You can dress how you want, sure...

But it's also your duty as a parent to prepare your child for the environment they're going to live in, so for the same reason most folks aren't going to allow their 12-year old boy to get a "FUCK YOU!" tatoo right there on his forehead, no matter how much his enlightened 12-year old self asks...

And why not Invictus, why shouldn't they be allowed to dress like that if those are the clothes that they feel happy and comfortable in?

I agree I would object if the parents were buying their kids dresses and insisting they wear them, allowing them to choose their clothes a-okay with me.

You sure as hell can go to K-12 with it, but yeah expect scrapes and bumps and heckling. That's what K-12 is. If you're even a little different.

Perhaps this is just personal experience talking Obi, but I was unhappy and shut out at that age too. Despite not flaunting social norms so obviously. I even transferred schools to try and get out of some of the tough situations. But I'd say while yeah it is a real pity that he doesn't want to get out with the other kids, it does happen, and its not entirely unnatural.

Why shouldn't a nine year old dress like slut? You prove my point on Post Modernism.

I've decided I'm a girl, but I'm also a lesbian.

Good for you Draugnar.. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view. (Pretty sure you're just trying to be belittling though.)

What makes it dressing like a slut? .... oh wait more of those tiresome social norms about dress codes.

Don't get me wrong, I HATE lots of the ideas that come with post-modernism. But there are a lot of social 'truths' that we'd be better off without.

itt: mapleleaf opposes postmodernist family politics, Draugnar trolls

wait what

If you think it's fine for a little girl to wear fishnets and a tube top then I don't know how to respond. That shows how far the termites have gotten.

I challenge you to come up with something that is actually wrong with her wearing that. If she feels comfortable in them. (To an extent I'm play devils advocate here. While I wouldn't actually oppose or harass someone for wearing them, I'm not in favor of clothing brands selling sexualized clothing to kids.)

There are scrapes and bumps, and then there ae scrapes and bumps, damian...

There's being an outsider and then there's being an outsider.

There's being the kid who has a debate wtih everyone while picking fights with teachers and preferring listening Tchaikivsky to Gaga and reading Shakespeare and Nietzsche to nothing...(High School was fun for obi, as you might imagine, OBI--IN PERSON!) ;)

And...then there's being the boy with a pink dress, ruby slippers, red lipstick, getting constantly called a fag and a gay-fucker and a dick and not going a single day without anyone making a crack and even the teachers look like they're really struggling to hold back from joining in.

One of those kids is just a dick and will get some ridicule, but it won't cripple him.

The OTHER ONE...well, assuming the poor kid doesn't commit suicide...

And damian:

Would you be OK with that little girl going NAKED to school, then, if she was pleased with it and her parents were as well?

(Sorry I should clarify, something wrong with it that doesn't hinge on some judgement call on clothes, labeling people based on how they dress.)

Thank you, Damian! I like your ideas as well and am woefully ignorant on the subject of post-modernity. I'll read up on it. :)

Well, 'slut' is a term for a woman who is sexually promiscuous and flaunts the fact. Fishnets and a tube top are sexually provocative and *regardless of the intention of the wearer* they sexualize the wearer, signaling that the wearer is sexually active and flaunting that fact to attract a mate. No amount of obfuscation changes the fact that the clothes are produced for the explicit purposes stated above, and no amount of individualism changes the fact that the clothes when worn are interpreted as being for the explicit purposes stated above, and no amount of truth denying changes the FACT that for all intents and purposes wearing those clothes DOES indeed sexualize the wearer.

And sexualization of prepubescent girls... Apparently I can't speak for postmodernism, but I tend to think that's a pretty bad idea, rather exploitative, predatory and sickening, and I'm afraid that if postmodernist thought leads to the conclusion that I'm being closedminded and need to stop embracing social norms and let little girls be sexualized, I cannot subscribe to that. Sorry.

No damian. I'm not playing that game. Some things are just wrong and that example (which I intended as a throwaway joke) is one of them. This is what's wrong with your Post Modernism. By being so nearly nihilistic about objective truths existing it allows you to think your position on this is in any way morally defensible.

And independent of all that, the little shit shouldn't just get to wear whatever she wants because she needs to learn that you can't always have or do what you want.

"It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”

“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick."

Raising not a boy or a girl but an X...

These folks really ARE starting to make me sick, the worst manifestation of Post-Modernism.

One problem, Parents--your child DOES have an X.

The question now is whether they also have another X or a Y--and that's the question, like it or not, the WORLD will ask first, so unless you're going to leave Planet Earth--and by all means...

He, hey, Invictus, let's not drag Nihilism into this, or I'm going to have to start debating you as well, and we've been getting along so well so far.

;)

There's nothing wrong with calling into question objective truths and absolutes--actually, Gunfighter wanted to do that for a Philosophy Weekly, talk about those--but, again, you have a boy or a girl, a REAL boy or girl here, not an "X."

So philosophy and nihilism and all that is great for theory, and even maybe in practice--but not in practice on a little baby...whatever he/she is, and not on a 5 year old.



An old Dr. Seuss rhyme, of all things, comes to mind here...anyone else grew up with this one?

"When you find out what a Voice is
You can tell us what your choice is."

')

I wouldn't waste too much time reading up on it Synalon. Most of post-modern thought is rubbish. The idea that everything is all about your perspective for one, and that everyone is special. I mean seesh one day we'll have math tests. 1+1=3 Correct! It was a very creative interpretation of the question, and shows your unique perspective >.< . That said it's ideas on individuality are pretty neat sometimes.

Would I be okay with it? Hell no. But I'm not the one to make the judgement call for her. It would make me incredibly uncomfortable. But I like most of western culture am terrified of sexuality, and the human body.

I mean in africa, and other warm climates women would often go without anything on their top, and sometimes completely naked. It was considered normal and acceptable. They are comfortable with their own body. Western society, we sure as hell aren't comfortable in our bodies.

Its not my place to make a judgement call.. but nudity is against the law is western cultures. *shrug*

I also think the sexualization of little girls is a terrible idea and an unfortunate product of our times, where sex is trivialized and brought younger and younger. The thing is that I agree with you in a lot of extents here however, I just wish I could say it wasn't a concern PE since I feel it really shouldn't be.

Post-modern thought would probably say dress as you please. I'd say it shouldn't be an issue in the first place if we stopped making and marketing sexualized clothing for a younger and younger age.

I hate corporations and advertising and all that jazz,(expression, I actually love Jazz Music) it is part of the reason we have this issue in the first place.

And no, it's not as simple as "they make mistakes, they learn." For one, regarding the education, these kids are NOT going to learn the value of an education on their own for some time because they'll be -- wait for it -- KIDS, as in the elementary school brand that by and large lacks the rational development to pass a short-term gain for a long-term gain in absence of parental development. The individual anecdotes you guys bring out are irrelevant. Maybe YOU were excited for school, sure, but it doesn't matter, because YOUR circumstances are NOT theirs. This is a complete absence of parenting on the issue, as compared to whatever values your parents instilled, except in the incredibly unlikely circumstance where you too were in the situation and made the right choice, in which case I hold you are not a human being but a ridiculously badass cyborg and cannot be expected to give accurate testimony for us mere mortals. ;) (But seriously, we presumably had parents that made us go to school or at least made sure we understood the value of an education, against the feeble short-term OH GOD WANT CHEERIOS AND CARTOONS that no doubt ran through our heads all the while.)

Left to their devices, the kids aren't gonna go to school until they're adults (or 'young' adults, again, 16-17, whatever), and then they're several years behind, if they even see it at all! That's YEARS of their one shot at existence down the drain in the name of 'individualism.' There are SERIOUS consequences to this, not a simple live-and-learn experience.

Regarding picking and choosing parts of the established gender roles, it's far from as cataclysmic. In fact, I would argue it's not as applicable. My complaint hasn't necessarily been with the practice, though I think for sake of avoiding bullying troubles and the like it wouldn't kill them to do like mapleleaf said: impose a gender role upon someone who literally cannot think for him/herself until they're more mentally developed and actually able to make a decision to protect them from the problems of an aimless child's mind, much as you protect from truancy or any other child's whim. Once they're hitting puberty, they're not only significantly more mentally developed, but they're also starting to feel the biological impulses of sex, so they'll have a *much* more complete view of what's going on. THEN you turn them loose from gender and accept whatever they choose.

But this entire postmodernist social engineering experiment is ignoring one HUGE fact that simply CANNOT be overlooked. It's applying a mindset that, while I think flawed, is at least functional with a MATURE, MENTALLY DEVELOPED, RATIONAL adult or nearing-adult human being, to a human being that is anything but. You CANNOT do that, practically OR ethically, and expect a good outcome. Plain and simple.

"On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store."

Oh yeah, that kid isn't going to grow up with ANY problems at all, nope, he's far better off being raised this way and isntantly being scorned by society rather than taking his chances like the rest of us and only MAYBE being scorned by PART of our society.

But nope! Now he'll get to enjoy being an outcast to nearly everyone! Well done, parents!

Finally, since the post came up since I replied, I'll say that while I personally don't like clothing corporations marketing slutty clothing to eight year olds, and I seriously question the moral compasses of the people in the product development committee who thought this was a remotely good idea, I think the responsibility for ensuring eight year olds DON'T wear fishnets and tube tops lies with parents. If we want a democratic society like we have, we must hold rational human beings accountable for their actions. That means that parents don't get to pass the buck to evil corporations who subliminally tricked them into appeasing their eight year old's impulse to wear sexually provocative clothing.

I don't think you understand what myself and maybe obiwanobiwan have been saying. If you look what I was going for sounds a lot like your post.

"I mean seesh one day we'll have math tests. 1+1=3 Correct!"

Hey now, don't knock that view of math, damian!

I might actually pass 102 one day if that's adpated! ;)

Invictus: Just wanted to add here that I'm not in anyway actually condoning the sexualization of younger and younger kids. I hate it. So yeah I do consider my postion morally defensible.

And no, it's not as simple as "they make mistakes, they learn." For one, regarding the education,

Perhaps I didn't make my point on this clear. I'm referring to the social learning that has to happen to these kids. I am strongly opposed to the kids not going to school. In a lot of ways a traditional education is extremely important.

So you think it's wrong but don't think it's wrong. HArdly a better position.

Imho I think the main problem is that the mother assumes her children can make good choices. Of course a 5 year old doesn't want to go to school! Who would?! If they are raised this way their lives depend on how motivated they are, and how well they understand life. If they aren't motivated, they might just "chose" to live at home with their mother their whole lives.

About gender and Storm, everyone else has said enough. Parents are needed for a reason! To help their kids! So they aren't just thrown into the world without any idea of what it's like! You will NOT be treated the same based on your gender, that's a fact of life. You can't just raise your kid ignoring that fact and blissfully hoping that others will too. You're setting your kid up for a rude shock. That is, assuming they "chose" at their leisure to enter society.

Invictus, perhaps I am talking past you. What I'm trying to get across is that I view the traditional clothes for girls, clothes for boys thing as very damaging, and that people should be allowed to break that mold. (Though guys should shave their legs if they want to wear a dress :P )

And yeah, Obi, that is just crappy parenting avoiding problems doesn't solve them it postpones them. As I'm sure you have noticed I'm an advocate of letting them learn the hard way, and deal with society.

Huh? ...Invictus. I'm not sure I understand you. Sexualizing young children is wrong. (That previous post might be confusing I retyped it quickly after I accidently deleted it >.< ) I was not arguing otherwise. I offered you one devils advocate argument and you're still jumping all over me for it. (I even told you what I was doing there.)

@Synalon....<yawn...> You may love your philosophical arguments on right/wrong/morality of social norms, whether or not they SHOULD disturb the workplace, etc. Sorry...I live in Realityville. Put a cross-dresser on a UAW line building cars. I could give a shit if you THINK it's wrong that the union thugs will treat him like shit and drive him out...it SIMPLY IS. You can point to Wiki articles talking about this, that or the other thing, telling me that just because 99+% of the population agreeing doesn't mean it's right....but there is a point in time where you have to leave your philosophical rat-hole and join society, live in reality.

Again...YES, GONNA RESTATE....go live your life in this idealistic, nonsensical fashion that your propose. I DARE YOU. And when all of your philosophical arguments against the ill-treatment you recieve from the masses earn you loud laughter and maybe a rotten tomoato upside your head....then I'm sure you will still claim they are being wrong, immoral, etc....and they most likely WILL be wrong/immoral, etc...but that is just life, chump.

That's what I can't stand about all these assinine "debates"....you can make all the wanna/wish/blah blah blah arguments about how your think things should be in utopia....the rest of us live and work int he real world, which is predominantly populated by people who's thoughts go no deeper than who should win the celebrity dance show....not whether he should be nice to fat joe when he comes to work in a pink tu-tu.

In short...back to the INITIAL post idea....the people raising their child with the hidden gender are no better than the people that send their kids off to brainwashing camps because they are gay. They are doing their child a *grave* disservice...one that no doubt years down the road the child will come to greatly resent. Fuck all your philosophical arguments about the ills of social norms....the reality in REALITYVILLE (where that poor kid lives)...is that nobody cares about your philosophy....they just care about distracting the teachers so they can beat the shit out of Pat on the playground again.

if keeping a child's gender from the general public is child abuse then by the same measure raising a child and telling people that this is a Catholic child is also child abuse.

We let things like this go all the time when it's conservative bullshit (and i don't mean conservative in terms of any political party)

This is experimental at best, but their kids are their own to raise, and unless you can demonstrate any actual developmental issues (ie symptoms of neglect) the child services should stay the frakk away.