Comments on: Our Discomfort with the Ungendered

By: Matt B.

Matt B. — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 05:10:12 +0000

“Jive”, “jibe” and “gibe”. Please look them up.

“It” refers to people all the time: “Who is it?” “It’s me.” “It puts the lotion on its skin.” (Wait, bad example.)

Some languages have only genderless third-person pronouns and guess what–they still notice biological gender.

By: J

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:30:41 +0000

I just don’t think this gets to the heart of the matter, though. It’s not what the baby’s sex is, it’s how you interpret it and inter act with the information of this baby being x, y or z. It seems like they’re doing a bigger disservice to topic of “the importance (or lack of) of gender ” by nullifying it. By making it a big enough deal to get rid of it all together (in a way).

I wouldn’t alter my roll in society (for the better) as a person by removing or hiding my gender, and it’s not the kind of weight I would put on my developing child either.

By: Vogie

Vogie — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:42:33 +0000

While it’s understandable to state the intentions of the parents as both simultaneously backwards and progressive, I feel bad for the kid. Seriously. I agree with #6, this kid is going to be choosing very, very quickly. As soon as they hit any type of schooling, they’re going to have to choose. It’s not going to be Boys Vs Girls Vs Storm in kickball or any schoolyard competition – even if ‘em is given a choice, they’re still alienated. “Hey, we’re you on the girls side last year?”
We’re not in a world like the Doctor visits, where they respectfully say “Ladies, Gentlemen, and all variations thereupon” to get our attention. Locker room drama will be even more dramatic. And even if Storm decides on a gender by that time, they’ll still have very obvious physical differences that alienate them if they choose “wrong”. That’ll lead to either medical solutions (hormone shots, reversal/reduction surgery) or psychiactric ones (therepy). And even if they choose “right”, there’s still a load of unneeded experiences scarring their past.
We may have discomfort for the ungendered, but not nearly so much discomfort as they will have.

By: rascheR duB

rascheR duB — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 03:18:43 +0000

I disagree with Summerspeaker about Firestone’s avowal to “abolish sex distinction.” Who would do the abolishing and who would do the enforcement? Such paternalism is immiscible with a spirit of openness in matters of sexuality. Greater laxity, not uptightness and regulation around these matters seems to me to be vital. Anyway, I’m not sure that one parent in Toronto deciding to keep her baby’s gender a secret is indicative of anything, or even if it’s news at all. Secrecy ultimately backpedals into the arms of repression, hypocrisy and the illusion of control — all told rather the opposite of a live-and-let-live, panreceptive, polymorphous sexual ethos.

By: Summerspeaker

Summerspeaker — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:31:55 +0000

I suggest Shulamith Firestone’s feminist revolution to abolish sex distinction so that genital difference no longer matter culturally. Removing the binary pronouns from language will be a must.

By: Mark Plus

Mark Plus — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:20:43 +0000

Jeez, this nonsense has come back again. Someone wrote a story based on a similar premise and published it in 1974 in the anthology “Woman in the Year 2000,” edited by Maggie Tripp. Right after that foolishness follows an essay by F.M. Esfandiary about how we would live forever in space colonies by that mysterious, far-future year 2000:

http://www.box.net/shared/static/3xds692rax.pdf

By: Heather

Heather — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:40:48 +0000

I think this is such a cool idea. It sounds like something my hippie grandparents would have thought up. I can only imagine the conversations to come between parent and child about what it means to present individual gender identity to society.

By: stereotactic radiosurgery

stereotactic radiosurgery — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:18:58 +0000

Thanks for writing this entry. I really enjoyed it. Keep up the excellent work, dude!

By: Derrick

Derrick — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:38:37 +0000

I understand the parents position here, their dislike of societies imposition of gender-based stereotypes. However, I think this “experiment” of theirs is needlessly cruel and amounts to abuse – though not in a legally liable way of course.

Regardless of their goals, society is gender based. It doesn’t matter if they like it or not, that’s how it is. So, they are creating a situation where their child will be a freak once he’s part of society. Other people – particularly other children, but adults too – will not know how to deal with him. This will result most frequently in those other people being uncomfortable in his/her presence, which leads to ostracism or worse.

If they want to change the world, to reduce the impact gender has on how people are treated and what is expected of them, then there are many other ways to approaching this. Forcing a child into their agenda, at their child’s own expense, is cruel at best.

By: Cheeseburger Brown

Cheeseburger Brown — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:49:57 +0000

@#4, #5:

The singular “they” as a genderless pronoun has been in use to greater or lesser acclaim or derision for over five hundred years.

If your inner English nerd is shuddering at such usages, I respectfully submit that your inner nerd is in need of recalibration.

Otherwise, you are effectively suggesting that your English ninjitsu trumps the art of the language attested by the likes of Shakespeare, Wilde, Twain and the King James Bible.

Being as erudite as you no doubt are, I’m sure your linguistic snobbery could be more profitably trained on worse things, like people who say “bemused” when they don’t mean to suggest confusion or people who point out purported errors in English that actually have a long distinguished pedigree of usage (thus bringing us full circle, in this particular jerk).

By the bye, nice post, Kyle!

Yours in letters,
Cheeseburger Brown