[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I hate it when parents do this, it's not progressive or woke, they're just creating confusion for the child when, chances are, there wouldn't be any confusion for the child if they were raised typically.

Raising a child to defy gender norms and stereotypes? Yaas. Letting your child know that you'd love and support them no matter what? Yaas. Trying to explain to a child that they can pick their own gender and the complex philosophies involved? Dumb and chances are it'll just create issues that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

If people have issues with their gender, they'll figure that out on their own, all you can do is support them but things like this are just basically forcing issues on your children for the sake of looking oh so progressive and impressive.

You say it much better than me Dezzy.

[Mystic Mock]

There is nothing wrong with people having some gender stereotypes imo, as long as it's not forced on the child anyway.

If I was a parent though I'd just buy all sorts of toys for the child and see which ones they liked, for example if a boy wants to play with dolls then I would buy the boy dolls, if a girl wants to play with a Batmobile then that's what I'd get her.

As Dezzy said, this Kate woman is trying to overcomplicate things for a child that isn't even old enough to understand what gender even means.

[Braden]

I don't see any problem with this at all because she's essentially allowing her child to choose how they identify through options, as opposed to 'I'm going to buy this baby girl a pink top because we all know pink equals girl', or 'I'm going to buy this baby boy a football because we all know boys want to grow up to be footballers when they're older', which still plagues our culture and society today.

I think a lot of people presume 'genderless' or 'gender-neutral' parenting means children won't be able to associate with either gender whatsoever, but I think it's just a way of saying 'I'm going to let my child be whoever they want to be'. Mary Portas did the same thing, essentially what she did was give her child options in terms of being able to play with things (or express themselves in a way) that is typically 'girly' or 'boyish'. What she found out was that her male child ended up hating dolls and wanting play with trucks, and that was that. It's not really a big deal.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I expect she will be getting the suction cups on her back and has at least 3 mindfullness books by her bedside and lives on dust and Ethiopian mule piss

[GoldHeart]

Kate Hudson sounds like a fruit loop jumping onto the bandwagon of the latest trend .

How the hell can you raise your baby as genderless at such a young age ,is she trying to confuse her kid??? .

And I'm still not convinced or understand the whole non binary hype

[Marsh.]

It is funny that she's all for gender neutral but then says the baby has "feminine sounds and ways". But, isn't gender neutrality about moving away from only girls do a b and c and boys do d e and f?

I'd also challenge her to tell me what's overtly feminine about a 3 month old baby?

A toddler exhibiting feminine or masculine traits, ok, but most newborns are indistinguishable in their gender. It's the pinks/blues/bows etc that they are dressed in which are used to signify it.

[Redway]

Come on.

[Marsh.]

How could you not know? I think she's the image of her mother!

[Withano]

I think the idea is to keep the child in white until they pick out a pink dress themselves, or give the child a normal brown teddybear until they pick out the action man etc.

Its more about allowing them to think their interests are normal and okay rather than ‘no, you’re a pink child, put the blue toy down you ****ing weirdo’ which i think is a cute idea.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Withano

I think the idea is to keep the child in white until they pick out a pink dress themselves, or give the child a normal brown teddybear until they pick out the action man etc.

Its more about allowing them to think their interests are normal and okay rather than ‘no, you’re a pink child, put the blue toy down you ****ing weirdo’ which i think is a cute idea.

Why put this responsibility on a child? That's the role of parent. It's a parents role to decide if their interests are normal, what if their interests aren't normal? should they just be left to it?

When they turn 16 and are able to make their own way in life, then they can do what they like, but until then, the parent is the boss and makes the decisions.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Alf

Why put this responsibility on a child? That's the role of parent. It's a parents role to decide if their interests are normal, what if their interests aren't normal? should they just be left to it?

When they turn 16 and are able to make their own way in life, then they can do what they like, but until then, the parent is the boss and makes the decisions.

You’re basically an advert for a genderless upbringing because this post is ridiculous.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Withano

You’re basically an advert for a genderless upbringing because this post is ridiculous.

Yeah it's ridiculous for parents to take responsibility for their children. Instead let the 4 year olds make the decisions, after-all, they haven't even started school yet and can't even tie their shoe laces or bath themselves, but they know the score on gender.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Alf

Yeah it's ridiculous for parents to take responsibility for their children. Instead let the 4 year olds make the decisions after-all, they haven't even started school yet and can't even tie their shoe laces or bath themselves, but they know the score on gender.

So you don’t trust a 4 year old to know what toys they’d like to play with? That seems more like an issue with you than the rest of the world. Work on it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I think the idea is to keep the child in white until they pick out a pink dress themselves, or give the child a normal brown teddybear until they pick out the action man etc.

Its more about allowing them to think their interests are normal and okay rather than ‘no, you’re a pink child, put the blue toy down you ****ing weirdo’ which i think is a cute idea.

Which is great but alot of parents already do that without making a big "genderless" only wear white statement about it

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which is great but alot of parents already do that without making a big "genderless" only wear white statement about it

Well tbf, not many parents would need to make a statement about it because nobody cares what sarah from the nail salon does with her kids. We all only care now because this one is famous enough for a media outlet to report on something that a lot of parents already do.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well tbf, not many parents would need to make a statement about it because nobody cares what sarah from the nail salon does with her kids. We all only care now because this one is famous enough for a media outlet to report on something that a lot of parents already do.

Well, I've seen stories about non celebrities doing this aswell and it gets a similar reaction.

My point is that this is potentially damaging to how much ground we've gained trying to get rid of these gender stereotypes so it seems like a step backwards to me. Like, I'll give you an example, when I was in secondary school in the 90's, there was 2 boys in the Home Ec class. My son is 14 and he chose Home Ec as one of his options as did more than half the other boys in his year and it was perfectly normal where as before it was a "girls subject" That's a step forward imo, putting gender in strict male/female boxes again like this is focusing on stereotypes again and saying they're either male or female, that's the opposite of progression imo

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I've seen stories about non celebrities doing this aswell and it gets a similar reaction.

My point is that this is potentially damaging to how much ground we've gained trying to get rid of these gender stereotypes so it seems like a step backwards to me. Like, I'll give you an example, when I was in secondary school in the 90's, there was 2 boys in the Home Ec class. My son is 14 and he chose Home Ec as one of his options as did more than half the other boys in his year and it was perfectly normal where as before it was a "girls subject" That's a step forward imo, putting gender in male/female boxes again like this is focusing on stereotypes agin and saying they're either male or female, that's the opposite of progression imo

Depends how its done... everything could be gender neutral really, letting a toddler and child believe their ideas aren’t outside socially constructed norms doesn’t seem like a bad idea at all. They’ll develop their interests long before they work out what social norms are, and they’ll be comfortable in knowing their hobbies are about them personally, and not about the societal standards... which I think is pretty cute.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The reason (sigh) people put pi9nk on a girl and blue on a boy is so as to avoid people saying my what a lovely baby boy when its a girl and vice versa

babies tend to look like babies and not baby boys and baby girls

its nowt to do with fecking genderising them

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The reason (sigh) people put pi9nk on a girl and blue on a boy is so as to avoid people saying my what a lovely baby boy when its a girl and vice versa

babies tend to look like babies and not baby boys and baby girls

its nowt to do with fecking genderising them

yes parents of newborns tend to get a bit offended if you mis gender their new little angel, they won't be picking out clothes for a while so do you keep them in beige babygros until they are 2?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The reason (sigh) people put pi9nk on a girl and blue on a boy is so as to avoid people saying my what a lovely baby boy when its a girl and vice versa

babies tend to look like babies and not baby boys and baby girls

its nowt to do with fecking genderising them

It's not about the "reason for it" though it's about whether or not it's necessary, and it's more about how that leads to male and female children being given different things and being treated differently by adults in general (which frankly, they are).

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's not about the "reason for it" though it's about whether or not it's necessary, and it's more about how that leads to male and female children being given different things and being treated differently by adults in general (which frankly, they are).

men and women are different so I would hope they are treated differently in certain circumstances

[Ashley.]

So she wishes to defy stereotypes... but points out that her child is 'acting feminine'? The entire argument flies out of the window when one starts contradicting themselves. Seems as though she has absolutely no idea what she is doing or saying.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

So she wishes to defy stereotypes... but points out that her child is 'acting feminine'? The entire argument flies out of the window when one starts contradicting themselves. Seems as though she has absolutely no idea what she is doing.

I don't know why you have to not be a girl to defy stereotypes anyway, it's kind of sexist imo

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I don't know why you have to not be a girl to defy stereotypes anyway, it's kind of sexist imo

It's ironic, because that is stereotypical in itself. You can be a woman and possess typical male qualities and vice versa. Assuming that you must raise a child as a boy because they're not feminine enough, or a girl because they're not masculine enough... I think all of it is pretty contradictory. All that we are going to end up with is a confused generation of young children who have no idea how to act, because they've been brought up in such ambiguous surroundings. In my best screeching old lady voice... "won't somebody please think of the children?!"

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

It's ironic, because that is stereotypical in itself. You can be a woman and possess typical male qualities and vice versa. Assuming that you must raise a child as a boy because they're not feminine enough, or a girl because they're not masculine enough... I think all of it is pretty contradictory. All that we are going to end up with is a confused generation of young children who have no idea how to act, because they've been brought up in such ambiguous surroundings. In my best screeching old lady voice... "won't somebody please think of the children?!"

But yeah, I mean women especially and to a point men have been fighting against these stereotypes for years, it feels like we're going backwards again