Canadians defend 'genderless' child

VisionsOfFire
VisionsOfFire Members Posts: 223
edited June 2011 in The Social Lounge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835
Toronto couple defend move to keep baby's sex secret
David Stocker and Storm Mr Stocker and Ms Witterick say the decision to keep Storm's sex a secret was "a tribute to freedom"

A Toronto couple are defending their decision to keep their infant's sex a secret in order to allow the child to develop his or her own gender identity.

Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been widely criticised for imposing their ideology on four-month-old Storm.

The family were the subject of a recent profile in the Toronto Star newspaper.

In an e-mail, Ms Witterick wrote that the idea that "the whole world must know what is between the baby's legs is unhealthy, unsafe, and voyeuristic".

Ms Witterick, 38, and Mr Stocker, 39, have also been criticised for the manner in which they are raising their two sons Jazz, five, and Kio, two.

The boys are encouraged to choose their own clothing and hairstyles - even if that means wearing girls' clothes - and to challenge gender norms. Jazz wears his hair in long braids, and the boys are "almost exclusively assumed to be girls," Mr Stocker told the Toronto Star.

The child's grandparents do not know Storm's sex, the Toronto Star reported, and have grown weary of explaining the situation, but are supportive.

In an e-mail to the Associated Press news agency, Ms Witterick, a stay-at-home mother, said a four-month-old infant was still learning to recognise him or herself, and said it was inappropriate to impose a gender identity on the child.

SMH. These hippys need to get a grip.

Comments

  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Who gives a ? if they don't want to tell the world, who's business is it? Everyone always has to know everything, who what when where why how etc. ? is ridiculous. If the parents feel like they just want to allow them to do whatever, then so be it, they're the parents not America or Canada.
  • @My_nameaintearl
    @My_nameaintearl Banned Users Posts: 2,609 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    Make this thread in GnS and watch people lose their ? .
  • BiblicalAtheist
    BiblicalAtheist Members Posts: 15,668 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2011
    This isn't right, they should conform.
  • edeeesq
    edeeesq Members Posts: 511
    edited May 2011
    In an e-mail, Ms Witterick wrote that the idea that "the whole world must know what is between the baby's legs is unhealthy, unsafe, and voyeuristic".

    Is there really a response that can counter this point?
  • @My_nameaintearl
    @My_nameaintearl Banned Users Posts: 2,609 ✭✭
    edited May 2011
    edeeesq wrote: »
    Is there really a response that can counter this point?

    I would argue that the world isn't interested in knowing the baby's sex for any reason other than it's one of the basic bits of knowledge we collect about every person we meet, instinctively and without prejudice, necessarily.
  • edeeesq
    edeeesq Members Posts: 511
    edited May 2011
    I would argue that the world isn't interested in knowing the baby's sex for any reason other than it's one of the basic bits of knowledge we collect about every person we meet, instinctively and without prejudice, necessarily.

    True, but how does knowing one's gender relate to how we treat/interact/relate to another person?

    I think that's the basis of the parent's argument. Personally, I could give a damn either way, but the mom made a pretty good point with that statement.
  • edeeesq
    edeeesq Members Posts: 511
    edited May 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    People treat others according to gender.
    men get their jaws broken for ? women get away with all the time.

    And I know dudes with more ? tendencies than females...

    Either way is wrong....just another way of categorizing people
  • sanderbrown
    sanderbrown Members Posts: 1
    edited May 2011
    Nice information, valuable and excellent design, as share good stuff with good ideas and concepts, lots of great information and inspiration, both of which I need, thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.
  • edeeesq
    edeeesq Members Posts: 511
    edited June 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    People treat others according to gender.
    men get their jaws broken for ? women get away with all the time.

    Your Statement to which I replied....
    edeeesq wrote: »
    And I know dudes with more ? tendencies than females...

    Either way is wrong....just another way of categorizing people
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    Your first statement is irrelevant to anything in this thread.

    Your second statement states that categorizing people is apparently wrong. Interesting. Care to give a reason why?

    If my point was irrelevant and it was in reference to the statement you made...does that make your statement irrelevant as well?

    And categorizing people has lead to more wars and tragedies on this globe than anything else I can think of. By categorizing people, we limit people to OUR definition of what a person should or shouldn't do. Sounds a lot like religion if you ask me.

    There's my reason.
  • Sovo_Nah
    Sovo_Nah Members Posts: 2,216 ✭✭
    edited June 2011
    its a girl. Storm is a girls name. idiots. and 2, its all for publicity. nobody cares. lol.
  • nujerz84
    nujerz84 Members Posts: 15,418 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    Unless the baby was born with both sex organs this is ? ...
  • edeeesq
    edeeesq Members Posts: 511
    edited June 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    My statement was in regards to how we treat people in our society in terms on gender, i.e. chivalry, and the "Don't hit women," unwritten law. Your statement was just about men with female tendencies, and was pretty derogatory.

    My statement was nothing more or less than a counter to your statement. I'm still not sure how genders are treated differently based on these unwritten laws. Its not as if everyone in a gender follows these unwritten laws for everyone they know. Because a man holds the door for me, doesn't mean he wouldn't have done the same thing for the gentleman walking behind me. That's not a gender thing, that's a matter of personal preference.

    A man can be holding down his household, or he can have his woman paying all the bills. Neither one is right or wrong, goes back to my statement about gender categories. if we didn't have preconceived notions about who should be doing what, we wouldn't give a damn about who was paying the bills - as long as they were getting paid.

    You can categorize people without it leading to violence. These wars and tragedies you speak of come from immense hate rather than categorization. You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove that it is indeed these labels themselves fueling these violent acts.

    How can you hate a group without categorizing them first?
    ? hated Jews
    Homophobes hates "? "
    Whites hated blacks.
    Rich hate the poor
    Muslims hate Christians....

    If these aren't categories and labels I'm not sure what you're looking for.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    WTF is wrong with these people????

    People, like it or not, treat you who you are due to your gender. Boys and girls ARE different. Men and women ARE different. Just tell your friends the gender of the baby and get it over with, what's the big deal?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    edeeesq wrote: »
    My statement was nothing more or less than a counter to your statement. I'm still not sure how genders are treated differently based on these unwritten laws. Its not as if everyone in a gender follows these unwritten laws for everyone they know. Because a man holds the door for me, doesn't mean he wouldn't have done the same thing for the gentleman walking behind me. That's not a gender thing, that's a matter of personal preference.

    A man can be holding down his household, or he can have his woman paying all the bills. Neither one is right or wrong, goes back to my statement about gender categories. if we didn't have preconceived notions about who should be doing what, we wouldn't give a damn about who was paying the bills - as long as they were getting paid.




    How can you hate a group without categorizing them first?
    ? hated Jews
    Homophobes hates "? "
    Whites hated blacks.
    Rich hate the poor
    Muslims hate Christians....

    If these aren't categories and labels I'm not sure what you're looking for.

    Not everyone hates a group while categorizing them. I can't talk about sports with women as often as I can with men. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just is. Women for the MOST part are more sensitive to things in comparison to men. Not a bad thing, but it is a fact. Many men do have ? tendencies, obviously, but most women have feminine tendencies in comparison to men.

    A grown man isn't going to play basketball against a woman with the same aggressiveness he would with a man. I would punch a chick in the face if she punches me in the face, but I wouldn't punch her as hard as I would a guy. Men and women are different, and that's perfectly okay. This couple obviously has a problem with that.
  • edeeesq
    edeeesq Members Posts: 511
    edited June 2011
    Not everyone hates a group while categorizing them. I can't talk about sports with women as often as I can with men. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just is. Women for the MOST part are more sensitive to things in comparison to men. Not a bad thing, but it is a fact. Many men do have ? tendencies, obviously, but most women have feminine tendencies in comparison to men.

    A grown man isn't going to play basketball against a woman with the same aggressiveness he would with a man. I would punch a chick in the face if she punches me in the face, but I wouldn't punch her as hard as I would a guy. Men and women are different, and that's perfectly okay. This couple obviously has a problem with that.

    I'm not arguing that people don't do it. I know people do it. My stance is that if this family chooses to not have their child partake in HOW we treat genders, it isn't harming their child either way.
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    You haven't showed how labels ALWAYS lead to hate and negative acts. Just because there are many wars and tragedies associated with labels, does not mean that you can not have labels without having these things.

    How can you love a group without first categorizing?
    how can u even have a group without categorizing?

    There is nothing wrong with grouping people. The issue is hating groups of people.

    Humans are animals, and in the animal kingdom there are unwritten laws that all animals follow.

    It is rare for male lions to hunt - females do majority of the hunting.
    Male Starfish raise the kids.
    It is the males job to attract the female in basically EVERY species of animal.

    If as a human we cant even do this without attracting some confused lost genderless human then that is ? up

    I'm pretty sure I didn't make that claim.

    If these parents want to raise their children in a world where their gender doesn't limit their life's experience - then I don't think anyone advocate that they should.
  • VisionsOfFire
    VisionsOfFire Members Posts: 223
    edited June 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    I disagree with what they're doing and hope that it blows up in their face and they get labelled as "those ? parents," like the guy that fell and died attempting to show his daughter how to ride a scooter.
    LOL^

    But nah my 'problem' with this is that it's going to ? 'Storms' life up, this isn't about trying to protect the childs rights, it's just ? attention ? adults. Will the child even know its own gender? It's going to end up like that princess fairy boy.

    Mark my words this kid will be going columbine in 18 years.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    LOL^

    But nah my 'problem' with this is that it's going to ? 'Storms' life up, this isn't about trying to protect the childs rights, it's just ? attention ? adults. Will the child even know its own gender? It's going to end up like that princess fairy boy.

    Mark my words this kid will be going columbine in 18 years.

    Even further, the kid is gonna think MOST people think like her parents. That's not realistic in this world. That kid is gonna go Columbine because iit won't understand why people keep treating her like a girl and not like some robotic genderless wonder.

    It might not really go Columbine, but she's gonna have mental issues for sure if her parents keep this ? up.