrong. I agree with the parents in a lot of ways, but in others I agree with you guys. Bullying will be a big problem for these kids, because nobody else is raised that way and people fear what is different. I also agree that unlearning is the dumbest idea ever. There are truths in education and a structured education helps you learn what you like, and what you can't stand to do. Sure a bad teacher can screw it up for you but you wouldn't learn it other wise.

These truths about people, how they should act, view themselves, or the world. They should go they aren't a productive part of our post-modern world.

Finally to the person who suggested that us supporters go genderless. I wish it were that easy. I try not to let the societal constructs of gender get in they way of who I am and what I like however, I have been raised to see boys things and girls things. It's a hard thing to overcome. I'm glad these kids might not have to go through that.

I hope they make it through school fine, and move on to see the world, it only gets better as you get older. Though there will always be some bigots.

Cheers, I hope you found that informative, if a bit long and preachy, if you have any questions about Modernism and Post-Modernism, Gender Issues, or anything LGBT related you're welcome to ask I'll do my best to help you understand it.

WOW...I did not know that they were all sleeping together...

Granted, that doesn't really surprise me given what I know about these people, but WOW...

Someone needs to call Child Services, I think, and I mean NOW--I'm all for trying to be unique and going agaisnt the grain, as you all know, but...no.

Going all Oedipal/Elektran, or allowing that to happen, with a 5 year old, 2-year old, and a little baby...NO. That IS bordering on child abuse/molestation, I'm sorry.

(What's more, that's a few week old baby, yes? That poor little guy/gal should be in a CRIB, he's/she's going to get squashed or hurt with 5 people in a bed, I'd think...or even if he/she just crawled out and fell...good GOD!)