I actually suspect it's a girl, and the parents are afraid that it'll be raised to be girly, and fear math and scary things.  

Sarah Palin was raised in a traditional household, she can shoot and field dress a moose.

I'm not sure how raising someone to be girly prevents them from doing math, but there is big difference between encouraging certain activities and creating a taboo around a child's sex.

Sarah Palin's also a quitter.

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

Sarah Palin was raised in a traditional household, she can shoot and field dress a moose.

Oh sure...she can shoot it, but then she lapses back into her proper gender decorum and feels like she has to dress it.  Well, now that the moose is dressed pretty, why not have a fucking tea party while she's at it?

Minty fresh

I'm curious where Ms. Pinker gets her ideas:

"It's unlikely that they'll be able to keep this a secret for long. Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood."  

This is fascinating, and completely bullshit.  My kids absolutely did not start "gravitating" toward the same sex during play time until the gender differentiation became culturally enforced in kindergarten.  I have found this to be true of every child I have dealt with.  So I do not believe Ms. Pinker.

She suggests boys tell aggressive stories and are more physical.  Of course, she ignores the fact that these children are socialized into these roles.  And by kindergarten, my gender-neutrally raised children were being told that "boys don't do that" and "girls don't like that."  It's cultural, strongly so.

Furthermore, she suggests that this is "children's natures," which I do not see.  They are not ignoring what Pop wants.  If s/he wants to wear skirts and long hair, s/he gets to do so.  It's simply not permitting cultural expectations to force the child into a particular mold.  And given how strongly cultural norms are enforced, even at a young age, I can thoroughly agree with these parents' attempt to keep that far from their kid.

...she suggests that this is "children's natures," which I do not see

And you realize that the underlying article supports MY point, which is that people treat you differently based on your perceived gender.  

My views are also supported by studies.

Studying adult females and males in a single culture does not permit you to identify certain characteristics as inherent to the gender.  By the time someone reaches adulthood their personality is informed as much by their inherent biology as by their environment.

Then again, according to your studies I'm male, despite the fact that I have a uterus and two X chromosomes.  I like maps, and math, and while I'm pretty good at languages my math scores were always higher than my language scores.  And while I didn't quite make a perfect score in logic & math questions in the SAT/LSAT/GRE, I came damn close.

If only your parents had kept your sex hidden, you might have gotten a perfact score on your math SAT.

Turns out that in Eastern Europe, where I grew up, girls out perform boys in mathematics.  Further reinforcing that the math differential, at least, is driven by socialization not biology.

That would be funny if it were true, since Eastern Europe is more sexist than the US, but that is not true of the upper end of ability. See also this .

You wrote some blather about your "gender-neutrally raised children," I suppose because you're an idiot.

The study you cited does nothing at all to support your idiotic ideas. It merely notes that mother and fathers behave differently toward their children.

according to your studies I'm male

If it says nothing about ME, why do you think it says something about POP, an individual, a child?  Hmmm?  It says exactly as much about on individual as it does about another, i.e. nothing at all.  As large group this may be true, but we were addressing something in the context of an individual child.

It says nothing specific about Pop. What it does say (the science, that is) is that children (and adults) do have innate behavioral differences. When you wrote, "she suggests that this is 'children's natures,' which I do not see," you were displaying once again that you are a fool.

From the abstract of the study Thalia linked to:

The authoritarian styles were more likely to be used when parenting boys, and the authoritative style of reasoning/induction was more likely when parenting girls.

How does that support Thalia's claim about perceived gender?

Ah, c'mon Ken...you were doing so well.  A full week with nary a bit of assholedness.  I'm taking away one of you chits, assface.

Minty fresh

I can only put up with so much ignorance, Lou, before I feel compelled to say something. Thalia, you probably have noticed, writes extraordinarily ignorant things here on Tree~n~Things.

You know...there's this kinda whacked out dude that wanders around my town.  He's  harmless, but unless you know the deal, he can be pretty scary.  One of his haunts is the awning right in front of my building.  And in the good old summer time I get to listen to his ENDLESS right-wing religious rants.  Do I rush downstairs every time he spouts off?  No.  Why?  Because he's harmless and I do have to share the planet with him.  Ok, sometime I turn my guitar up a bit, but only to drown him out in my place.  I could rush down and argue with him...or mock him, but I don't.  Why?  'cause I like to think that I'm not a dick.

Minty fresh

I agree: Thalia is an easy target for mockery.

So are you.

Minty fresh

At least I'm not an irrational denier of scientific truth.

Oh and that makes all the difference, does it?  Would you act this way at a party, or is it only on the internets where you find your stones?

Minty fresh

I thought this was a discussion site, not a party.

So, you're saying that you're as big a dick in real life as you are on the 'net?  I'm cutting you off, pal.

Minty fresh

Wait, you're cutting Z off? Does that mean there's a bar in here somewhere and you've been holding out on me? WTF Lou?!

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

1. Who the hell is he talking to? Himself? OK, that is a problem.

2. Do you turn your guitar up to 11?

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

Ha...my amp goes to 12, bitches. (really, it does)

And yeah, he's talking to himself.  I've watched and listened from my window.  He'll say something like, "You try that and me and Jesus will kick your ass".  But there's no one there...just him.

Minty fresh

I think your neighbor may be mentally ill. Just throwing that out there.

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

Ya think?

Minty fresh

Dude, uncool. Thalia writes some of the more considered comments I've seen. She has put me and others in our collective place a few times. There's no need to get randomly fractious and personal.

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

She has put me and others in our collective place a few times

Anyway, why should anyone give any credence to people who deny what is plainly true? Creationists, for example, deserve mockery; why doesn't someone like Thalia?

It was my mistake in using the wrong browser which doesn't block the idiocy & actually responding to him.  Had I realized the post was by zyx, I would've ignored it.

You didn't bother to read my newscientist.com link, so I see no special reason to read your link either.

So, do you feel sexually threatened by women who seem smarter than you? You wear your own ideological biases like armour, then deny you have any. So much of what you believe strikes me as laughable that it was particularly sweet to see your rap about everything you believe being true. Pathological, really.

I read the link. What of it? It supported my idea that getting a genetic test would be a good idea.

Genetic testing wouldn't determine which sex hermaphroditic kids should be considered for biological or social purposes. You really didn't read that link.

It wouldn't necessarily reveal it in all cases, but in the more likely scenarios, such as Turner's Symdrome, it would. (I really did read the link.) The presence of male gonads would likely be the deciding factor for behavioral reasons. (You don't really believe that gender-specific behavioral differences are due to social conditioning, do you? Thalia believes that, but then she's not too smart.)

"It wouldn't necessarily reveal it in all cases..."

Thanks for your unexpected candor. You can go back to ignoring my original question now.

What was the original question?

Read Post 53 again.

As to the original question (#53, right?) I would suggest having DNA testing done and raise the child according to the results.

So much for your candor, eh?

I have no idea what you're talking about or why you (seemingly) have a problem with my idea.

The things she cites are well established by peer reviewed research. Your anecdotes aren't compelling, and you aren't exactly a neutral observer of your own parenting

"It's simply not permitting cultural expectations to force the child into a particular mold"

How is the perfectly normal act of referring to a child by its proper sex forcing it into a mold? Those forcing children into a mold are parents who impose their ideological fantasy upon their children that there is nothing inate about human beings.

"At least I'm not an irrational denier of scientific truth."

Psst. Your use of language when you pretend to scientific knowledge and integrity ("well established by peer reviewed research") gives you away.

In fact, though, you stick up for science when you approve of its conclusions and you attack it when you don't. Your contempt for technology and medicine makes it clear you have more in common with Pope Urban VIII than Galileo. Damn that modern world! Your obsession with pseudo-science of all sorts renders it impossible for any sensible scientifically-educated person to take you seriously as expert in any branch of science or as defender of science in general. Stop it already.

When have I attacked the conclusions of science? I'm not one of the people here who prefers herbs and potions to modern medicine. Given your obsession with me I don't see how you could have missed that.

"you have more in common with Pope Urban VIII than Galileo"

Oh, snap.

Even putting your obsession with pseudo-sciences to one side, you argue with scientific research so often that I can confidently say that, given another 30 days, I will be able to point out examples of your doing it six or eight times. No, I won't research past examples because I don't care that much.

Another failure to back up your claims, another retreat into fantasy. Poor novy.

"Retreat into fantasy"? Mr. UFO accuses ME of fantasy? Someone who names himself after stupid television show characters accuses ME of fantasy? Mr. Mothman Sasquatch wants to present himself as Dr. Science (he has "a Master's Degree ... in Science!") on TnT? Poor Alf.

It's a statement of fact. Re-read your comment I was replying to.

We've established:

1. You can't support any of your claims.

2. You are obsessed with me.

3. When pressed, you retreat into fantasy, and you have invented elaborate fantasies about me and about what I think.

4. You are sensitive about the subject of fag.

5. You were born with a deformed set of both male and female genitals.

5. You have terrible taste in television.

We've established:

1. You/Ken respond to everything I say on any subject, no matter how off-hand. Obsession?

3. You live in fantasy worlds of your own device even when not pressed.

4. I have been more sensitive about your consistently ugly remarks directed at women than about your problem with gay self-loathing. Maybe you should start comparing me to George Eliot.

If we stopped cluttering up threads with our faux war, where would TnT be? Besides, no one invited you to discuss Canadian politics, about which you probably know nothing whatsoever, yet there you were. Why run or hide if you plan to come to every party I throw anyway?

1. Actually I ignore you a lot.

2. I see we agree on 2.

3. Can you support that statement?

4. Could you provide a link to any ugly remarks I've made about women? Why is it when you say unfavorable things homosexuals they accuse you of being one? That's sick, if you think about it.

5. I see we agree on 5.

"no one invited you to discuss Canadian politics"

I can't resist mocking your idiocy. It's a bad habit, I will stop.

1. Like now?

2. Answered it in my previous answer to 1.

3. Why should I? (Because otherwise you "win"? LOL.)

4. Why should I? (For clues, check out your interactions with Thalia.) "Why is it when you" call lots of people "fags" that people start wondering about your sexual orientation? That question would answer itself if you were more self-aware. I won't be thinking about it.

5. Answered it in my previous answer to 4.

You did it because you couldn't help it. You won't really stop. Don't worry, I understand.

Could you provide a link to any of my interactions with Thalia where I am anything less than a gentleman?

1. You/Ken respond to everything I say on any subject, no matter how off-hand. Obsession?

There's a solution for ignoring such things, if you're using Firefox and the GreaseMonkey extension.

- derumi (del-me)
"It is the farewell kiss, you dog!" - Muntadhar al-Zaidi

"Solution"? "Ignoring"? Why on Earth would I ignore Alf and Ken?

I just went to it now

Minty fresh

Still doesn't work for me.

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

It's broken. Clear your cache and try again.

Never mind...it's a picture of a kid in a klan outfit.

Minty fresh

Kool.

Is work going to think I'm some kind of white supremacist if I click on the link?

Bottles and cans just clap your hands just clap your hands

Yes...and maybe a pederast too.

Minty fresh

With all due respect, no one except those parents and caregivers could possibly know. On what basis do you assume that "the kid is normal but the parents are taking an irregular course of action"? Now, since we know what you think if "Pop" was born normal, what would you think if that kid was not born normal? Would you still think Pop's parents have done something terrible?

I don't know about him, but I'd say that raising a kid without a specific gender when there's a medical reason for the gender to be ambiguous is like raising a kid in a wheelchair when the kid can't walk.  It's the best choice given the circumstances, because it helps deal with a problem, but it's not something you'd want to do voluntarily, and the kid would be better off if s/he didn't need to do it.

Think of treating a kid's gender ambiguously as a social wheelchair.  We don't want to put the kid in one unless the kid is unable to walk.

I agree that ambiguous gender only makes sense under limited medical circumstances. I appreciate your honesty in recognising that such circumstances do actually exist.

Yeah, that should do it all right.

Yup.

If you insist on maintaining your pretense of being your own man, you probably shouldn't consistently post just before and just after your puppetmaster, Zyx.

I'm glad you are keeping an eye on things, fruity.

If you think you could strike a nerve by making juvenile remarks about hermaphroditism (you had to look it up, eh?) or my presumed sexuality (when you can't even know for sure which sex I belong to other than by faith in my prior representations, and why should I be any more honest about myself than you, you faker?) then I should be able to strike a nerve by reminding you that your pea-sized brain doesn't compare well with that of T-rex. (When you compose sentences that make sense, I think of it as good luck. Your use of English makes me sound native.) Now go back to having sex with sasquatch and waiting for those space aliens to bring your mom back from lizard world. Yes, and stay by that phone to get your orders from Zyx, assuming you can't hear him in your head.

I was joking, but it looks as if a nerve really was struck.

"why should I be any more honest about myself than you, you faker"

Just because you are dishonest doesn't mean I am.

Our interaction gets funnier and funnier, doesn't it? You, Ken, and me keep this place in stitches.

"Just because you are dishonest doesn't mean I am."

No, what made it clear you can't be taken at face value was that none of TnT's old timers takes you at face value. I may not be that old but I wasn't born yesterday. Now that I have gotten comfortable here, I regret any previous honesty about me in meatspace, assure you it was entirely inadvertent, and I intend to do everything possible to cloud such matters from here on. Believe whatever you like about me, at your own risk.  

That sounds like a great plan!

I like to believe you have webbed toes.

Amazing! How did you know?

Please. Social construct ="proper gender decorum"?  Proper gender decorum?  Whatever that is, I can easily visualize it being spouted by a George Will wannabee, bow tie, constipated expression and all.  Damnation...things just have not been the same since the decline of the British Empire!  Why, if this disturbing trend continues, who knows what could happen.  People acting above their rank?  Or even worse, putting on airs!  By Jove, it's enough to give one the vapors.

Minty fresh

Proper gender decorum?

It's what folks like to call "irony", son. The giveaway was in referring to children having "wisdom and grace".

Your "irony" is as stilted and stuffy as the rest of your 18th century ideas, pops.

Minty fresh