The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
Ridgemont said:
I've generally agreed with a feminist friend, who is a scientist and has long argued that the amount of preprogramming that occurs on children is having a debilitating effect on STEM subjects, and it makes no sense to be closing kids off from experiences by limiting access to toys etc. Her general objection has largely been that the acceptance of the herding of girls away from object orientated learning, and even rough and tumble, towards standard girlie pre teen nonsense (princesses, make up, ponies, you name it) is actually deeply bad for girls. I agree.
Interesting video here that contradicts that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxY_5-N81QThe evidence suggests that the fairer you make opportunities in society, the greater the differences between the sexes in the outcomes. Making society fairer, gives individuals the opportunity to do exactly what they want, which reinforces that there are biological differences at play. Equality in opportunity is different to equality of outcome.
(I'm taking Peterson at his word here. I haven't hunted out the studies he makes reference to and formed my own opinion.)
alock said:
Ridgemont said:
I've generally agreed with a feminist friend, who is a scientist and has long argued that the amount of preprogramming that occurs on children is having a debilitating effect on STEM subjects, and it makes no sense to be closing kids off from experiences by limiting access to toys etc. Her general objection has largely been that the acceptance of the herding of girls away from object orientated learning, and even rough and tumble, towards standard girlie pre teen nonsense (princesses, make up, ponies, you name it) is actually deeply bad for girls. I agree.
Interesting video here that contradicts that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxY_5-N81QThe evidence suggests that the fairer you make opportunities in society, the greater the differences between the sexes in the outcomes. Making society fairer, gives individuals the opportunity to do exactly what they want, which reinforces that there are biological differences at play. Equality in opportunity is different to equality of outcome.
(I'm taking Peterson at his word here. I haven't hunted out the studies he makes reference to and formed my own opinion.)
Quite an interesting, and at times disturbing, series in eight parts (sorry - with subtitles for much of it).
BJG1 said:
Murph7355 said:
However I'm reasonably sure a “boys 5-6“ is not the same size as a "girls 5-6". Inevitably there will be outliers intra-gender, but generally it helps finding the right size that bit more quickly (even if it is just a plain white t-shirt).
They are the same size. Girls and boys are the same height on average until 13.feef said:
BJG1 said:
Murph7355 said:
However I'm reasonably sure a “boys 5-6“ is not the same size as a "girls 5-6". Inevitably there will be outliers intra-gender, but generally it helps finding the right size that bit more quickly (even if it is just a plain white t-shirt).
They are the same size. Girls and boys are the same height on average until 13.I was 6'1" at 13, a good friend (also on the basketball team) was 4'11".
I was outside children's sizing by age 9 or 10, and my son similarly. (The kid's a monster now.)
My friend who was 4'11" sprouted after high school to 6'3" and played varsity ball at university. I am still 6'1".
Goaty Bill 2 said:
That's for sure.
I was 6'1" at 13, a good friend (also on the basketball team) was 4'11".
I was outside children's sizing by age 9 or 10, and my son similarly. (The kid's a monster now.)
My friend who was 4'11" sprouted after high school to 6'3" and played varsity ball at university. I am still 6'1".
Yeah. I was 6'4 at 14. I remember because A&E heard a 14 year old was coming in for emergency surgery and then I had to wait while they got rid of the kids bed and went looking for an adult one.I was 6'1" at 13, a good friend (also on the basketball team) was 4'11".
I was outside children's sizing by age 9 or 10, and my son similarly. (The kid's a monster now.)
My friend who was 4'11" sprouted after high school to 6'3" and played varsity ball at university. I am still 6'1".
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:ZedLeg said:
Is there some weird assumption happening here where people think the actual clothes are changing?
It's simply labelling. No one is trying to force kids into some sort of gender neutral smock.
If it lets kids pick clothes they want to wear with out having to worry about whether "that's a boys top" or whatever then what's the big deal?
Exactly.It's simply labelling. No one is trying to force kids into some sort of gender neutral smock.
If it lets kids pick clothes they want to wear with out having to worry about whether "that's a boys top" or whatever then what's the big deal?
Honestly I'm coming to the conclusion people either see plots everywhere or just need to be angry at something.
Why is the fact that it is for a girl perceived as a negative thing? Why is the idea of something "for girls" so abhorrent / undesirable / something that opens you to ridicule? What is the reason for the aversion to girls' things?
Once you understand that, then the clothing issue rather becomes the non-issue that it is.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 19th September 10:45
ClockworkCupcake said:
A boy picks out a t-shirt from a rail that he likes and is told "Oh you can't have that, that's a girl's t-shirt"
Why is that such a negative thing? Why is the idea of something "for girls" so abhorrent / undesirable / something that opens you to ridicule?
Once you understand that, then the clothing issue rather becomes the non-issue that it is.
Why is it desirable to be telling children from an early age that their gender limits their choices?Why is that such a negative thing? Why is the idea of something "for girls" so abhorrent / undesirable / something that opens you to ridicule?
Once you understand that, then the clothing issue rather becomes the non-issue that it is.
I am not convinced that shops making their clothing gender neutral will make any real difference, because the cultural expectations are already burnt in, it will just make it harder for the majority of people who want gender typical garments to find them, but I don't think that telling a boy he can't have the t-shirt he wants because he is a boy is in any way a positive thing.
otolith said:
Why is it desirable to be telling children from an early age that their gender limits their choices?
I am not convinced that shops making their clothing gender neutral will make any real difference, because the cultural expectations are already burnt in, it will just make it harder for the majority of people who want gender typical garments to find them, but I don't think that telling a boy he can't have the t-shirt he wants because he is a boy is in any way a positive thing.
Indeed. I am not convinced that shops making their clothing gender neutral will make any real difference, because the cultural expectations are already burnt in, it will just make it harder for the majority of people who want gender typical garments to find them, but I don't think that telling a boy he can't have the t-shirt he wants because he is a boy is in any way a positive thing.
otolith said:
...but I don't think that telling a boy he can't have the t-shirt he wants because he is a boy is in any way a positive thing.
That's a whole other topic. As a parent, should you be protecting your children from potentially being mocked and bullied, or should you allow them to put themselves in that position as part of learning how to handle it?The reality of school life in the UK in 2017 is that if you send an 11 year old boy to secondary school in girls clothes they will probably be bullied for it. It's admirable to want to change this, but most parents don't want their children to be part of your experiment.
And this is the key, it's an experiment. We have no statistically significant data to suggest raising children in a non-binary gender way is a good or bad idea. It might turn out to be the best thing ever to happen to the human race. Equally it might turn out to be a catastrophically bad idea.
alock said:
otolith said:
...but I don't think that telling a boy he can't have the t-shirt he wants because he is a boy is in any way a positive thing.
That's a whole other topic. As a parent, should you be protecting your children from potentially being mocked and bullied, or should you allow them to put themselves in that position as part of learning how to handle it?The reality of school life in the UK in 2017 is that if you send an 11 year old boy to secondary school in girls clothes they will probably be bullied for it. It's admirable to want to change this, but most parents don't want their children to be part of your experiment.
alock said:
And this is the key, it's an experiment. We have no statistically significant data to suggest raising children in a non-binary gender way is a good or bad idea. It might turn out to be the best thing ever to happen to the human race. Equally it might turn out to be a catastrophically bad idea.
Steady on, I don't think not telling a kid they can't wear a given garment because it's only for the other gender amounts to raising them gender neutral. otolith said:
That's a self-perpetuating argument.
Indeed. In fact, pretty much all of human conflict can be reduced to "you are not us" or "you are different". Generations ago, a kid whose parents were not married might have been picked on for it. These days, it would be a case of "so what?".
I'd like to think that in a few generations time, gender identity will be considered in the same way. We're certainly already heading that way; kids today just don't give a s
t about things that were a big deal to our parents' generation - like ethnicity and class, for example. WinstonWolf said:
Do we really want to be raising a bunch of sissys?
That statement speaks volumes about you and your attitudes. This was exactly my point earlier - what is it about femininity that accusing a male of having those attributes is considered such an insult? Why is it considered so undesirable? Why is calling a boy a 'sissy' so much more pejorative than calling a girl a 'tomboy'?
In short, what is so wrong with being a sissy?
otolith said:
alock said:
And this is the key, it's an experiment. We have no statistically significant data to suggest raising children in a non-binary gender way is a good or bad idea. It might turn out to be the best thing ever to happen to the human race. Equally it might turn out to be a catastrophically bad idea.
Steady on, I don't think not telling a kid they can't wear a given garment because it's only for the other gender amounts to raising them gender neutral. ClockworkCupcake said:
WinstonWolf said:
Do we really want to be raising a bunch of sissys?
That statement speaks volumes about you and your attitudes. This was exactly my point earlier - what is it about femininity that accusing a male of having those attributes is considered such an insult? Why is it considered so undesirable? Why is calling a boy a 'sissy' so much more pejorative than calling a girl a 'tomboy'?
In short, what is so wrong with being a sissy?
I'm just not in favour of confusing young impressionable kids.
Women bringing their boys up as girls, what chance have the poor sods got? They'll get crucified at school...
WinstonWolf said:
Women bringing their boys up as girls, what chance have the poor sods got? They'll get crucified at school...
I remember my grandparents' generation saying that mixed marriages were bad, because the half-caste (sic) children would get ostracised at school and be rejected by both ethnic groups. Times change, thankfully.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 19th September 19:38
ClockworkCupcake said:
Indeed. In fact, pretty much all of human conflict can be reduced to "you are not us" or "you are different".
Generations ago, a kid whose parents were not married might have been picked on for it. These days, it would be a case of "so what?".
I'd like to think that in a few generations time, gender identity will be considered in the same way. We're certainly already heading that way; kids today just don't give a st about things that were a big deal to our parents' generation - like ethnicity and class, for example.
Do you think the acceptance of the breakdown of the traditional family unit has been a good or a bad thing?Generations ago, a kid whose parents were not married might have been picked on for it. These days, it would be a case of "so what?".
I'd like to think that in a few generations time, gender identity will be considered in the same way. We're certainly already heading that way; kids today just don't give a s
t about things that were a big deal to our parents' generation - like ethnicity and class, for example. (No I'm not suggesting bullying kids whose parents are divorced would lower the incidence of divorce either
) Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff