 |
| I am totally going to mess with you idiots til I move out |
When many couples have a baby, they send out an email to family and friends that fills them in on the key details: name, gender, birth weight, that sort of thing. (You know the drill: "Both Mom and little Ethan are doing great!")more at Yahoo news
But the email sent recently by Kathy Witterick and David Stocker of Toronto, Canada to announce the birth of their baby, Storm, was missing one important piece of information. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now--a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)," it said.
That's right. They're not saying whether Storm is a boy or a girl.
There's nothing ambiguous about the baby's genitals. But as Stocker puts it: "If you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs." So only the parents, their two other children (both boys), a close friend, and the two midwives who helped deliver the now 4-month-old baby know its gender. Even the grandparents have been left in the dark.
In fact, they should not name the baby either. Wait until he or she can speak to name themselves. And language? Why limit it to the parents'? The child should not be bound to the social constructs of society. If they call "red" something like "uzzabuuzaaah" who's to say the child is wrong? Really? They do put other oppressive restrictions on the child's growth. Why stop at gender? In fact who's to say these so called parents have been chosen by the child? Why not let the child decide? I think this couple really needs to examine themselves. Far, far to conservative to really be considered "a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation." What they need is to be true liberals in every facet of the child's development.
13 comments:
The only harm coming to this child is from bigots like you.
This article goes much more in depth than the Yahoo one: http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/babies/article/995112--parents-keep-child-s-gender-secret
Two main points:
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
Both of those statements are entirely true. The sex of the child is not being hidden from the child nor from the nuclear family. The goal is to protect the child from the harmful gender roles and stereotypes that society would like to place upon them before they can even speak. Let the child be who the child wants to be.
The child is happy, the other children are happy. They get to travel the world and have wonderful, loving parents. That's a lot more than can be said about "traditional" Christian families. Leave them be.
"harmful gender roles"
It's called nature.
Nature? Are you kidding me? It's "nature" for women to be submissive to their husbands? To like pink? Is it nature for men to like fast cars and guns? Is it nature for men to beat their wives?
The only thing that's "nature" is that you're born human. Everything else, including gender roles, are a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.
By putting Western gender roles on women you tell them they'll never be good enough, they'll be like men, and they basically deserve to make 70 cents to every man's dollar. She might as well go home. By putting Western gender roles on men you tell him that if he doesn't make a ton of money he's worthless, if he's not strong and "macho" no woman will ever love him. These sorts of "natural" roles have caused dozens of families to be broken and damaged and destroyed. Sorry, but I'm not going to condone the REAL abuse here, which is to subject children to that nonsense.
Telling boys they are girls doesn't solve workplace inequality issues. Every child has a right to their natural gender.
They're not telling boys that they are girls. They are telling boys AND girls that they are human.
There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody. ~Florynce Kennedy
Gender, again, is the social construct. Sex, is the biological one. The parts you're born with. Every child indeed has a right to their natural gender, which is why this family isn't prohibiting their child from what it NATURALLY wants to be. Without outside influences. I don't know how much more natural it gets than that.
Can a child choose their natural race instead of their biological race as well? It seems you apply this faulty logic to only the aspects of a person that you want to change. But who decides which parts of the human person need to be separated from their biological counterpart? If gender is a social construct, then race, vernacular language, species, ect could also be social constructs.
You do get some interesting Anonnies, BC. Not only can this one not construct an argument (or a sentence), but it likes to make very judgmental and hurtful comments based on its own prejudices. I can't say I would be convinced very well by being called a bigot by a stranger straight off in the first comment, but maybe that's just me. Oh, the damage that's caused by social constructs...
As to the post, I always think it's funny when people do something "unique" and then whinge and moan about not being accepted by the mainstream. Um, that was the whole point of your little social experiment, wasn't it? To do something counter-cultural?
The saddest part of all of this is these kids are someday going to have their eyes opened to the truth, and I have a feeling it's going to result in bitterness and pain. In that article the 'nonny linked, the poor older boy is already requesting that his mother write a note telling his group leaders that he's a boy. (A) Do you really think this will be the only time this happens? (B) Do these parents think they're immortal and will always be there for these kids?
Gender roles are a social construct, but I'll bet money every single one of you believe homosexuality is inherently biological.
Men and women are different. Period.
You don't have a child to conduct social experiments on him. I'm so confident of that that in 10 years, come back and see which kids -- my SONS or this boy -- are more self-assured, considerate, and outgoing. My money's on my kids.
"Everything else, including gender roles, are a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT."
Bologna. My children were given all kinds of toys to play with when they were growing up. I didn't foster any "gender role" for any of them. The boys gravitated toward match box vehicles, toy guns and building blocks and the girls toward dolls, dress-up and Easy Bakes. I also did daycare for years -- same thing.
Go to a daycare and watch little ones play.
I'm a reasonably girly adult female who probably keeps Sephora in business all by myself. But as a child I loved building blocks, matchbox toy cars, climbing trees, collecting rocks, etc. I also loved getting dressed up and would beat the heck out of any little boy who got dirt on my shoes. Men and women may be different in a vague general sense, but I doubt it means all little girls and all little boys fit the stereotype on an individual level.
Practices of not letting little girls wear pink is just plain foolish. There is absolutely no benefit except that liberals can pat themselves on the back for opposing natural gender tenancies. Let kids be kids and lay off the mind games.
If I knew this family, and I wanted to get Storm a gift, it'd be a boy's toy. Boy toys are way more cool. :-)
I'm more concerned for their older kids - they're the ones who are going to have a rude awakening someday, and I hope they don't come to resent their parents as a result.
I don't actually think there is a natural gender tendency toward color choice in fashion. :D But let's dress them all in plaid if it will stop the fighting. ;)
Post a Comment