Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

I hate getting into this semantic argument but since you've all brought it up and others are reading: There are essentially two uses of normal. The first is simply a statistical one. Things that are extremely unlikely are not normal, they are different from what is usually observed. This is the definition I gave when asked. I maintain that transgenderism is not the normal gender identity - I can't even believe that this could be contested or cause any upset in any way. It's like someone who is 6'8 getting upset at being told that being that height isn't normal - and it isn't. There's not a single thing wrong with it, but it's not normal. We all understand that and accept that.

The other use of normal is a social one, and is a judgment of a person as a whole rather than some specific observable thing. This usage tends to cast the normal as the opposite of the deviant and the unacceptable. When aimed at a person, it IS a moral judgement. But I was not referring to trans people themselves, just the actual occurrence of transgenderism. As my argument was based on the percentage chance that a child will be born transgender, this use makes sense, and was obvious.

To put it plainly: transgender people are not abnormal, not deviant. But transgenderism itself is not the normal gender identity - it is exceptionally rare. It is not offensive to point that out. I get that this is a topic that sets off a ton of emotions in people but I don't think this was hugely difficult to understand.

In this case, it makes sense to raise the baby as if it would be normally gendered. That is my point.

Your refusal to use the word cisgender reveals that you do not care for the feelings of transgender people. Your insistence on not changing what you call it (to something that takes less time to type no less) shows massive disrespect to an entire community.

You would rather go to great lengths to excuse your use of language that you know is hurtful to many than substitute one widely accepted word in place of two words.

You think that other people should stop being offended instead of you having to make a low effort change to how you talk. Think about what that says about you for a minute.

 

[EdibleKnife]

There is no way someone who refuses to gender their child will raise them well. This kid is fucked.

What? More than any other child? How? Because they don't want the child's gender on a birth certificate? It was never said they refuse to gender their child but that the child would come into their own realization.

 

[Keri]

Yeah, I knew for a fact that I was trans by the time I was like 8.

That's 2nd grade. If this parent's goal is to leave their child's gender ambiguous until the child chooses one for itself, and if your experience is normal when it comes to timing, I can't see the parent succeeding. By that time other children will definitely have assigned a gender to this child, regardless of the parent's attempt to make it ambiguous. So, it seems like the parent is just multiplying a 0.6% chance the child will be incorrectly gendered into a 50% chance.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

who chooses to spell their name without capital letters?

what

If this wasn't the BBC I would think it's a troll.

 

[ascii42]

Doesn't this just make it really hard for friends and family. How will they know whether to buy blue gifts or pink gifts?

Wouldn't this make it easier? They can buy blue, pink, or any other color gifts.

 

[Vital Tundra]

Im all for allowing a child to discover who they are, but having the sex written down on their most important documents is kiiinda important. Never mind the first time they go to pre-school they will learn that they are biologically a boy or girl anyway, if some external source hasn't already done so.

The lawyers name thing is the real story here. Like what the fuck? Lmao!

 

[MazeHaze]

Ok, but in this case why can't we just not have a "gender" category at all and just have the biological sex of the child written down with no expectation of how the child would be raised? Nobody's going to see their health card outside of their parents and health professionals, so I don't see how such a category would affect the child's upbringing?

Because all of the people who are pushing for anti-trans legislation like bathroom laws and such would use the sex on someone's birth certificate to enforce their bullshit. This literally takes away the option from the oppressors. If the kid is cis, cool, but if they are not, the U on their birth certificate will help them out for sure.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Ok medically, will this ever be a problem for the baby? In the hospital records will they still refer to the baby by its sex and that info is available for the doctors? Because that's my biggest problem with it.

 

[mnz]

Kindergarten can be brutal if you got glasses or a crooked nose. Kids don't look at a birth certificate before bullying.

The article says they will be using the they/them pronoun, so I assume this will be pretty damn obvious without looking at a piece of paper.

Kindergarten isn't brutal. My special needs daughter got through fine and is accepted as one of the class. School gets rough later.

By that time the child will know what they are and will identify as that and no other kid will care. People need to stop making up boogeymen.

I hope that's how it works out.

 

[KillLaCam]

I refuse to tell you my race. It could be (for this thought experiment) white, black or mixed.

How can you conclude my race?

Just because someone is born intersex doesn't mean they won't develop a clear male or female gender identity and still not want their biology to define how people react to their gender identity.

Race is an outdated system that doesnt take into account generic diversity. I'm the last person that would try to figure out someone's race lol.

If you told be your sex was Undefined Id just assume that you were using it as a synonym for intersex. If they weren't intersex then my guess would be wrong.
I wouldn't react to your gender any differently either way. Maybe that's why I won't be able to understand why it would be necessary if the kid was actually born ambiguous. Since there's no preset intersex gender role?(is there?)

Didn't know that people would react that differently to something like that. That sucks

 

[Daffy Duck]

I really don't know how I feel about this.

 

[pelicansurf]

Does the baby have a penis? That's all I want to know!

Also lower case names for life. My Facebook name is all lowercase so I identify with miss lawyer lady, barbara.

 

[RM8]

I mean, this is completely harmless (the kid will very soon gravitate towards the gender he/she identifies with). This is odd and pointless, but hardly anything to be outraged about.

 

[FutureLarking]

Title is bollocks - baby was born with a gender, parent just refuses it. Parent needs to get over anatomical distinctions and just roll with it. Being that kid growing up is probably going to be far more confusing and unfair for them than it otherwise would have been.

 

[Ketkat]

That's 2nd grade. If this parent's goal is to leave their child's gender ambiguous until the child chooses one for itself, and if your experience is normal when it comes to timing, I can't see the parent succeeding. By that time other children will definitely have assigned a gender to this child, regardless of the parent's attempt to make it ambiguous. So, it seems like the parent is just multiplying a 0.6% chance the child will be incorrectly gendered into a 50% chance.

Yeah, I'm not arguing against that. But the assumption that kids can't figure out gender and gender identity is flawed.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Because all of the people who are pushing for anti-trans legislation like bathroom laws and such would use the sex on someone's birth certificate to enforce their bullshit. This literally takes away the option from the oppressors. If the kid is cis, cool, but if they are not, the U on their birth certificate will help them out for sure.

If there are enough votes to pass those laws, I am going to doubt there aren't enough to stop changing things like this. It is moving the problem while creating unneeded complication for people who do need that data.

 

[LinkAndEpona]

Well there's a first for everything.

 

[Westbahnhof]

It's definitely used against non-binary and trans people, in cases like the whole anti-trans bathroom argument for example, those people want to force people to use the bathroom that lines up with what their birth certificate says.

True, but I'm afraid this won't stop them at all.
I get the concept now, I think, I just doubt it'll work/help. The certificate thing, I mean. Not criticizing the way of raising thr kid, of course.

 

[Daffy Duck]

I mean, this is completely harmless (the kid will very soon gravitate towards the gender he/she identifies with). This is odd and pointless, but hardly anything to be outraged about.

But will they?

Will there be a natual bias from the parent to guide them in some way?

I just cannot help but feel that whatever sex this child was born as they will turn out the opposite.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Title is bollocks - baby was born with a gender, parent just refuses it. Parent needs to get over anatomical distinctions and just roll with it. Being that kid growing up is probably going to be far more confusing and unfair for them than it otherwise would have been.

Firstly, every human is uniquely not born with a gender. This argument actively fails under scrutiny when you point out that multiple societies define how gender works differently.

Secondly, I think to some extent, you are projecting your confusion as an adult onto a child - that this is something unfamiliar to you, therefore it's inherently confusing.

 

[plagiarize]

That's 2nd grade. If this parent's goal is to leave their child's gender ambiguous until the child chooses one for itself, and if your experience is normal when it comes to timing, I can't see the parent succeeding. By that time other children will definitely have assigned a gender to this child, regardless of the parent's attempt to make it ambiguous. So, it seems like the parent is just multiplying a 0.6% chance the child will be incorrectly gendered into a 50% chance.

The parent doesn't want the kids sex a matter of public record until the kid has figured out their gender. That's all.

I dont see how this effects how likely the kid is to be incorrectly gendered. Why do you think the gender assignment other kids do is 50:50 chance of being wrong? Do you think the parents won't let the kid have preferences towards the sort of things people use to assign gender?

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Because all of the people who are pushing for anti-trans legislation like bathroom laws and such would use the sex on someone's birth certificate to enforce their bullshit. This literally takes away the option from the oppressors. If the kid is cis, cool, but if they are not, the U on their birth certificate will help them out for sure.

For starters, if any such legislation got passed the first thing to go will be the whole idea of a "U". They'll be judged by their birth gender regardless of what's on their health card.

Moreover, in this case wouldn't it be superior to just have no gender or sex identifier on their health card at all?

 

[Platy]

I hate getting into this semantic argument but since you've all brought it up and others are reading: There are essentially two uses of normal. The first is simply a statistical one. Things that are extremely unlikely are not normal, they are different from what is usually observed. This is the definition I gave when asked. I maintain that transgenderism is not the normal gender identity - I can't even believe that this could be contested or cause any upset in any way. It's like someone who is 6'8 getting upset at being told that being that height isn't normal - and it isn't. There's not a single thing wrong with it, but it's not normal. We all understand that and accept that.

The other use of normal is a social one, and is a judgment of a person as a whole rather than some specific observable thing. This usage tends to cast the normal as the opposite of the deviant and the unacceptable. When aimed at a person, it IS a moral judgement. But I was not referring to trans people themselves, just the actual occurrence of transgenderism. As my argument was based on the percentage chance that a child will be born transgender, this use makes sense, and was obvious.

To put it plainly: transgender people are not abnormal, not deviant. But transgenderism itself is not the normal gender identity - it is exceptionally rare. It is not offensive to point that out. I get that this is a topic that sets off a ton of emotions in people but I don't think this was hugely difficult to understand.

In this case, it makes sense to raise the baby as if it would be normally gendered. That is my point.

Yeah we should just ignore stuff that is rare.

http://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/neonatal-screening-test

Newborn screening helps to identify babies thought to be affected by one of the following conditions:

Phenylketonuria (PKU) - PKU is a rare condition which affects about one in 10,000 babies. A baby with this problem cannot properly use one of the building blocks of protein called phenylalanine, which accumulates in the blood and causes brain damage. This is a rare inherited condition that can cause severe learning difficulties. Early treatment with a special diet can prevent disability and allow babies to lead a normal life.

Congenital hypothyroidism (CHT) – Hypothyroidism affects about one in 3,500 babies. It is caused by the thyroid gland not developing properly. Early treatment with daily thyroid hormone leads to normal mental and physical development.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) - One in every 2,500 babies has cystic fibrosis. In cystic fibrosis, the mucus produced in the intestines and lungs is thicker than normal. This results in infections in the lungs. In the intestines, it may lead to difficulties with digesting food properly. The newborn screening test detects about 95 percent of babies with CF but also detects a few babies who are healthy carriers of CF. Babies with a positive test result will need a sweat test at about six weeks of age to determine whether the baby has CF or is only a healthy carrier. A healthy carrier is not affected with CF and their body functions normally.

Galactosaemia - An extremely rare disorder only affecting one in 40,000 babies. The disorder is caused by the accumulation of galactose (a type of sugar in milk) in the blood. Prompt treatment with special galactose-free milk will prevent serious illness. Without treatment, a baby may become very sick and die.

Other rare disorders of metabolism - The blood tested in the heel prick test can be tested for an array of other very rare metabolic disorders such as such as amino acid, organic acid and fatty acid oxidation defects. Collectively these disorders occur in one of every 4,000 babies and so are rare. These conditions are treatable with specialized care and diets. Early diagnosis and treatment are important for all these disorders. It’s also possible to detect up to 40 other extremely rare disorders, using the same blood sample.
Early diagnosis and treatment are important for all these disorders. It’s also possible to detect up to 40 other extremely rare disorders, using the same blood sample.

No worries to try to give these rare people any chance of a healthy and NORMAL life, right ? Since they are so RARE

 

[Royce McCutcheon]

Yeah we should just ignore stuff that is rare.

http://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/neonatal-screening-test


No worries to try to give these rare people any chance of a healthy and NORMAL life, right ? Since they are so RARE

What's disease got to do with gender identity.

 

[Siegcram]

The article says they will be using the they/them pronoun, so I assume this will be pretty damn obvious without looking at a piece of paper.

Sure, but pre-school kids aren't aware of the intricacies of sex-gender-dichotomy. So to say they are more likely to be bullied because of their pronoun is completely arbitrary.

Either they perceive it as "other" and act on that or are completely fine with it.

I hope it works out in the child's favour.

 

[A Link to the Past]

But will they?

Will there be a natual bias from the parent to guide them in some way?

I just cannot help but feel that whatever sex this child was born as they will turn out the opposite.

This argument could be made if they were assigning a gender that was different than the physical sex of the baby, but this is not an opposite situation to, say, buying a football or a Barbie doll for a child based on their gender and pushing them in that direction.

 

[MazeHaze]

For starters, if any such legislation got passed the first thing to go will be the whole idea of a "U". They'll be judged by their birth gender regardless of what's on their health card.

Moreover, in this case wouldn't it be superior to just have no gender or sex identifier on their health card at all?

Right, but the idea would be that if those laws passed, this particular child would not be able to be singled out by that bullshit, unless they also passed a law that made people with U change their birth certificates, but if there is no public record of that child's sex, then it won't be much of an issue anyway. I really don't see any negatives to this.

 

[rjinaz]

I think stating the sex as born is an important thing to do for medical reasons and what not , so I disagree with this in principle but eh, I'm not going to get upset about it.

After reading through much of the thread, I'm more surprised at the reaction to the lawyer and how she spells her name. Good God GAF. Who the fuck cares?

 

[cyberheater]

Poor kid

 

[ScatheZombie]

We really should just change most medical/legal uses of the word gender to sex to avoid this type of argument altogether. Because that's really the actual problem - for generations gender and sex were entirely interchangeable and the vast, vast majority of their legal or medical uses are intended to mean biological sex not gender identity.

The doctor doesn't care what you identify as, but there's a ton of medical reasons to know your biological sex.

 

[plagiarize]

For starters, if any such legislation got passed the first thing to go will be the whole idea of a "U". They'll be judged by their birth gender regardless of what's on their health card.

Moreover, in this case wouldn't it be superior to just have no gender or sex identifier on their health card at all?

Sure. But what are you going to do about the people who already have the U? If there isn't a record of the birth sex what do you do? Demand people come in for government approved genital inspections?

I think you'd have way more resistance to that than your bathroom bill.

 

[terrdactycalsrock]

I think this is a step in the right direction. Sex and and gender are two different things. Sex is the biological component while gender is more of a personality trait. Because it is so often talked about along with sex a false dichotomy appeared. We've also used this dichotomy for - what seems like forever - and now people just take it as fact.

I think of gender as being on a spectrum because from what I can tell most personality traits are. On the far left side you have the manly man traits and on the far right side you have the extreme feminine traits. Sure people can exist on the two edges of the spectrum. People can also be anywhere in the middle. People might even move up and down the spectrum do to life experiences and how they see themselves.

Its a really interesting problem because it is just a categorization that people have assumed to be true for so long that now most people take it as fact. These people get upset because they dont understand why it needs to change. Its something that they have always believed to be true, and to say otherwise is to attack their understanding of how people work. The people fighting agianist this wants to be recognized as something different, and they feel like they're being attacked because others wont accept this aspect of them. This leads to stupid fights that confuse the matter, and the people who wasnt apart of the conversation are now confused.

I say this is a good idea because it allows people to think of themselves is a more granular level. Its assuming a range of acceptable personality traits for the concept of gender. I think thats the victory here

 

[Nerazar]

Dude, the point is that the term "normally gendered" is fucking offensive. That's why the term cis exists. You don't get to decide that "normally gendered" isn't offensive, trans people are definitely being offended by it. You can choose to not believe it if you want, but when people are straight up telling you it's offensive and you sit here arguing with them, you're being an asshole.

Sorry, but science is not offending. Facts are not offending. And we use that word ("normal" or "normalize" or whatever) for that purpose and if anyone feels bad about it, it's on them. I know that you cannot listen to tone out of written text, but there is a difference between those two meanings behind that word. I sure hope that "normal" didn't become a taboo word in every context or else we would have to drastically change a lot in everyday life. And thinking that approach of being offended through, we will very soon reach a point in which discussions won't be possible anymore.

Btw: I'm not normal as well and I don't believe that anyone is on this planet. We're all individuals here and as such, we have to decide our life's paths and how to deal with things. And if anyone wants to use that term in that scientific and non-threatening way, it's his or her right to do so whereas being offended surely is a choice in that case. This argument obviously doesn't extend to offensive language, but I had the urge to step in, because "normal" shouldn't be on some kind of no-go list. You can use it in a bad way and then I'll agree with you, but that didn't happen here.

 

[BGBW]

Does the baby have a penis? That's all I want to know!

You have a thing for baby penises?

 

[Nabbis]

Yeah we should just ignore stuff that is rare.


No worries to try to give these rare people any chance of a healthy and NORMAL life, right ? Since they are so RARE

We can neither treat nor test for gender disorders for people without agency. Please don't use actual established medical issues as a smokescreen for your issues. Im also pretty sure you would not be very happy if they were classified as actual diseases and were treatable.

 

[plagiarize]

What's disease got to do with gender identity.

What's disease got to do with genetic variance?

 

[MazeHaze]

Sorry, but science is not offending. Facts are not offending. And we use that word ("normal" or "normalize" or whatever) for that purpose and if anyone feels bad about it, it's on them. I know that you cannot listen to tone out of written text, but there is a difference between those two meanings behind that word. I sure hope that "normal" didn't become a taboo word in every context or else we would have to drastically change a lot in everyday life. And thinking that approach of being offended through, we will very soon reach a point in which discussions won't be possible anymore.

Btw: I'm not normal as well and I don't believe that anyone is on this planet. We're all individuals here and as such, we have to decide our life's paths and how to deal with things. And if anyone wants to use that term in that scientific and non-threatening way, it's his or her right to do so whereas being offended surely is a choice in that case. This argument obviously doesn't extend to offensive language, but I had the urge to step in, because "normal" shouldn't be on some kind of no-go list. You can use it in a bad way and then I'll agree with you, but that didn't happen here.

Once again, YOU don't get to decide if "normal gendered' (ugh) is offensive to people. If they tell you it's offensive, it's fucking offensive. Seeing you triple down on your bullshit is infuriating.

It's offensive. This is why people use cis gender in the first place.

 

[Ascenion]

I mean the kid is gonna know pretty quickly if their gender identity and biological sex line up. I imagine also that the parents will properly socialize the child based on the biological sex until the point it becomes obvious that doesn't line up. It would be reckless to not raise the child and properly socialize based on biological sex at the moment. Chances are the child will not experience gender dysphoria. However there is still a chance that the child might, by doing this the parents are preventing the child from experiencing most of if not all of the societal hate possible from assigning them a social role they might not fit and society being aware of it.

How could you not support this? Aside from semantics, which is a different conversation, this child will more or less get to start life as what they truly are and average Joe/Jane would be one the wiser as official documentation would line up with the child's chosen gender once that is known. It's a win/win, but for the semantics people yes biological sex and gender are different things.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

I imagine the kid will grow up quite confused, I see a lot of bullying in their future unfortunately.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Sorry, but science is not offending. Facts are not offending. And we use that word ("normal" or "normalize" or whatever) for that purpose and if anyone feels bad about it, it's on them. I know that you cannot listen to tone out of written text, but there is a difference between those two meanings behind that word. I sure hope that "normal" didn't become a taboo word in every context or else we would have to drastically change a lot in everyday life. And thinking that approach of being offended through, we will very soon reach a point in which discussions won't be possible anymore.

Btw: I'm not normal as well and I don't believe that anyone is on this planet. We're all individuals here and as such, we have to decide our life's paths and how to deal with things. And if anyone wants to use that term in that scientific and non-threatening way, it's his or her right to do so whereas being offended surely is a choice in that case. This argument obviously doesn't extend to offensive language, but I had the urge to step in, because "normal" shouldn't be on some kind of no-go list. You can use it in a bad way and then I'll agree with you, but that didn't happen here.

But people who refuse to use the word cis, generally, do not apply the use of normal broadly. There's a similar argument to use with heterosexual, yet people do not complain that being the typical sexuality has a label beyond normal. In turn, is it not fair for people to point out that the double standard is a product of them only opposing something because it is not a concept their grew up with?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

There is no way someone who refuses to gender their child will raise them well. This kid is fucked.

[citation needed]

 

[plagiarize]

Sorry, but science is not offending. Facts are not offending. And we use that word ("normal" or "normalize" or whatever) for that purpose and if anyone feels bad about it, it's on them. I know that you cannot listen to tone out of written text, but there is a difference between those two meanings behind that word. I sure hope that "normal" didn't become a taboo word in every context or else we would have to drastically change a lot in everyday life. And thinking that approach of being offended through, we will very soon reach a point in which discussions won't be possible anymore.

Btw: I'm not normal as well and I don't believe that anyone is on this planet. We're all individuals here and as such, we have to decide our life's paths and how to deal with things. And if anyone wants to use that term in that scientific and non-threatening way, it's his or her right to do so whereas being offended surely is a choice in that case. This argument obviously doesn't extend to offensive language, but I had the urge to step in, because "normal" shouldn't be on some kind of no-go list. You can use it in a bad way and then I'll agree with you, but that didn't happen here.

People can much more easily type cisgender than people can stop being offended when they see terms like normally gendered.

Their refusal to do this simple thing shows what kind of person they are. One who knowingly upsets someone rather than type less characters.

Stop pretending there isn't an accepted and factually accurate inoffensive way of saying what they are trying to say.

Because I absolutely can expect people to use different words for things where as I cannot expect people not to be offended by certain words or phrases.

 

[KillLaCam]

[citation needed]

Gotta check back in 10years to see how this kid will be lol

 

[keltickennedy]

Poor kid.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Right, but the idea would be that if those laws passed, this particular child would not be able to be singled out by that bullshit, unless they also passed a law that made people with U change their birth certificates, but if there is no public record of that child's sex, then it won't be much of an issue anyway. I really don't see any negatives to this.

I'd argue that any anti-trans legislation would probably come after having a gender-neutral public documentation option revoked. We can argue about the specifics here but I think there's a natural progression between those two events. Also while I'm not a medical professional I doubt it would be that hard to determine someone's biological gender even if there was no prior public record of it.

Regardless, I do agree it probably isn't that big of a deal either way. I think people are just more concerned about whether or not the child will be pushed into a non-binary or otherwise role by the parent, which might be an unnecessary concern.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

capital letters are so oppressive

I legit lol'd.

Thank you for that afternoon chuckle.

 

[gutter_trash]

What's disease got to do with gender identity.

prostate cancer,
breast cancer,
ovarian cancer,
menopause,
osteoporosis,
some STI have different symptoms for each gender

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Gotta check back in 10years to see how this kid will be lol

Even then, suppose the kid is "fucked up" that still wouldn't be evidence that the no-gender-thing is the cause, it could be other factors.

For a long time you had people claiming homosexual parents couldn't raise a child and the child would be "fucked up" without role models from both a mom and a dad and so on, and it turned out to be complete horseshit. So forgive my skepticism that this child is in any particular "danger"...

 

[kitchenmotors]

Well, it's pretty damn unusual for one thing. You might get labeled early on as the "they/them" child to your family, neighbours etc and I hope they don't keep it going for longer than is needed, because Kindergarten could be brutal.

This is how I feel. This isn’t really fixing any issue the parent had, just creating a new one for their child. As someone who works with grade school children, I feel like the child is going to have a rough time through school because of this. Also, I’ve been a firm believer in your child should find their own indentity. I feel like this is just putting then at a disadvantage right out of the gate. I think this is the wrong way to go about it, but what do I know.

 

[MazeHaze]

I'd argue that any anti-trans legislation would probably come after having a gender-neutral public documentation option revoked. We can argue about the specifics here but I think there's a natural progression between those two events. Also while I'm not a medical professional I doubt it would be that hard to determine someone's biological gender even if there was no prior public record of it.

Regardless, I do agree it probably isn't that big of a deal either way. I think people are just more concerned about whether or not the child will be pushed into a non-binary or otherwise role by the parent, which might be an unnecessary concern.

I mean yeah, but in this instance, the child's sex is already not a matter of public record. As another poster pointed out, unless they force people to have government run genital inspections, this child would be unaffected by any sort of hateful legislation like that.