Parents Raising "Theybies": Letting Kids Decide Their Gender

[Takod]

Now let's be real clear about what occurred in this situation. The teacher, decided to enforce HER opinion on what the child was and spent 3 months ridiculing and tormenting a child who was under her direct care and supervision. That seems pretty damn hateful to me. In fact, I'd call it child abuse. The teacher had several ways she could have handled it, including NOT ridiculing a child. Let's not pretend this is a simple case where a teacher made a slip of the tongue and said she instead of he. She went out of her way to deliberately mock and taunt a child. Yeah, I'm okay with that being considered a hate crime because it's pretty damn hateful, and that woman has no business being a teacher. I am also a grammar purist and I could come up with 30 different ways around the gender pronoun issue without resorting to ridiculing a child under my care. Would you have been okay if the child had been being ridiculed for being Christian or Muslim or Black?

Fair point, but you might be going a little overboard with how you've written the teacher to act toward the student.

and secondly, if it was ridicule meant as ridicule, then please understand that all ridicule is meant to target the thing that is the most characteristic of the person and most defined; ie, that person's identity and being, so if someone is being ridiculed, and they are Christian, Gender-Fluid, Muslim, Black or anything else, then you can bet that these identifiers will be the first thing to be ridiculed, because that's what ridicule is, it makes fun of the person for being the person that they ARE.

If someone is bald, much the same, or if someone has a disease or some incurable condition; much the same.

The fact you don't agree with it isn't actually a good reason.

My reasons for not agreeing with it are good reasons, though; saying they're not good reasons doesn't make them not good reasons. It just means your opinion is that they're not good reasons, whilst my opinion is that they are. I find it odd you've resorted to something like this when assaulting the reasons for the reasons that they are is a better way of changing minds, whereas this comes off as more of an obstinate WE DON'T AGREE (and we don't, and that's okay)

As long as "letting kids be kids" conforms to YOUR concept of how that ought to be done. Not one you disagree with.

Pretty much.

And yet, interestingly we don't have a similar term for a boy who chooses to play with dolls and hair. Why is that, do you think?

Sure we do, they get called a fag, or a little princess, or a big girl's blouse; but we can't say that or any of the above any more.

These are children. Who gives a flying **** what they identify as?

Those who look upon history and say what came before broadly worked, despite the natural suffering that comes along with the problem of living.

Once again: these are children. People need to chill the eff out and stop working out your own insecurities and deep-rooted sexual inadequacies on their behalf. No on is harmed by not knowing whether Biscuit is a boy or a girl. So once again, what difference does it make?

We don't know if Biscuit is harmed or not, and we don't know if it is Biscuits decision to be a boy or a girl. Children are precious to society because have infinite potential.

We're going to find out what difference it makes, I am perfectly clear in my earlier, earlier post that I am totally dis-interested in discussing these things, mostly because I cannot have an impact, and you might be like "Thank God - another generation not lead to the slaughterhouse!" - but if some of the things that I do fear do come true and that loosening the stereotypical parental "grip" on societies formation causes problems, will you still be happy about your decision to eschew a philosophy that might not work in lieu of one that HAS worked? And of course, you appear to be arguing from a position ( i do not know, of course ) that surely anything would be better than what came before; I suppose mine is a position of the grass looks nice and green on the other side, and your position is that this grass is so bad and I think they're onto something here.

I really don't enjoy arguing with you, and especially not like or about this; on the next thing can you please wrap it up for me because I want to get back to ripper stuff since I much prefer that, and nor do I want to be rude and ignore your post that you've taken the time to write.

[Ally]

Fair point, but you might be going a little overboard with how you've written the teacher to act toward the student.

No, I'm actually not. I read more than one article that went into detail about what exactly the teacher did towards the student over a period of months that included constantly deriding the child on this issue. It was not a simple slip of the tongue.

and secondly, if it was ridicule meant as ridicule, then please understand that all ridicule is meant to target the thing that is the most characteristic of the person and most defined; ie, that person's identity and being, so if someone is being ridiculed, and they are Christian, Gender-Fluid, Muslim, Black or anything else, then you can bet that these identifiers will be the first thing to be ridiculed, because that's what ridicule is, it makes fun of the person for being the person that they ARE.

And a teacher, should NOT be ridiculing any child for being what they are.

If someone is bald, much the same, or if someone has a disease or some incurable condition; much the same.

Oh good. Let's all make fun of the people dying of cancer too. Those bastards totally deserve it.

My reasons for not agreeing with it are good reasons, though; saying they're not good reasons doesn't make them not good reasons. It just means your opinion is that they're not good reasons, whilst my opinion is that they are. I find it odd you've resorted to something like this when assaulting the reasons for the reasons that they are is a better way of changing minds, whereas this comes off as more of an obstinate WE DON'T AGREE (and we don't, and that's okay)

LOL... your reasons are good reasons? So you're basically saying that if you are different, people will ridicule you so we should all strive to be exactly the same and all conform to YOUR ideal? Heil! What ARE your very good reasons again? I mean other than enforcing conformity onto all?

Sure we do, they get called a fag, or a little princess, or a big girl's blouse; but we can't say that or any of the above any more.

Exactly. And why is that? Because those are all INSULTS. Tomboy isn't an insult. If you act like a girl, it's disgusting. But if you act like a boy, it's acceptable. Thereby enforcing the idea that the only acceptable behaviors and admirable behaviors are those that are stereotyped MALE. See? You subscribe to the bigotry, while using it as a shield.

We don't know if Biscuit is harmed or not, and we don't know if it is Biscuits decision to be a boy or a girl. Children are precious to society because have infinite potential.

I mean as long as the potential is expressed in terms patriarchy agrees is appropriate. And maybe, just maybe, if peopel weren't so concerned about typecasting little girls as "not good at math" then we'd have more female engineers.

I really don't enjoy arguing with you, and especially not like or about this; on the next thing can you please wrap it up for me because I want to get back to ripper stuff since I much prefer that, and nor do I want to be rude and ignore your post that you've taken the time to write.

Then stop. No one is forcing you to reply. I am perfectly happy going unanswered, until someone actually answers the question:

What difference does it make, if society can tell by looking at a five year old whether they are male or female?

What actual difference does it make? How does society benefit by this distinction?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. What difference does it make, if society can tell by looking at a five year old whether they are male or female?

Id say that it benefits the children themselves. How confused are kids going to be when they go to school and find that all of their friends know that they are either boys or girls and yet they describe themselves as a ‘‘theybies?’’ Kids can be cruel. These things can lead to horrible things like bullying. Those parents might as well get them t-shirts printed with ‘‘weirdo’’ on them. Kids don’t understand these issues and yet they are being made guinea pigs in an experiment. Why is it acceptable for people to invent the idea of a ‘theybie’ and it’s fine and yet when someone says that there are two sexes and they are branded as some kind of nazi? I just think that when we try and redefine reality we need to tread carefully. Consequences can be harsh from even the best of intentions. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t try to help or be more understanding though. But I think that there are some elements that appear to be saying ‘ok so I know that this has always been the case but we’ve decided that this all has to change. You will think this and you will use these words and not those words. We’ve decided for you.’ I genuinely think that this is the way that many people feel. It’s a cliché I know but it can’t help but smack of Big Brother and it makes people deeply uncomfortable.

[Takod]

Then stop. No one is forcing you to reply. I am perfectly happy going unanswered, until someone actually answers the question:

Thank you for your reply. Have a good evening.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n704483]

Id say that it benefits the children themselves. How confused are kids going to be when they go to school and find that all of their friends know that they are either boys or girls and yet they describe themselves as a ‘‘theybies?’’

Probably the same amount of confused they're going to be when they go to school and find out kids believe in Santa Claus and they don't, or Jesus and they don't, or are mostly white and they aren't or any of the other "confusion" that arises when you have one kid, who is Jewish or Muslim and doesn't believe in the same way that the others do. They won't be confused at all because their parents will have explained things to them. And if you'd read the article, you'll find that most parents doing this believe that their children will have figured it out by the time they actually go to school.

Kids can be cruel. These things can lead to horrible things like bullying.

Yes, and? The solution is parents teach their children to be tolerant of difference whether based on religion or skin color or gender. The only other solution is we all conform to a particular standard that one person decides is the only acceptable standard. Do you want someone else's standard forced on you? No? Then be tolerant of others that you might get that tolerance in return.

Once again: if it's not directly harming you, or someone else, what business is it of ours? If a kid is Jewish in a mostly Christian school, we don't tell the Jewish kid to become Christian to fit in. We understand that's wrong. Same idea applies.

Why is it acceptable for people to invent the idea of a ‘theybie’ and it’s fine and yet when someone says that there are two sexes and they are branded as some kind of nazi?I just think that when we try and redefine reality we need to tread carefully. Consequences can be harsh from even the best of intentions.

They didn't invent the idea, they invented the word. People have a heart attack about the idea of a little boy wearing a dress and yet historically, that's what they wore. It's not a new concept in fashion, it's also not a new concept in child rearing. The Navajo have four different genders. Your idea that there are only TWO genders is based on your social conditioning and nothing more. You have been "brain-washed" into thinking YOUR way is the correct way. But it's not. It's just the way you've been trained is the correct way. The concept of gender fluidity is not new. It's just new to you. They didn't invent the idea. Many societies have had that concept historically until Christianity and it's obsession with sex and gender-roles wiped out other concepts. The reality is: there aren't just two genders. There aren't just two sexes. As we've already said, hermaphrodites, XXY chromosomes, and a whole host of other issues come into play and that's just straight biological sex. The reality is: there aren't just two genders assigned at birth, they end.

They are attempting to raise their children according to gender reality. You are attempting to say that what you believe, matters more than what science says is the reality. That's why it's acceptable for them to do it. Because science actually supports their position.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An alternative viewpoint.

https://youtu.be/HWHotHWmu1g

[George Dixon]

Crikey. I thought that I had joined a Jack The Ripper forum.

[Robert]

George, Casebook has always had pub threads for discussion of non-Ripper topics.

[George Dixon]

Robert, I get that . But things seem to be a little extreme here.

[c.d.]

Robert, I get that . But things seem to be a little extreme here.

Hello George,

I suggest that you take a look at the history of Pub Talk and the topics that have been discussed. A number of them have resulted in some serious pissing matches. In fact, the one on grammar and spelling (which I unfortunately started) damn near resulted in death threats.

c.d.

[Ally]

An alternative viewpoint.

https://youtu.be/HWHotHWmu1g

I'm sorry, is a bigoted ranter who has no foundation in science considered an alternative view point now? A crazy rant that's filled with nothing but invective and no scientific basis, just ranting is not an alternative viewpoint. It's just a rant.

Do you have any factual rebuttal? Multiple cultures throughout history have multiple genders and had actual words and descriptors for them. Multiple genders aren't a new thing.

The fact that science supports this view is apparently irrelevant. If you want to rant about what you believe despite science, feel free. But that puts you nowhere but with the anti-vaxxers and the flat-earthers.

There's what you believe. Then there's science. I'll go with science, you and everyone else are free to believe what you choose. But some idiot ranting in a youtube video isn't evidence of anything, just because it supports your viewpoint.

Once again: multiple societies have historically had multiple concepts of gender. This is not new, and it's not "made up" and it's supported by evidence.

[George Dixon]

This made chuckle, the suitcase part.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-6872355/United-Airlines-mocked-Twitter-introducing-non-binary-gender-ticketing-options.html

[Ally]

This made chuckle, the suitcase part.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...g-options.html

Slippery slope arguments and reductio ad absurdium arguments are traditionally the resort of those few who have no actual argument, so I agree, these sorts of "arguments" are fairly laughable. The more important question is: why does an airline need to know what your gender is in order for you to buy a seat? Why are you required to identify your gender at all? What actual difference does it make when it comes to flying and buying a seat? What possible reason is it of a business, or anyone what you identify as, male or female? How is that information relevant towards a business transaction?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sorry, is a bigoted ranter who has no foundation in science considered an alternative view point now? A crazy rant that's filled with nothing but invective and no scientific basis, just ranting is not an alternative viewpoint. It's just a rant.

Do you have any factual rebuttal? Multiple cultures throughout history have multiple genders and had actual words and descriptors for them. Multiple genders aren't a new thing.

The fact that science supports this view is apparently irrelevant. If you want to rant about what you believe despite science, feel free. But that puts you nowhere but with the anti-vaxxers and the flat-earthers.

There's what you believe. Then there's science. I'll go with science, you and everyone else are free to believe what you choose. But some idiot ranting in a youtube video isn't evidence of anything, just because it supports your viewpoint.

Once again: multiple societies have historically had multiple concepts of gender. This is not new, and it's not "made up" and it's supported by evidence.

Ben Shapiro is a highly intelligent man and to call him bigoted because you disagree with him is exactly the attitude that gives us vacuous, spineless, students and universities trying to ban or silence him and others. This subject is a very small part of a wider issue and the wider issue is vastly the more important one. The issue of freedom of thought and speech and pc idiocy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Looks like this viewpoint isn’t one coming from a minority of bigots?

“Dr. Quentin Van Meter, of the American College of Pediatricians said parents who choose this for their children will subject them to criticism and bullying.

"Parents who do this are purposely putting their children in a situation where they're going to come to a harm, that's why it's abusive," he told CBN News.”

https://areomagazine.com/2018/09/05/when-storks-bring-theybies/

Maybe some dissenting voices aren’t bigoted crackpots?

They’ll probably still get labelled as such though.