Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Context: A Canadian couple decided to keep the gender of their new born, Storm, a secret to their

friends and family barring the Storms two elder brothers. Kathy Witterick and David Stocker, the
parents, do not want a gender label to define their childrens lives, employing a similar stance
with their two sons (Kio and Jazz). Together the Stocker-Witterick family forms a gender-neutral
environment that stretches beyond just Storm to Kio and Jazz.
Thesis: Genderless child-rearing and gender neutral child-rearing although an understandable
point of view is just not practical from a social and psychological perspective
Main Points
Perhaps a genderless children can feel happy in the safety and comfort of home but what happens
when s(he) starts to interact with others who have not been raised in household of a similar
philosophy? Isolation and loneliness are obvious but worse is plausible, bullying targets are often
children who are different or unusual. Those who are different terms of gender and sexuality are
further targeted, in fact 9 out 10 LGBT children face harassment in school and two thirds feel
unsafe (GlSEN). Granted that being gender-less does not put a child in that category what are
middle school and high school bullies to make of a boy-girl student, they are not smart to know
the difference much less recognize it. So why place Storm, or even Kio and Jazz, in that position.
Heck why have any child go through their life like that.
Genderless children simply cannot be shielded enough to have a healthy social and therefore
mental life. Will prominent modern culture and media not negatively impact the fragmented
gender identity these children carry? We know that social interactions, both inside and outside
home, form gender along with other identities. So how can Kathy and David or any parents for
that matter shield their children from the sexism and gendered expectations that pervade every
segment of our society? The kids will simple be left as the odd ones out. Parents cannot expect to
shield their children because they have employed a stance that gives kids ultimate choice in their
lives. This given to young kids is simply irrational. Chuck Colson, a columnist, notes the very
same fact. Im sorry, but expecting a toddler to figure out whats best for him (or her) is
absolute madness. And its tragic. No wonder kids are confused! Theres no one to teach them
how to grow up and flourish in the world; how to measure their wants against what is actually
good for them; and how to choose to do the right thing over simply indulging their every desire.
Furthermore, in the very independence parents claim to be fostering in their children there is an
implicit management that alludes to their own anxieties. In dumping their gender concerns on
their children, and in making those concerns the guiding theme of their childhoods they are doing
no good for the children. Parents want children to be successful, and want them to be independent
free thinkers who are able to navigate, and rise above, the stream of everyday society. But they
just do not know how to get them there. By going to the extremeby trying to protect Storm
from narrow gender assignationsStocker and Witterick are attempting to free their kid of a host
of societal shackles. Rather, they have imposed a very defined and rigid choice upon little Storm
the pretence of being neither/nor.
These parents are so crazed with helping their children escape the gender stereotypes society
places on kids that they disregard the biological ones that scientific research has proved
undeniable. Biological studies reveal that distinction between sex and gender is slim if not
nonexistent thus biological sex determines gender. Moreover, gender is proven to be determined
by hormones and chromosomes. Quadango et al. (1977) found that female monkeys who were
deliberately exposed to testosterone during prenatal development later engaged in more rough
and tumble play than other females. Young (1966) changed the sexual behavior of both male
and female rats by manipulating the amount of male and female hormones that the rats received

during their early development. (Simplypsychology.com) So really scientifically speaking your


kids gender identity is forms from what is inside him and is most likely in accordance with his or
her biological sex. Thus when you partake in genderless parenting you are actually altering the
innate gender tendencies your child has.
Conclusion: It is perfectly all right to let children make their own decisions and if required guide
them through any confusion they have about their gender identity but forcing (it really is) them
into the neither/nor category just places them in a vulnerable position and sets them up for
dramatic discrimination. The parents have already witnessed one of their sons rushed out of a
shop and far more emotionally hurtful incidents await, it is but a simple reality. I come from a
society where a caste system alienates a certain group of people from others and trust me when I
say it is not a life anyone should live.

Counter-Arguments/ Further Discussion Points


Although the principle in an imaginary ideal world may be sound and many may argue that that
people should be allowed to live life the way they want, why should the children be made to
suffer? Society is just not ready for the ultra liberal philosophy parents such as Witterick and
Stocker have, and why should the children face the consequences for the faults of society. Unless
there is widespread support for gender-neutrality, this is probably going to have very little effect
on the way that people run their lives, and it will probably cause more problems than it solve for
Storm, Kio, and Jazz. Living your life in the knowledge that everyone else is wrong and bad, like
they will have to do to justify their lifestyles is not a healthy life to live.
Perhaps some might consider this the first steps towards starting a revolution or campaign for
gender neutrality but the course of action the parents have taken says otherwise. Kathy Witterick
claims that wanting to know what is between a persons legs is unhealthy and immoral. I am sure
a lot parents with similar ideologies hold similar stances. Surely, gender is not simply about that?
Is that not that what people including parents who support a genderless raising of their child, are
trying to escape? In addition, by making choices for their children, are they not doing the same
thing they are trying to prevent? Sara Dimerman a psychologist and parenting expert perfectly
expresses this contradiction: If parents clothe their son in both pants and dresses until the age
at which is able to exert free will, choice and preference when selecting his own clothing (around
the of 3), how can one be sure that when he chooses a dress from his closet, that this is truly his
innate preference, or merely his continuing to choose what has been his norm. I believe Gender
is just a societal grouping that has a physiological basis (men and women are different, there is no
point ignoring that), and so by rejecting it, in a way they are rejecting society. To choose to reject
gender then is fine, but you cannot expect society to change to accommodate you and expect to
leave a perfectly normal and happy life. Which brings the question why make your children go
though life that way?

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi