Parents Raising "Theybies": Letting Kids Decide Their Gender

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[George Dixon]

Goodness me.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Takod;n704465]

Well yes, actually it is! Unless you want to pretend that Hate Crime doesn't lump you in with the KKK, Hitler and other such people, and if Jack the Ripper was indeed a woman-hating-man, who hated everything about women and wanted to remove it and destroy it, then lump him in there too;

Here is but one article;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ommitted-hate/
Hate Crime
"Ms Green said: “We spoke to a member of the police force, who contacted the CPS and clarified the position. The CPS said it was a hate crime.”

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?

That world viewpoint seems REAL open minded, it's not like it is discarding people's rather good (and differing) reasons for appearing that way to people like yourself.

I'm still waiting to hear one single good reason for the view expressed here. The fact that you don't like it, isn't actually a good reason. The fact you don't agree with it isn't actually a good reason. Now I can come up with a good reason not to use Ze or zu or whatever, because until we all agree on a gender-neutral pronoun I agree that it's ridiculous that everyone gets to make up their own, but in the face of that, "they" though grammatically incorrect, can suffice.

No one is saying kids shouldn't be allowed to express themselves. People are only putting forward that kids should be left to be kids.

As long as "letting kids be kids" conforms to YOUR concept of how that ought to be done. Not one you disagree with. How is dressing a girl in pink required to let kids be kids? How is it required that you know what a kid has between their legs to "let them be kids". How precisely is it a requirement that you know a child's gender in order to allow them to be kids?

Children have decided their OWN "gender" for a very long time. That's why historically we have things such as Tomboys (ie girls with shorter hair who hang around 'with the guys' and play football etc.)

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?

What worries people who don't necessarily agree with all your open-minded talk is the nature of the philosophy that comes alongside this "Let's encourage boys to try out stereotypically girl things and vise versa"

Yes, and why precisely is that a problem? You know other than the rank and gross sexism that "worried" mindset represents. These are children. Who gives a flying **** what they identify as? I spent a good six months as a child identifying as a Labrador and wanting to eat my food on the floor with the dog, because dogs are way better than people.

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?

[Takod]

Oh yeah, absolutely. Because parents letting their kids be kids without having society's gender-stereotyping forced on them from birth is literally going to lead to you being imprisoned for thoughtcrime.

It's literally step 2 in the plan.

Well yes, actually it is! Unless you want to pretend that Hate Crime doesn't lump you in with the KKK, Hitler and other such people, and if Jack the Ripper was indeed a woman-hating-man, who hated everything about women and wanted to remove it and destroy it, then lump him in there too;

Here is but one article;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ommitted-hate/
Hate Crime
"Ms Green said: “We spoke to a member of the police force, who contacted the CPS and clarified the position. The CPS said it was a hate crime.”

I'm sure the punishment is light at the moment for such things so people can become accustomed to it, but at what point will you say too much is enough? How do you honestly believe people should be punished for Hate Crimes? What is the jail sentence, or fine, for a Hate Crime? Should people lose their job and be publicly shamed? Be fined? A jail term? Are all Hate Crimes the same? Well the laws on this aren't particularly clear.

aren't exposed the judgmental small minds of mental shrubs who lack the world view and open-mindedness to accept that not all people exist within the narrow parameters that they've deemed "acceptable"

That world viewpoint seems REAL open minded, it's not like it is discarding people's rather good (and differing) reasons for appearing that way to people like yourself.

//

No one is saying kids shouldn't be allowed to express themselves. People are only putting forward that kids should be left to be kids.

Children have decided their OWN "gender" for a very long time. That's why historically we have things such as Tomboys (ie girls with shorter hair who hang around 'with the guys' and play football etc.)

What worries people who don't necessarily agree with all your open-minded talk is the nature of the philosophy that comes alongside this "Let's encourage boys to try out stereotypically girl things and vise versa"

//

Whatever the case, people of my persuasion DO NOT BELIEVE that conditions such as hermaphroditism can be aided by turning it into a public spectacle for acceptance. Because NOT everybody is going to accept you, and why should they? Because you've got a condition? Yeah, that doesn't work. It creates a faux-acceptance, and believe you me, the people being "accepted" feel like zoo animals.

Which in effect, they are. But they don't integrate, they're segregated by-proxy of their condition and stripped of their very humanity whilst doing so.

//

So yeah, I don't find this topic particularly funny or upbeat, it's deeply saddening and deeply maddening that we cannot distinguish between Jack the Ripper, Hitler and accidentally calling somethat looks like a female a girl when they in fact identify as a boy.

[Ally]

Oh yeah, absolutely. Because parents letting their kids be kids without having society's gender-stereotyping forced on them from birth is literally going to lead to you being imprisoned for thoughtcrime.

It's literally step 2 in the plan.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice tone.

“”mental shrubs”” “”uninformed,ignorant ideas”” “shut up””

We are being told what opinions are acceptable and what aren’t and the law change in Canada is an example of this thoughtcrime thinking. What happens when a contrary position is expressed? We get outraged shrieking simply because most people don’t want to be told how they should think or speak. I can’t stop people having ‘’theybies’’ any more than those parents can’t stop parents having boys and girls but the last time that I looked, in this country at least, we have a tenuous hold on freedom of though and speech despite the constant assaults. You may not think that this is very important. I think that there’s very little that is more important than this constant erosion. We are gradually giving up on our freedoms to appease a minority. The ‘theybie’ issue is probably not the most important issue facing us.

Ill leave the thread as I appear to be some kind of extremist. I’ll leave the sjw’s to continue their mission.

[Ally]

Of course hermaphrodites exist but this, as far as we can see, this doesn’t apply to those children.

As far as you know, they don't apply to those children, but you have no idea. Maybe, tjhe parents who are choosing to raise their children this way have chosen to do this so their children aren't exposed the judgmental small minds of mental shrubs who lack the world view and open-mindedness to accept that not all people exist within the narrow parameters that they've deemed "acceptable". Maybe all the parents doing this actually HAVE intersex children and they are choosing this path as the judgment lands on them, and not their innocent children. But nah, let's just scream about how they suck, and not you know think about the underlying reasons why they might choose to do this.

If a child is born without the issues that you’ve mentioned then they are simply either a boy or a girl and they should be informed of the fact.

And how precisely do you know which children are born with these issues? MAny of these issues dont' show up PHYSICALLY until puberty. Kids aren't given a gene test at birth to determine if they are intersex. A lot of times, these issues don't appear until they are beginning to develop their secondary sex characteristics and then they have the problem of having been raised "one way" that no longer applies to their sex identity. The fact is, you don't always know.

Over time they will behave according to their individual natures.

And the way these parents are choosing to raise their children gives them that space to figure it out, without everyone else weighing in with their uninformed, ignorant ideas of what constitutes a girl, and what constitutes a boy.

The overwhelming majority of children are born without these issues so why do we have to change everything to fit a minority especially when that change would have negligable benefits?

Whose changing everything? ARe you being told how to raise your kids? No? Then shut up and let these parents raise their kids how they want. It's not harming them, and it's not harming you except you've decided to be outraged on behalf of some ideological notion that isn't actually supported by science or sociology.

Why do we need to change our language and then, as in Canada, have it forced onto people? Can anyone honestly think of anything more ludicrous and anti-Freedom of Thought and Speech as being told that you have to call an individual person ‘they?’

As opposed to the anti-freedom of thought and speech of being told you have to refer to someone as she or he? I mean you have no problem forcing your concept of "correct way of speaking" on someone else, but you get outraged if it's done to you.

Or even worse some made up word like ‘zu?’

...uh literally every single word is a made up word. Internet is a made up word. Computer is a made up word. The world changes. Language changes with it.

Treat people fairly and equally of course.

I mean right up to the limits of what you decide is fair and equal. I mean these people aren't even allowed to raise their children how they want without you telling them how to do it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course hermaphrodites exist but this, as far as we can see, this doesn’t apply to those children. If a child is born without the issues that you’ve mentioned then they are simply either a boy or a girl and they should be informed of the fact. Over time they will behave according to their individual natures. The overwhelming majority of children are born without these issues so why do we have to change everything to fit a minority especially when that change would have negligable benefits? Why do we need to change our language and then, as in Canada, have it forced onto people? Can anyone honestly think of anything more ludicrous and anti-Freedom of Thought and Speech as being told that you have to call an individual person ‘they?’ Or even worse some made up word like ‘zu?’ We are sleepwalking into a kind of weird pc wonderland. A proportion of the left believe in ‘‘freedom of speech except for...’’ I personally think that this is a major issue and that we need to say “no” in the strongest terms. If an idea or opinion upsets people then the response needs to be ‘...“tough.”’ Treat people fairly and equally of course. Have sympathy and provide help for those with issues of course. But these issues can’t be helped or solved by simply making things up or changing the language or even trying to silence people or by forcing them to believe things or conform with opinions or ideas that they don’t agree with.

[Robert]

In all honesty, I wouldn't have had Beckenbauer in the team :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck

[Ginger]

I'm really proud of you that you've read the philosophy and have remained optimistic.

I encountered phenomenology, feminism and philosophy of language at university and dropped out in horror. Simone de Beauvoir would probably have ended more accurately if she had simply accepted that a "womb is a woman" which she rejects so early in The Second Sex..

I'm actually quite narrowly read in philosophy. I hold Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius in extremely high regard, and find some considerable value in Plato and Aristotle. Of the moderns, C.S. Lewis in particular, for all that he's seldom discussed as a philosopher, loosed one absolute world-changer (from memory) - "When I became a man, I put away the things of childhood, including the fear of being thought childish." Apart from Lewis, I find very little of value (although much of 20th century grotesquerie) in anyone after Hume, upon which I think we can probably agree.

Your post deserves a considered reply, and especially the example of the ten year old drag queen. I regret that it shall not have one for several days, as I am embarking upon an extended weekend. For the moment, I'll content myself with remarking that the perceptions and motivations of a child are not those of an adult, even when (perhaps especially when), he's trying to behave as he believes an adult would. Best wishes until then.

[Ally]

This is a world of difference from simply allowing kids to play with any toys that they want. This is lying to children. The question of whether they are a boy or a girl was decided in the womb. It’s black and white and beyond argument.

Really? So you're saying that hermaphrodites don't exist? You're saying that XXY chromosome children don't exist? What gender are they? You're saying children aren't born with male genitalia and ovaries? Because it's all decided in the womb? IT's not a black and white and beyond argument question. The fact is, there's lots of variation in gender, besides having a dick or not having a dick, and having multiple variations of sex chromosomes. It's not as simplistic as you make it out to be, and science actually supports that.