I'm confused. "Genderless" baby?

Everyone has a gender, even those with genetic or birth defects.

If you have one or more Y-chromosomes, you are a male. Yes, even an XXY, no matter the surgery you get to change your appearance. If you do not have a Y chromosome, you are a female. I have an acquaintance that cross-dresses, and if he wants to be called a she on her free time, then its polite and it doesn't bother me to oblige and treat her as such. But you can't change science.

If there is nothing wrong with the baby, and they just have a beef with gender roles... cmon, look at Chris Crocker and Irene Andersen, that line is as blurry as you want it to be and doesn't need any help, and IMO not for the better.

But you can keep gender secret for a very long time. I thought one of my good friends in Germany at 10 years old was a boy, and we hung out a LOT. I finally made fun of him for wearing a pink backpack with hearts and called it girlish, and that's when she got pissed and said she IS a girl. Her haircut was shorter than mine though and really you couldn't tell from her hands or chin yet at that age she was female. My sister was shocked too. And nothing against her, put me in a dress and let my hair grow down past my shoulder, and I'd be the prettiest girl at the ball too... *bats eyelashes*


^ LOL! Photoshop time?

The parents sound strange.

Did you see the second picture in that article? Their son has what is considered to be a girl's haircut. Bangs and braids. Now that is gender confusing if you ask me.

IMHO the genderless child looks like a boy to me.

I'm not sure what to think of this. While I think there's nothing wrong with allowing your child to play with or participate in something that's usually associated with the opposite sex or gender (my brother had a doll and I played with "boy toys"), I wonder how this will affect Storm when they're older. Of course, we'll never know this since the parents will decline any future interviews, essentially making this experiment useless if they're trying to teach the public something by challenging gender norms.

Just another case of idiots having children IMO.

Oh dear,the poor child won't know what it is and wonder when he/she gets older what genital parts are and why they have them,this is awful.They'd better be careful be careful how they dress the child too.x

I heard an interview on CBC with the mother. It's not that they are not "assigning" a gender -- obviously they can't do that. What they are doing is refusing to tell anyone what the gender is, and leaving it up to the child to make his or her own declaration in his or her own way and time. Weird? Yep, no question, but I don't see it doing any harm, in and of itself. Where the harm could come is with outsiders insisting on knowing and making the family's life difficult as a result. Can't blame the parents for strangers' nosiness. I thought it was a curious news article, and that's the last of my interest -- it's their business, not mine.

I actually like the idea. Kids are so bombarded with gender roles and gender-specific toys, it might be nice for a kid to do what they want to do, play with what they want to play with, and dress how they want to dress, without having to worry about whether or not it's "socially acceptable".

That's how you end up with Justin Biebers...

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content...weden-then.jpg

When exactly did this all start where masculinity and femininity became a negative thing to be shunned? Where if a woman cares about her appearance and wants to dedicate herself to raising her children for ten-twenty years that she should be looked down upon as if thats not a real job vital to society as a whole by giving the next generation all advantages. What's so bad about encouraging boys to be courageous and use their natural testosterone and higher body muscle mass to be strong and do rough work and allow women and children off the plane first and open doors and defend the country and what not?

Not to say that it has to be forced, or that anything different has to be stopped, but whats to gained giving the girls GI Joes and the boys Barbies?

Well, what's to be gained by not allowing girls to play with GI Joes? For example, my brother explicitly asked for a doll when he was younger. Now he's one of the most masculine guys I know. On the other hand, I played with GI Joes and toy cars and I'm not walking around in heels with a purse. What's the harm in that?

I was raised by a SAHM, so I'm in no way saying it's a needless job. But it's also not for everyone; I could never do it. Marketing and advertising targets kids and attempts to perpetuate the myth that girls should be princesses and boys should be "manly". Yes, there are differences in gender. No, there is nothing wrong with a woman staying at home raising kids and a man being a construction worker. But there is also nothing wrong with a man staying at home raising kids and a woman becoming a construction worker.

With as many advances as our society has made in gender equality, it galls me when I see makeup, sparkly things, EZ Bake ovens and baby dolls marketed mainly toward girls, while the trucks, superheroes and LEGOs are left to the boys.

You say there's nothing wrong with pushing outdated gender roles on children, I say there's nothing wrong with parents who don't want any part of it. The problem is that boys who wear their hair in braids or dress up in princess dresses and girls who wear their hair short and play rough and tumble are opening themselves up for societal scrutiny about their sexual preferences. They're kids, for goodness' sake!

Kids are somewhat blank slates IMO, and as a parent one is expected to give GUIDANCE. Not force, just guidance.

That guidance can include encouraging the feminine or masculine qualities that match the gender they will grow into.

If the child rejects that and decides on their own path, by all means, support them. Most kids are guided by their environment though to something that will likely serve them well upon maturity, upon which they will be men and women with obvious differences in not just size and strength but yes even brain chemistry including sex drive, multitasking, communication, reaction to stress/aggression, emotion, and so forth which have been clearly documented as not being merely environmentally induced differences, etc. Like it or not, the differences do exist, and to stick ones fingers in their ears and pretend they don't doesn't change anything or really serve any purpose IMO.

Not providing any kind of path merely represents a total lack of guidance and ignorance concerning sexuality IMO and not properly preparing them for adulthood. *shrugs*

Not as small children IMO, it usually just raises an eyebrow about the parents really wanting a child of the opposite gender of what they got.

And upon sexual maturity, IMO we do frequently find that natural behavior the result of such sexual crosswiring in the brain-chemistry. IMO, I don't believe that quite a few homosexual men act in a more effeminate manner because society forces them so, but because some naturally feel that way upon sexual maturity. Transgenders are a prime example that there are real differences in gender brain chemistry, as they can tell you with conviction that they do "feel" like a woman trapped in a man's body and visa versa, and I believe them 100% that its valid as I think for whatever reason or fluke were 'wired' the opposite gender and its not societal influence that makes them think differently but something physical and eventually measurable.

As a mother who has given birth to a girl and then later a boy, I can say with absolute certainty that even newborns are not blank slates. Infant boys are just denser, with more muscle and hence more weight per body mass than girls. As they grow and start to be a toddler, the difference is even more marked. You can't assign a gender, and you can't change what is there. Of course there may be the occasional person who believes he/she was born into the wrong body, but that is rare. In normal situations the difference between boys and girls is evident, even at the earliest ages.

These parents are wacky, and I feel sorry for their children.

Again, these parents are not attempting to "assign" or "change" the gender of their baby. Of course they can't do that. They are merely keeping the gender a secret so as not to influence how people treat the child. As for newborn boys being "denser"... come on... really? I've got a nephew who was always light as a feather, I swear that boy has bird bones. I'm sorry, but you CANNOT speak with "absolute certainty" about gender differences simply because you gave birth to a boy and a girl.

The only reason to feel sorry for these kids is because of judgmental people who buy into the whole "boys are strong, girls are weak" business. So they aren't telling people whether the baby is a boy or a girl. What's to feel sorry for? I wish more parents followed this example.

That is not possible, and if anything they have brought huge attention to the child's sexuality with a virtual gigantic yellow highlighter.

Other children are likely to treat it as a him, a her, or a weird genderless outcast that is different from everyone else. Last time I went to school, being very different from everyone else isn't something that made life easier, and he/she may have issues finding friends and fitting in with either boys or girls.

Plus, unless home schooled, eventually the gossip girls in class are going to realize whether or not the child goes to the boys or girls restroom. If he/she uses both, knowing kids they'd have a cow and label the kid a freak. Combine that with a lack of guidance from the parents and I'm sure the kid will be very thankful to his or her progressive parents for giving such an advantage in life...NOT.

You are operating under the assumption that the parents are going to "hide" the gender until the kid is school-aged. "Weird, genderless outcast"? I dare say YOU are the kind of person these parents are on guard against. Why is gender so important to you? So you can validate your own opinions of what girls should be and what boys should be?

You know who were "freaks" when I was young? "Special ed." kids. Wow, we've come a long way. But what if the parents of kids with special needs sat back and said, "well, there's nothing we can do about how people think of our kids. Might as well just go with the status quo because there's nothing WE can do to change it".

If everyone thought the way you do, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, blacks and whites would be segregated, and nobody would be able to get health coverage for a same-sex partner.

When I saw this story on Yahoo! I didn't really know what to think. I'm a Child and Youth Studies major, so this is exactly the type of stuff we talked about in school.

Children are born with a sex (male or female parts, based on their chromosomes). Gender is much more of a social contruct, although there are definite genetic and biological differences between boys and girls that can affect their behaviour. But, if from the time you are born, you are bombarded with pink and dresses and dolls and all that other stuff, you are likely to think those are the things you are expected to play with/wear. On the other hand, if you're dressed like a boy, given sports balls and action figures, you're likely to think that those are the appropriate things to play with. There are certainly kids who break these stereotypes, but these "deviences" from expectations aren't always welcomed by parents, peers, and society.

I really do see no problem at this time with the parents not revealing the sex of the baby. However, I don't think it will last long, and I don't think the parents are expecting it to be a secret forever. Once Storm (which I do think is a horrible name, but to each their own) gets to be 2 or 3, he's going to start asking questions and deciding which gender he most identifies with. I'd be surprised if it didn't match his biological sex, but who knows? At that time, I think the parents need to be VERY honest with Storm and tell him that you were born as a boy/girl and this is what society expects from boys/girls, and that they as parents are supportive of him being who he chooses to be, but that society isn't always kind to those who deviate from traditional gender roles. I really think this can be explained in a kid-friendly way, and hope that it has already been explained to the older siblings, as it does appear that they have been encouraged to experiment with their gender.

That said, this is not a choice I would make and I do think it is a bit extreme. In my opinion, the more responsible decision would have been to say "our baby was born a boy/girl, but we want him to be free to identify with whichever gender he/she chooses, so please do not base gifts or behaviour toward our child on his/her sex." There are plenty of gender neutral toys and clothes out there that children can play with, and I see nothing wrong with having dolls and ponies and other traditional "girl stuff" available, even in a house full of boys (and vice versa for action figures and sports toys, etc with girls). I can only imagine that if these people are this open-minded, they must have plenty of similarly open-minded friends, as my guess is that the open-mindedness probably permeates the rest of their lives as well.

I also think that if keeping this "secret" seems to be negatively affecting Storm, or either of the older siblings, the parents should, in their best interest, reveal the child's sex.

The above is all assuming that the parents really are just very open-minded, perhaps unconventional people who truly feel they have their children's best interests at heart, not crazy people who just want publicity.

Yeah, that is somewhat understandable if the child is 'intersexed', although IMO such a thing as intersexed really doesn't exist. You still either have a male or a female via the presence or lack of a Y-chromosome (even if its XXY, that's a male) that simply have developmental issues with sex organs, not a true sexless or intersexed child. It is not physically possible for an individual to be born with both testes and ovaries for example, since they come from the same germinal tissue, and with hormone therapy given at puberty age would still allow the body to develop as one or the other physically otherwise. And raising according to their true genetic gender, defects or not, isn't like permanent sex assignment surgery, especially in this day and age where women are astronauts and men nurses.
I'm not sure what the benefit would be of just hiding the gender as a baby, as at that young they won't be able to form any real type of opinion for their own input anyway IMO. I was also not referring to my own opinions, as was mentioned I don't mind treating a guy I know as a gal and refer to her in the feminine tense out of politeness, but that doesn't reflect the reality that children in school will treat the child as a he, a she, or an "it". The "it" may have social issues, and as a kid I would not want my parents using me as a pawn to express their ideologies and would appreciate a sense of normalcy, belonging, and guidance.

I've never been a huge Marvel fan either.

But people treat girls babies and boys babies differently. . .they play rougher with boys and talk more to girls. There are studies showing the differences. Being treated in a certain way will shape the child's personality. I don't see anything wrong with not revealing the baby's gender yet, but I don't think they should keep it up too long.

I read a longer article on the family. . .the children do not go to public school, and most likely never will, so thankfully that isn't an issue.

I'm reading everyone's opinions on this and wondering how it can be so hard to understand. I mean everyone should know that gender socialization hinders both males and females in some ways. Girls for example are taught to play with dolls and play housewife games and that eventually contributes to them feeling like they shouldn't work in engineering for example..
So, I get it..i am just not sure how it would work out for them ....

Not everyone agrees on the idea that gender socialization is negative, and argue that gender differences clearly exist, and so being ignorant of that fact is a disservice to society and ill prepares a child for these real differences in adulthood.

As just one example, studies have found that all-else-equal, women on average showed superior fine motor skills to men, but men demonstrated superior aiming skills. Although the brain is not yet perfectly understood, we do have the tools to accurately measure physical differences in chemistry and sizes in different parts of the brain such as the larger corpus callosum and a lanterior comissure in the female brain. So the idea that there are no unique processing, chemical, and overall physical differences between the sexes has been proven patently false.

It is generally propagated as part of a natural backlash to an OVERemphasis over gender differences in a traditionally patriarchal society, which often placed unnecessary and impractical limitations on females. The premise was sound though, just carried to an extreme over time, but the concept was quite simple as it was plain to see in countless cultures that grew independently around the world in various environments that the men were better organized to waging war and hunting and women more successful at domestic operations and child rearing for example. You could have roles completely done away with or reversed with the women waging war and hunting for example, but like the WNBA, I think you would find the result despite best efforts is inferior and that society would be weakened accordingly. Physical differences are downplayed in our computerized and mechanized society, but IMO loose fitting roles still make a society stronger, not weaker and there is nothing to be gained by overly feminizing men and visa versa as seems to be the growing trend of late.

Generally speaking though, isn't that just encouraging natural talents and strengths generally seen in adulthood? Women are usually better able to talk things through and communicate, and the average boy will grow up bigger with higher muscle density and be able to take a bit of a beating and be none worse for wear.

I love both dogs and cats, but while I would tug and wrestle with Denali as a pup knowing he'd grow up into the big Boxer he is today, I didn't approach Wesley and Buttercup in the exact same way not as a double-standard or out of any kind of negative association but because they are unique and should be treated as the cool cats they are IMO.

I think as long as they can afford the therapy in later years for their children, it's no big deal.

As a teacher I've had boys with long hair and girls with short- I myself am still stuck with the World's Worst Haircut and can look androgynous at best if I don't put on the make-up and style my hair. I wouldn't worry too much about such a thing unless the boy came in with his hair in two braids wearing a dress- then I might ask why he chose to wear that outfit.

Also, I played with G.I. Joes, Ninja Turtles, and Micro Machines.

I think that gender identity comes from within, not from external sources- but this situation may change that opinion based on how the child grows and develops. It will be interesting at the least to keep an eye on!

I see nothing wrong with your example with the primitive societies, but there are still serious areas today where women are underrepresented, like in the fields of engineering like I mentioned which is a field in which there is no physical strength required whatsoever. Not to mention lawyers and politicians, where women too are underrepresented. So for women clearly being socialized as a woman is a hinderance, because statistically it means you have a lower chance of making it into these professions. Of course I'm not mentioning all the reasons why more women are not in these professions, but gender socialization is definitely a part of it. This is not the same as hunting mamoths or whatever where men clearly would have an advantage, these are areas where men and women equally can do well in. I am not saying the way to fix this is to do what this couple is doing.

As far as gender differences, I agree that they definitely exist. But I fail to see how what this couple is doing is denying gender differences. There are inherent differences, which are undeniably there, but then there are differences that we are brought up to make for ourselves, like men wear cologne while women perfume ...Removing the latter doesn't have to have anything to do with the inherent differences between the genders. If we are so different inherently, then hiding the baby's sex should result in him or her choosing the deep and spicy to the floral fragrance all on his own if it's a boy for example...Whether this is true we just can't know...

Gender socialization is definitely something we need to reconsider as a society IMO and not the way this couple is approaching it. Socialization in general is not something you get from your parents, it's something you get from living in society (duh lol but these parents don't seem to get it) so what this couple is doing is not very smart to put it mildly. I think what they are doing is experimenting with their child, because there are no theories out there that back up what they are doing..Anyway that's just my two cents on this specific case..