• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Raising your child genderless

Krzysiu

TRIBE Member
I think the term genderless itself impedes what [I assume] the couple is trying to do with the child.

Genderless implies an asexuality that obviously is not the case (especially with the liberal masterbation policy). We've got a child who is allowed to excersie the choice to behave in any combination of both gender preconceptions.

These are social preconceptions that reflect our own biology though. Our genes might predispose us tendancies but we have these prejudices that are created and developed by social interaction that allow us to control some of these tendancies.

Maybe it can be argued that instinct is our genetic tendancies - reproduce, feed, etc. - while social prejudices (eh, this word is too wieghted, but so is taboos, arg) keep us from reverting to a more instinctual state of instant gratification.

its these social constucts that keep us from whiping it out on the bus and letting everyone know how male we really are just cause it feels good.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
on a related note, today i was wondering to myself why it is that children and drunk homeless people are often confused as to whether i'm a boy or a girl.

i'm not bothered by it, but i really don't think that i'm that androgenous (although i wouldn't mind if i was).

lately lesbians also seem to occasionally get confused by me, but i credit that to the growing number of young butch dykes who've gone tranny (also, they only seem to make that mistake when they're wasted)
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
In physics there is a problem (that looks simple at first glance) called the n-body problem, meaning that if there are more than 2 bodies with any mass, even if you know the initial masses, velocities, and positions of the bodies, a human (any human so far...) cannot determine their subsequent motions...

Why? Because it gets really fucking complex, that's why!

Seems pretty simple... you toss three spheres of known masses from a known position, known velocity... why the fuck can you not tell where they are going? Because they act on one another through gravitational effects, and the way the effect changes through time is much too complex for any known human (and computer therefore) to figure out.

What the hell does this have to do with this thread?

Propose that a gene is an object placed in space with a certain mass and certain velocity. Now add in 20,000 other genes, and calculate where each gene is after time X.

Add in that every single person has (at minimum) 20,000 genes, and there is feedback with the environment (meaning with any person and thing you contact), how the fuck do you figure you can separate [internal, personal] gene interaction with that of the outside world?

I suppose it is just binary, right? Black/white male/female you/other... etc...?

I suppose so, right, considering that figuring out what just 3 motherfucking things would do is fucking impossible, that YOU, my friend, can just... make... it... simple.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
i wonder if humans would be less inclined to think of everything in binary terms if we had three (or more) arms.

it seems really hard for us to grasp concepts that can't be reduced to black----(grey)----white
fuck, most people have trouble with the grey area for that matter, let alone completely independant factors.
 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Correct.

The biological differences are moot, i.e. grabbing random females and random males as children, you cannot tell the difference in behaviour between the two UNTIL socially prescribed differences come into play.

That is to say: bring up a group of persons with penises and with vaginas in an environment without gender speciation (i.e. without teaching them about the binary [0 or 1, male or female, you or other] difference) and the persons will grow up without the idea whatsoever (if you were on a secluded island with no other influences) of male/female difference... they will grow up with the truth of egality.

Too bad we're too stupid!

I partly disagree. Like I stated earlier, there is an obvious difference in the way boys and girls behave at a young age. Your objections be damned. Boys are by 'nature' (for the most part) more physical than girls. This does not mean that 'all' boys behave this way or that 'all' girls don't. Nor does this imply that they 'should' be a certain way. What this does mean is that as far as for the majority of society 'boys will be boys' and 'girls will be pretty' or whatever. The societal implications of this are of course huge. There is marketing, media, social and historical stereotypes, family pressure et al that comes into play here. Now, where this gets tricky is where you are trying to to raise a child genderless, but they are part of that majority, part of that social stereotype. Do you discourage this? Is it bad behaviour, only contributing to a pre-historic, conservative social agenda? I agree TMO, any type of binary thinking is usually amiss, wrong and/or stupid. What I don't agree with is the parents setting their own agenda on how this kid is going to turn out or what kind of gender/anti-gender he is going to be.

You will probably say that all parents do this and I'll have to concede that to a point. There are many cases where the child does not become the 1 or 0 that their parents expected.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Rajio

Well-Known TRIBEr
comic2-955.png
 

SUNKIST

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
VAGINA=feminine
PENIS=masculine

And from then on it is socially prescribed that those with vaginas will act feminine and those with penises will act masculine. If it weren't for society to prescribe masculine/feminine, how would we know how to raise these penis/vagina people "properly"?
precisely. then things as simple as the ultrasound get gendered. the boy is seening as having a carrer in boxing if his fists are clenched, while the girl is acting demure if ger back is turned in the ultrasound. SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.


also, genesius race is socially constructed and is also a historic artifact.
 

quantumize

TRIBE Member
Sunkists comic was brilliant

but to be totally honest, I lack of interest in this topic. The idea is too far out there, and not realistically possible. We can be hypothetical as long as we want, but the truth is nobody is going to raise a child completley gendreless, there are just to many worldly influences.

you can debate hypothetics until your blue in the face, but sometimes it's far better to take a breath of reality.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
VAGINA=feminine
PENIS=masculine

And from then on it is socially prescribed that those with vaginas will act feminine and those with penises will act masculine. If it weren't for society to prescribe masculine/feminine, how would we know how to raise these penis/vagina people "properly"?

Don't you think it's inevitable that men and women will act differently based on the phenotypical differentiation? Besides, there are far more differences between men and women than just the reproductive organs! I'm not sure what "feminine" is, or why it's a bad thing. Nor do I see a problem with men and women differentiating themselves at all!

This says nothing about "equality", which is a totally different conversation and which I assume cannot be your motivation for making the above argument...

SUNKIST said:
also, genesius race is socially constructed and is also a historic artifact.

But the cultural-historical notion of "race" is observable and well understood.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
Don't you think it is inevitable that "races" act differently based on phenotypic differences? I mean, don't you think there are more differences than just skin colour! I'm not sure what being "brown" or "black" or "asian" is, or why it's a bad thing. Nor do I see a problem with races differentiating and sticking with themselves.

That says nothing about "equality".

-------------------------------------------


ps: I prefer the term "egality".


-----------------------------------------

The cultural-historical, socially constructed, extremely magnified view of gender is just now beginning to be understood.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

emiwee

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
ps: I prefer the term "egality".


-----------------------------------------

The cultural-historical, socially constructed, extremely magnified view of gender is just now beginning to be understood.

i like the term "substantive equality", which recognizes difference and that "equal treatment" for all isn't the best thing because it doesn't recognize these differences or the consequences of such treatment. it really deals with treating individuals and groups as if they are of equal moral worth. "equity" is a better term too.

and i completely agree that the construction of gender is only just being understood. it's an interesting area of critical thought.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Don't you think it is inevitable that "races" act differently based on phenotypic differences? I mean, don't you think there are more differences than just skin colour! I'm not sure what being "brown" or "black" or "asian" is, or why it's a bad thing. Nor do I see a problem with races differentiating and sticking with themselves.

That says nothing about "equality".

I'm sorry, where did I say something about men and women "sticking with themselves"? And how does having physical differences (which can translate into behavioural differences) say anything necessarily negative about equality ... or "egality"?
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
~atp~ said:
I'm sorry, where did I say something about men and women "sticking with themselves"? And how does having physical differences (which can translate into behavioural differences) say anything necessarily negative about equality ... or "egality"?

When small differences between groups are magnified, the resultant separation into "us" vs "them" perpetuates and further exaggerates the differences until men and women effectively do "stick with themselves"... hence Girl Stuff Forum, the use of idiotic terms such as "opposite sex"...

So, in effect, minor negligible physical differences translate--through an incorrect supposition that there are, therefore, non-negligible behavioural differences--into inequality and inegality.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Yes, the key to your last statement was "through an incorrect supposition...". I never argued that such a supposition does not exist.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
~atp~ said:
And how does having physical differences (which can translate into behavioural differences)...

This seems to be a supposition that physical differences between the sexes translate into [non-negligible] behavioural differences.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

why not

TRIBE Member
there has been some research that suggests that transexuals and homos may have biological differences from the straights, which would suggest that atleast some of gender identity is genetically based.
most animals have distinct gender roles, and we are just animals.
i would gamble that some animals end up in gender roles not consistent with their sex though, so it's still wise to teach your children the difference between sex and gender, and to explain that gender roles are largely social constructs.

hormones do influence behaviour, but that behaviour is going to be organised around social constructs, constructs that are arbitrary and generally archaic.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
why not said:
there has been some research that suggests that transexuals and homos may have biological differences from the straights, which would suggest that atleast some of gender identity is genetically based.

Not necessarily, since behaviour can influence the biological differences.

An easy example is how lifting weights (behaviour) increases muscle mass (biological difference) and, in fact, increases testosterone levels (biological difference). So, if you went to study people with big muscles with the a priori assumption (molded into a hypothesis) that people with big muscles have high testosterone levels, you would conclude that people with big muscles have high testosterone levels, and that is why they have big muscles!

You have ignored the behavioural aspect (lifting weights) and its effect on biological differences (big muscles) and erroneously concluded that people with big muscles have them because of a biological difference (high testosterone) caused by behavioural aspects

why not said:
most animals have distinct gender roles, and we are just animals.
i would gamble that some animals end up in gender roles not consistent with their sex though, so it's still wise to teach your children the difference between sex and gender, and to explain that gender roles are largely social constructs.

Other animals have SEX ROLES, and NO other animal has gender roles.


why not said:
hormones do influence behaviour, but that behaviour is going to be organised around social constructs, constructs that are arbitrary and generally archaic.

Hormones influence behaviour to a negligible extent overall, and they influence cognition even less OVERALL.

Gender roles are almost 100% arbitrary, influenced by an virtually non-existent behavioural difference... how lovely!
 

why not

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Not necessarily, since behaviour can influence the biological differences.

nice, i originally had something to that effect in my post, but took it out so that it wasn't so complicated.
i'm in agreement that most of our identity is created by imprinting and experiences, but i don't think anyone knows enough yet about genetics to definitively say how much of a roll they play.

PosTMOd said:
Other animals have SEX ROLES, and NO other animal has gender roles.

then why are the sex/gender roles played by different animals so varied, and often so weird and seemingly arbitrary? why wouldn't animals learn gender roles in the same way that humans do?


PosTMOd said:
Hormones influence behaviour to a negligible extent overall, and they influence cognition even less OVERALL.

Gender roles are almost 100% arbitrary, influenced by an virtually non-existent behavioural difference... how lovely!

what about roid rage?
PMS?
post partum depression? (ok, that one might not be hormonal)

gender roles have been manufactured and modified over thousands of years, and while they may have very little connection left to any biological imperitive, it seems premature to completely discount biology.

personally, i'd rather find out that my gender and sexuality have a biological basis (even if they're not always that connected to my sex).
my parents were actually fairly good at keeping my upbringing fairly gender neutral. if they were successful, then my experience of gender and sexuality are in theory more 'natural' than someone who had gender and sexuality imprinted on them more heavily. looking at the differences between me and my brother, it's hard not to see a relationship between our obvious hormonal differences and our behaviour. on the other hand, you could still say that those physical differences influenced how we were treated, but i would counter that our identities had developed long before the physical differences were noticeable.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
PosTMOd said:
You have ignored the behavioural aspect (lifting weights) and its effect on biological differences (big muscles) and erroneously concluded that people with big muscles have them because of a biological difference (high testosterone) caused by behavioural aspects

Okay, I kind of lost the plot there.

I meant to say:

You have ignored the behavioural aspect (lifting weights) and its effect on biological differences (big muscles) and erroneously concluded that people with big muscles have them because of a biological difference (high testosterone).

The analogy to, for instance, homosexuality is:

You have ingnored the behavioural aspect ("acting" feminine) and its effect on biological differences (e.g. a barely statistically relevant brain difference) and erroneously concluded that homosexuals are homosexuals because of a biological difference (barely statistically relevant brain difference).

That is not to say, however, that homosexuality is not based on biological difference, for it quite obviously is. It merely means that measuring some sort of biological difference between homo and straight doesn't mean that THAT is the cause of the difference in sexual preference.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
That is not to say, however, that homosexuality is not based on biological difference, for it quite obviously is. It merely means that measuring some sort of biological difference between homo and straight doesn't mean that THAT is the cause of the difference in sexual preference.


point taken, but if we can agree that homoness is based on a biological difference, why can't we say the same about gender identity?

i know that many experts wouldn't agree with me, but i feel strongly that sexuality and gender are more tied than is acknowledged.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
why not said:
point taken, but if we can agree that homoness is based on a biological difference, why can't we say the same about gender identity?

Absolutely not!

Gender identity, or rather anything to do with gender, is based on MOSTLY arbitrary ideas, such as pink=feminine and blue=masculine.

If we are to use ideas of gender, can we PLEASE move past the binary classification? I mean, fucking hell, TWO categories that each of us has to belong to?

It's primitive, archaic, stupid, moronic, fucking just fucked up thinking!

why not said:
i feel strongly that sexuality and gender are more tied than is acknowledged.

I'm not sure what you are saying.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Absolutely not!

Gender identity, or rather anything to do with gender, is based on MOSTLY arbitrary ideas, such as pink=feminine and blue=masculine.

If we are to use ideas of gender, can we PLEASE move past the binary classification? I mean, fucking hell, TWO categories that each of us has to belong to?

It's primitive, archaic, stupid, moronic, fucking just fucked up thinking!



I'm not sure what you are saying.


i guess what i'm getting at is:
if biology determines whether someone is more likely to be attracted to men, women, both, or trannies, then that preference is then shaped by society to be expressed in certain ways
sexual identity = biological
sexual behaviour = socially determined

now if we treat gender in the same way, that biology determines whether someone feels more like a boy, girl, both, or waffles back and forth, but that society shapes how those feelings are expressed.
gender identity = biological
gender behaviour = socially determined


and i fully agree with getting out of the binaries, but the many variations can still be described as one of four variations on the two extremes:
one, the other, both at once, both but not at once.
*i'm probably wrong about that, but i can't think of any other possibilities.

regarding my last comment that you quoted, i'm talking about the idea that we're attracted to gender, not to sex, and that because of that we can't seperate sexual and gender identity.
 

debunct

TRIBE Promoter
Interesting coming into this discussion at this point.

My partner and I are expecting our first child in 11 weeks time. We have both talked at length about the perspective of raising a child in a "non-gender" environment. Even to the point of choosing an open name. We both feel that it is a great value to society.

There are, as many have stated, obvious physical, mental, and emotional differences between "male" and "female". However, are these just ideas? If we look beyond what we have been conditioned to see, what do we see? Living cells that are in a constant state of flow and change. It is hard to look at anything anymore and not put a label on it.

The reason why we are constantly striving for more information, things, etc..is because most of us are afraid of finding out who we really are. There is no question in our minds that this begins to develop at a very early age. As a baby, child, teen, we are constantly bombarded with other people's "ideas" about who we are and what we should do. This gives ideas that we have to be something, we compare, and the cycle goes on and on and on. Most adults never get out of this same pattern.

Good parenting is the same as good education. It is about allowing the student or child be able to think and make decisions for themselves. Raising a child in the environment of "genderless" seems like a sensible thing to do in this manner. Besides, is the other way really working? Does this world need more of what we are currently doing? Einstein once said "today's problems can never be solved from the same place they were created."

It is important to be open and honest about sexuality and be there for our child when questions come up about anything.

This is just our perspective, I am sure there are others as well.

This is interesting to talk about, keep up the good words.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
why not said:
if biology determines whether someone is more likely to be attracted to men, women, both, or trannies, then that preference is then shaped by society to be expressed in certain ways
sexual identity = biological
sexual behaviour = socially determined

Backwards.

Biology determines sexual preference, i.e. sexual behaviour.

Sexual IDENTITY is socially determined (i.e. "I am gay" or "I am X", where X is an assigned category based upon simplistic and binary classification).


why not said:
now if we treat gender in the same way, that biology determines whether someone feels more like a boy, girl, both, or waffles back and forth, but that society shapes how those feelings are expressed.
gender identity = biological
gender behaviour = socially determined

Again, backwards.

Biology does not determine whether someone feels like a boy or girl (more correctly masculine or feminine), since these are ARBITRARY SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED CATEGORIES based upon having a vagina or a penis.

Therefore gender identity AND behaviour are both socially determined based upon the biological fact of vagina/penis.


why not said:
and i fully agree with getting out of the binaries, but the many variations can still be described as one of four variations on the two extremes:
one, the other, both at once, both but not at once.
*i'm probably wrong about that, but i can't think of any other possibilities.

That you--an intelligent person--cannot think beyond the four categories provided by the binary classification of feminine/masculine merely shows how strong the bias is, and how long it has been in your mind (since before birth!), and it points to how hard it can be to change people's systemic biases.

I consider myself relatively intelligent, yet I cannot come up with anything beyond the binary, though I know there is something beyond that simplistic notion.



why not said:
regarding my last comment that you quoted, i'm talking about the idea that we're attracted to gender, not to sex, and that because of that we can't seperate sexual and gender identity.

Is sexual attraction that simple?

We are biased towards thinking in binary... "I am straight" or "I am gay"...

What about just being attracted sexually toward a person regardless of their sex? I mean, how many of us have watched in strange enjoyment at Systems (RIP) as some meatheads come on to and are attracted by what appear to be females, but we know better? What was so attractive to the meatheads, but all of a sudden wasn't when they found the captain's log tucked away on the poop deck?
 

why not

TRIBE Member
PosTMOd said:
Backwards.

Biology determines sexual preference, i.e. sexual behaviour.

Sexual IDENTITY is socially determined (i.e. "I am gay" or "I am X", where X is an assigned category based upon simplistic and binary classification).

i don't see what you're basing this on - fetishes are clearly the product of social experience, as are all specific sexual practices, whereas the attraction to one or more gender is what is thought of as biological.

regardless, it's just word games - you know what i'm talking about: the concept of being born with a vague desire, and the expression of that desire getting shaped by society.

with gender, we're still just playing word games - while the expression of gender is surely socially created, that doesn't mean that gender doesn't still refer to something originally biological.


to me, preference=identity, because there are too many cases were behaviour!=identity (ie. closet cases)

PosTMOd said:
What about just being attracted sexually toward a person regardless of their sex? I mean, how many of us have watched in strange enjoyment at Systems (RIP) as some meatheads come on to and are attracted by what appear to be females, but we know better? What was so attractive to the meatheads, but all of a sudden wasn't when they found the captain's log tucked away on the poop deck

see this is the perfect example - the meatheads are attracted by the over-exaggerated expression of gender, rather than sex, which is also why fags aren't generally attracted to trannies.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top