File this under really bad parenting.

Derick Freese wrote: I'm just saying that it takes a small man to beat someone up over their sexual orientation.

Except they aren't going to beat him up because of his sexual orientation, they're going to beat him up because he wears girls clothes to school and his parents are friggin weirdos.

Kids tend to go for the obvious choices first.

Curmudgeon wrote: *And the embarrassment they showed by choosing not to announce the sex of their child should not have concluded with this incredibly ludicrous experiment on the life of a human being!*

That's it right there. For better or for worse, this whole thing is focusing on a child whom this will haunt forever.

Only one female in this story.

http://www.facebook.com/becklaxton

http://www.facebook.com/kierancooper

In addition, the story that OP's story was based on, at least in part, seems to explain things in a little less subjective tone.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Hes-pretty-in-pink-to-make-you-think-20012012.htm

As for their clothing "rules", it does appear that they take on a bit of a liberal bent. I still find all of the "banned" items to be a little tacky, taking gender completely out of the equation. The average person doesn't need a bajillion pockets, the ability to hide in plain sight, and look like a pirate all at the same time. Or any time, for that matter.

(Edited for formatting)

In reply to Grizz:

Why are they girls' clothes in the first place? Why do we assign clothes genders in the first place?

Obvious answer: Because girls wear them.

Smartass answer: Because girls wear them.

Realistic answer: Because girls clothes are designed to be feminine, even for the younguns. You can argue against it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

For those of you that have no problem with this couple dressing their boy in girl's clothes, go raid your wife's closet, put on a bra and panties, a skirt and a pink blouse. Now, go to the neighborhood pub for a few pints.

In reply to Derick Freese:

Also because girls' physical build is different than boys'.

RealMiniDriver wrote: For those of you that have no problem with this couple dressing their boy in girl's clothes, go raid your wife's closet, put on a bra and panties, a skirt and a pink blouse. Now, go to the neighborhood pub for a few pints.

I'm genuinely confused as to why someone would have a problem with gender roles. If I dude shows up dressed as a woman I'm going to think he's a bit odd. I wouldn't wish harm to him, but I probably wouldn't have hung out with him in school either.

What good can come of this? (<-- that's a sincere question)

Well, there's technicality and then there's practicality.

It's nice to sit here and say that in a perfect world we should allow this or that, but the real issue is that we live in the real world which has certain standards.

We see all kinds of bad parenting and this is just one of them. How about the kid that's always right and the parents run at his/her beck and call. What's going to happen to those kids when they leave school or the parents die?

Our jobs as parents is to prepare our kids to live in the real world whatever that may be like at the time they will be living in it. Which means I can't fault some of the weird concepts and perceptions our ancestors were taught and some of the strange or different things our descendants will be teaching their kids.

In reply to RealMiniDriver:

I'm a lumberjack, and I'M OKAY!

MG Bryan wrote:

RealMiniDriver wrote: For those of you that have no problem with this couple dressing their boy in girl's clothes, go raid your wife's closet, put on a bra and panties, a skirt and a pink blouse. Now, go to the neighborhood pub for a few pints.

I'm genuinely confused as to why someone would have a problem with gender roles. If I dude shows up dressed as a woman I'm going to think he's a bit odd. I wouldn't wish harm to him, but I probably wouldn't have hung out with him in school either. What good can come of this? (<-- that's a sincere question)

Because some people have the notion that gender roles are social constructs instead of biological constructs, and are therefore evil.

E:clarification, gender roles = evil to them, not the people = evil to me.

Grizz wrote:

MG Bryan wrote:

RealMiniDriver wrote: For those of you that have no problem with this couple dressing their boy in girl's clothes, go raid your wife's closet, put on a bra and panties, a skirt and a pink blouse. Now, go to the neighborhood pub for a few pints.

I'm genuinely confused as to why someone would have a problem with gender roles. If I dude shows up dressed as a woman I'm going to think he's a bit odd. I wouldn't wish harm to him, but I probably wouldn't have hung out with him in school either. What good can come of this? (<-- that's a sincere question)

Because some people have the notion that gender roles are social constructs instead of biological constructs, and are therefore evil. E:clarification, gender roles = evil to them, not the people = evil to me.

So some people think genetically determined hormone balances aren't going to affect a persons behavior?

This is just about the most extreme example possible, but I remember it from high school psych and it seems relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HfAhLuZZ5o

MG Bryan wrote: So some people think genetically determined hormone balances aren't going to affect a persons behavior?

Apparently, it's a very common argument from the nuttier feminazis.

As far as 'society' determining gender roles via clothing: it's actually the other way around. Male and female clothing is considered different because in the vast number of instances males and females have shown a preference for those styles. That is NOT to say it's 100% universal; there's Scottish kilts on men for instance.

Men and women are shaped differently (vive' le difference! ) and due to those differences the sexes tend to gravitate toward clothing that accentuates those differences. All the pink sparkly tights vs skull tees in the world will not change that simple fact. But these two think they can wish it away and leave this poor kid confused as hell.

Kids are also cruel, for instance my daughter's eczema has led to some comments from other kids that make me want to throttle the little E36 M3s. This kid is going to get CLOBBERED bcause his mumsies have decided that he should be a completely different little snowflake. There's something deeply wrong with that.

Derek pointed it out, there is a daddy to go with mumzie, the whole lesbo and bitches thing was just me insulting them.

Teqnyck wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: *And the embarrassment they showed by choosing not to announce the sex of their child should not have concluded with this incredibly ludicrous experiment on the life of a human being!*

That's it right there. For better or for worse, this whole thing is focusing on a child whom this will haunt forever.

Haunt forever?! He's 5! I barely even remember high school, let alone things that happened before grade 1. I did get confused for a girl a lot when I was 8~12ish thanks to my long hair and occasional hand-me-down from my big sister. It doesn't 'haunt' me one bit.

BTW I am rocking a bright purply pink T-shirt right goddamn now. It came from the Goodwill and doesn't say "men's" or "women's" on it anywhere so I have no clue. I guess that makes me a confused effeminate girly-man and a social pariah. Or maybe not.

Derick Freese wrote: In reply to RealMiniDriver: I'm a lumberjack, and I'M OKAY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg

+many internets to you

On a more serious note, neither article quoted here mentioned if the parents banned any super girly clothes. Like sparkly princess things or whatever else little girls wear (I'm not a parent so I don't really know). If they really want the kid to choose what it wears, why ban only masculine clothes? If the kid wants to be super manly, who cares? If it wants to be girly, who cares? Granted, I acknowledge that the reporters may just be trying to make a big deal out of a lesbian couple (OH NOES!) with a new-age mindset raising a kid to be gender neutral and neglecting to mentioning certain facts that would otherwise make this much less of a big deal. If that's the case, shame on the media for portraying that family this way. If not, shame on the parents for raising a child that reflects their own biases. A child is NOT something to make some social point with.

thatsnowinnebago wrote: On a more serious note, neither article quoted here mentioned if the parents banned any super girly clothes. Like sparkly princess things or whatever else little girls wear (I'm not a parent so I don't really know). If they really want the kid to choose what it wears, why ban only masculine clothes?

Now don't go clouding this argument with logic and truth!! All the folks who agree with these folks don't want to admit or even see this point. They scream double-standard and don't notice the double standard staring them in their faces.

I tried posting this last night, but it's gone. I wanted to make the point that you hear people's story when they come "out" and they tell about a life of torment because they were confused. They talk about being a girl trapped in a boys body or vice-versa because they weren't allowed to explore or even feel comfortable with their own sexuality or sense of self. These freaks are setting this kid up for this very thing. The difference is, this kid might have perfectly balanced, "normal" sense of who he is. Maybe he is wired to love those super-masculin things, trucks, the dreaded cargo pants, tools and they keep these things from him.

http://www.nps.gov/thrb/photosmultimedia/images/Copy-of-rooseveltFam-030.jpg

That's teddy Roosevelt in a dress. And we all know how he turned out!

Joey

Tell me, what exactly is hyper masculine about cargo pants?

nothing at all, nor about skull prints with shiny tribal artwork. unless you classify shrunken balls can't get it up juiced up UFC types to be hyper masculine. i don't.

It seems to me that they link that type of clothing with military clothing. Pure speculation on my part, but it seems to fit in dead on. Camo, combat pants, and skulls. I see all of these things being attributed to a militaristic origin and understand why they'd not allow their child to wear them.

Sasha will probably have a hard life, but I don't see it getting serious until he's about 12. Don't worry, we'll hear about it, his mom is an active blogger.

DrBoost wrote:

thatsnowinnebago wrote: On a more serious note, neither article quoted here mentioned if the parents banned any super girly clothes. Like sparkly princess things or whatever else little girls wear (I'm not a parent so I don't really know). If they really want the kid to choose what it wears, why ban only masculine clothes?

Now don't go clouding this argument with logic and truth!! All the folks who agree with these folks don't want to admit or even see this point. They scream double-standard and don't notice the double standard staring them in their faces.

Sorry about that. What I meant to say was "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"

Barbie merchandise was also forbidden.