"But even I, a self-identified libertarian and an activist for more liberty in the private lives of American citizens, can see that children, who lack the mental faculties to utilize their freedom, cannot be expected to make good decisions when free. It is simple psychological fact that a five year old cannot be expected to make rational decisions, and no amount of ideology of 'individualism' can get in the way of the inevitable consequences of irrational beings being totally free."

Very well, then parents should be free to forcibly socialize those who are "boys" by sex as gender-neutral, ditto girls. You're objecting that this is supposedly a "laboratory experiment" or social engineering, so is forcibly socializing children into dichotomous genders. It just happens to be social engineering you approve of.

But if parents forced their "boys" to "act like girls" and vice versa, you'd be bitching too. So the real "objection" is not the fact that parents are not parenting on behalf of irrational, undeveloped children. The real objection is you want boys to "act like boys" in all cases, and girls to "act like girls".

"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."

All you're doing is injecting greater confusion into the child's life. Forcing them in some cases to be people they are not, and then expecting them, after having lived to lie, to suddenly figure things out. It's a bogus solution.

The people raising objectors are raising a false choice of non-parenting vs forcibly socialized gender roles. You can make decisions on behalf of irrational children without having those decisions reinforce bullshit gender dichotomies.

As a parent of three children whose genders I will withhold for a moment, i applaud the 'hippie bullshit' parents for trying to consider how they impact on thier child's development and how that is later reflected in perpetuating gender roles in society. However, I don't generally think that it is a child's interest to make them an object of a media frensy. Society doesn't change its norms on the back of a media case like this, it changes gradually over time, I think most parents would see themselves as being more liberal than their parents and I see greater acceptance of things like divorce, abortion, mixed marriages, sam sex relatinships etc, etc. Society will view traditional gender roles differently in the future, that trend is almost inevitable.

Now back to my children - I have spent the holiday weekend decorating their bedrooms. One is Pink, 1 is Red / Silver and Black and the other is lime green and grass green. Whilst I have probably failed in my attempt to treat all my children equally and thereby allow traditional gender norms to be accepted, i have to say that I feel their norms are governed far more by their peers than anything I could do or say.

I think Storm will be fine as long as she/he has good friends or bad friends, just as long as she/he has other influences.

"Very well, then parents should be free to forcibly socialize those who are "boys" by sex as gender-neutral, ditto girls. You're objecting that this is supposedly a "laboratory experiment" or social engineering, so is forcibly socializing children into dichotomous genders. It just happens to be social engineering you approve of.

But if parents forced their "boys" to "act like girls" and vice versa, you'd be bitching too. So the real "objection" is not the fact that parents are not parenting on behalf of irrational, undeveloped children. The real objection is you want boys to "act like boys" in all cases, and girls to "act like girls"."

No. The real objection is that their plan for fulfilling their goal is terrible. If you want to knock down gender barriers, don't put your kids in a situation where they're likely to get majorly socially stigmatized, as they almost certainly are going to be. It's unnecessary when you can simply raise the kid according to its sex before puberty *while telling the kid that there's nothing wrong with people not "acting like boys/girls"* and then, once the kid hits puberty and actually has an idea of what his/her gender truly is, the parents respect wherever the kid goes from there. That compromise shields the kids from bullying that will have a significant emotional effect beyond the times it happens while raising the next generation to be more tolerant, phasing it out in time -- it prepares for the sad reality of the world while changing it.

This is misguided idealism that's going to end badly. There's really no way around it. And that's not to say they always will be; as I said, the other solution proposed actively tries to fight the way things are. Nor is this "appeasement" of the "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals." The standard is being *fought* -- through the existing system. That will be far more effective than any sort of misguided effort like this.

"All you're doing is injecting greater confusion into the child's life. Forcing them in some cases to be people they are not, and then expecting them, after having lived to lie, to suddenly figure things out."

And the alternative is putting them through hell.

Again. It's not RIGHT that we have to deal with it. Not at all. But the fact is that they DO, and you have to account for that.

I suppose it would be better if the parents were more... structured? Serious? Not idiotically vapid? But come on, man. These parents seriously let a five year old choose whether or not s/he/it wants to go to school. They are NOT going about this in a mature way at all.

I'm reminded of Frasier and Lilith Crane on Cheers. Sounds like some kind of bullshit experiment they would have come up with. But at least they were fictitious characters.

This reminds me of the Amish method of indoctrination. Oh, you'll grow up as a brainwashed Amish child, but then we'll let you "choose" whether to voluntarily come back to the community afterwards when you reach puberty. That's obviously a great solution that doesn't cause massive identity confusion for the child. It's no wonder, then, that most Amish children choose to return to their community. It does nothing to undermine the prospects of the continuity of Amish norms. If it did, the Amish wouldn't allow this kind of "voluntary" repatriation.

It's a question of what is going to cause greater scarring, a situation where a person is forcibly socialized into being someone they are not (and the confusion which necessarily results from that) in order to "protect" themselves from bullying, only to be bullied afterwards during their puberty years. Or a situation in which children have no external pressures to identify in a certain way, but they face the great likelihood of bullying at an early age.

Your solution doesn't do anything to "protect" children from bullying. It possibly postpones it by 7 years while injecting the added problem of gender confusion. What happens if your socialized child starts exhibiting "gender confused" behavior before puberty? Are you going to use force to stamp it out? They can't possibly "know" what's good for them right? And by golly, what will the other parents think!

This issue of bullying is really a red herring. It'd be a non-issue if school communities took a zero tolerance approach to bullying and implemented curriculum at early age which emphasized acceptance and equality. There is nothing in a child's nature that makes a child a bully. The solution isn't to suppress the identities of victims so that bullying won't occur. That's like telling a so-called "nerdy" kid that he has to change who he is in order to stop getting beat up. Or that a woman has to dress "modestly" and then she won't be attacked. No, the solution is to expel and ostracize the bullies. The solution is to arrest and ostracize sexual predators.

A parent's job is to, well, *parent*. It's one thing to buy gender neutral clothing and let the kid pick out his/er own toys so that maybe a little boy plays with barbie or a little girl has army men. But letting them choose whether they go to school or not is *not* parenting. It's willful negligence of the child's education.

The fact is, kids internalize stuff a lot more in their early years than they do later on in life. You can't just say, "we'll treat the child like a boy until he's old enough to decide if he's a girl." He won't be able to decide what he is if he's been treated like a boy all his life. That's why transitioning is often so difficult. People keep saying these parents are vapid, and that this is fatuous. How so? How do you know these parents are vapid, have you ever spoken to them? And what makes this process fatuous? Answer for it.

Fine, yes, parenting involves making decisions for the child. It doesn't follow that these decisions include socializing children to be behave according to socially "accepted" gender stereotypes. We can stop raising the canard about school in order to argue against the fundamental issue of whether parents should force children who are boys by sex to be boys by gender, etc.

Anytime people disagree with a practice like this they make it about the people. They attack the parents personally. All of the objections here come down to fallacious ad hominem attacks on the parents.

It's very weird that the usual complainers about big government, indoctrination of children, and social engineering come down hard on the side of brainwashing children and social engineering.

Ah, the school thing. That is a tricky issue, but that's not what we're discussing here, and neither is it relevant. For the record however it has been found that students born earlier in the year on average do better than their classmates born later in the year, because they have several months of cognitive development on their peers (obviously there will be exceptions, but on average this trend holds). Perhaps asking the child whether they want to go to school is not the best idea, but holding back a kid who won't even be 6 by the time the school years starts is not entirely without merit.

People assume that kids won't want to go school. I don't know where this assumption comes from. The period I read the most by far was elementary school. And all I did was play with things like legos and puzzles. Creativity and love of learning is neutered in the teenage years when parents allow their kids to play nothing but video games and watch tv.

@Mafia - Have I ever spoken to them? What the fuck difference does that make, you cock smoking moron?

Here's the follow-up article written by the stupid broad in question : http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/newsfeatures/article/998960---genderless-baby-s-mother-responds-to-media-frenzy
##############################################################
The ditzy broad wrote,..."In my heart of hearts, I squirm when my son picks a dress from the rack (won't people tease him?)"
############################################################
Uhhhhh, yes they will, shit-for-brains.

mapleleaf +1 - Oh my God. Did I just agree with him?

"If you want to knock down gender barriers, don't put your kids in a situation where they're likely to get majorly socially stigmatized, as they almost certainly are going to be. It's unnecessary when you can simply raise the kid according to its sex before puberty"

before puberty is exactly the time when it shouldn't matter whether they are male or female. it is parents who are making this an issue not kids or this 'storm's peers.

who says she/he will face any bullying from other kids who don't know or care what gender storm is.

When storm is old enough to tell people that will be his/her choice, which means if she/he is being stigmatized it will be not because of her/his parent's choice but her/his own.

it's not like most stigmatized kids have this kind of choice, and i mean by the age of 4.

Also regarding the media 'frenzy' - i'd agree, the free media a problem in the lives of some children. Privacy needs to be respected over the 'needs' of the public to know this child's life story, however i doubt storm is aware of that impact at all given how little coverage i've seen and how unlikey i think it is that storm reads the webdiplomacy forums.

That however is a societal problem with the media not with this example of parenting. There are several examples of the media damaging people's lives - whether children or adults. And i hope the a free citizen journalism, based on blogs, youtube videos and the freedom of the internet continues to undermine this newspaper/tv based advertising/news empire and it's standard practices.

it is being replaced by something local voluntary, personal, socially networked, and relevant.

@Mafia - Have I ever spoken to them? What the fuck difference does that make? - How can you call them vapid when all you know about them are a few quotes collected and edited by journalists, who obviously have their own biases and opinions on what these parents are doing, and how they live their lives? Are they really vapid, or does the journalist writing the article just want to give you the impression that they're vapid? You're condemning their behaviour on the basis that someone else has told you to think that their just vapid, airheaded hippies. That's what difference it makes.

Blah, that should say @ Maple, wow I'm dumb sometimes.

"The ditzy broad wrote,..."In my heart of hearts, I squirm when my son picks a dress from the rack (won't people tease him?)"
############################################################
Uhhhhh, yes they will, shit-for-brains. "

maple, i'm confused is your point that keeping a child's gender secret will prevent this kind of teasing?

actually below a certain age wearing a dress will not result in teasing, peers are just to unaware to notice.

actually above a certain age teasing is a part of growing up, why does it have to be a negative thing to learn by being teasing?

Also @ Maple - I think perhaps the quote "In my heart of hearts, I squirm when my son picks a dress from the rack (won't people tease him?)" is not meant to express a complete and utter ignorance of how the concept of "teasing" works. I think a more accurate interpretation of that quote would be "I'm aware that some aspects of this choice may result in difficulty or pain for my child, but on balance it is more important to me that I raise my child without imposing restrictive gender norms on him." But obviously that interpretation wouldn't occur to you, because you've been told by the newspaper to hate this woman for being such an airheaded hippie with no idea how the world actually works, rather than a perfectly rational person with a different set of values and priorities than you. And like any good trained monkey, you obeyed.

Below a certain age, I agree orathaic. But above a certain age, the teasing can be especially cruel when it is a result of something the child has been told is OK at home, but society views as abnormal. I'm nto saying this is right, just that it is a fact. That's why the LGBT community has a higher rate of teen suicide than the Straight community. Teen girls can be really cruel to each other and it can occassionally turn violent, but teen boys will physically assault that which they feel threatens their masculinity much more often than a catfight over a boyfriend and much more violently than just pulling hair and scratching and even the occasional fist fight.

Mafiafaggygator posted,"....... But obviously that interpretation wouldn't occur to you, because you've been told by the newspaper to hate this woman"
############################################################
Actually, no Trixie, The Toronto Star is P.C. cock smoking heaven. Right up your alley. They are lionizing this stupid bitch.

Strike two, Tinkerbell.

OK fine, my guess for the reason why you've decided to irrationally hate her is wrong, but my point stands that I think you misinterpreted the intention of her quote, and you haven't responded to that point.
Secondly, has it not occurred to you that constantly using homophobic slurs might kind of undermine your credibility in a debate about people who are trying to call traditional gender roles into question?

Perhaps I should make my general point quite clear. Because you're invested in the status quo, you entered into this debate unwilling to actually examine the arguments of the other side, and simply dismiss these parents as obviously crazy and stupid. And then, because you already know what you think of them, you spin every single little piece of evidence around to fit that predetermined conclusion. "Look obviously raising a gender neutral kid is a bad idea, look how stupid the couple that's doing it is! She said she was worried her kids would be made fun of! That's such a stupid thing to say!" Instead of just debating whether or not this couple is intelligent, why not try and actually engage with the issues that have been brought up. Why not actually answer for why it is you think that it's important that people be indoctrinated to believe in a dichotomous gender system?

I find it quite interesting that this is causing so much heated debate. My beliefs are that the media will always hype things up to look more extreme than they are, and that except in a very few extreme circumstances parents should always have the final say on how their child is raised, even if they seem to stray a fair distance from society's norms. From what they have actually said I don't think they've done anything overly harmful, and I have no reason to believe that they won't adjust how they raise this child if it looks like what they're doing is causing it distress. Personally I think it's all a bad idea, but I'll be damned if what I think is a bad idea for a child should ever count for more than the views of the child's parents.

One does wonder why, in a world in which some Libian parents are using their children as human shields in bombing raids, and some Indian parents are killing off their girls because they think only boys are worth it, this relatively minor issue is generating so much more interest.

Mafiahighheelsandgarterbelt posted,....." Why not actually answer for why it is you think that it's important that people be indoctrinated to believe in a dichotomous gender system?"
###############################################################
Uhhhhh, because gender is obviously dichotomous. I believe that people should embrace reality.

There's your answer.

I'm sorry about your disability. You're not normal. Deal with it, and stop bothering the rest of us.

"Uhhhhh, because gender is obviously dichotomous." - This is absolutely false. What about intersex people? Granted, most of the time, people fall into one of two biological *sexes* (the asterisks denote emphasis) but sex is not the same thing as gender. Gender is a social construct and can and does change over time. Many cultures have or had space for more than two genders in spite of there (arguably) only existing two sexes. Look into any of these "third-genders" that exist or have existed; Berdache (Native American), Ma'hu (Hawaiian), Fa'afafine (Samoan) Waria or Wania Prita (Indonesia), Sworn Virgins (the Balkans), all contemporary examples, and then there's the Sht (Ancient Egypt). And these are just the ones I've heard of. There's even a culture which sees 3 sexes (male, female and intersex) and 5 genders. Our culture at present sees gender as dichotomous, but don't make the mistake of thinking that just because that's what you're used to, that it's the only way things make sense.

Wrong.

Gender equals sex, male or female.

You WISH that gender was a social construct. That way, you, your banana gobbling buddies, your chimpanzee loving buddies, your high heel shoe fetish buddies, your psychedelic-drugs-in-the-turkey-baster-shoved-up-the-ass-buddies etc., would ALL be normal.

But gender isn't a social construct. So, you're an anomaly.

Also, your continued use of the pejorative "homophobe", is a shame. You're a P.C. simpleton, and you're happy to be ignorant.