He, she or it? Family keeps baby's gender a secret

[DTD Alum]

Torn. There are huge biological differences between the way male and female children's brains are set up and how they affect behavior ranging from adherence to "rules", the way toys are played with, communication skills, bonding with other children and coincidentally how susceptible they are to gender roles (male children are much more likely to dismiss activities purely because of gender roles than females are).

That being said, social constructs (boys like sports, girls like dance) are ludicrous. The way the brains are set up means that boys and girls will approach the same activities with very different goals and ways they derive enjoyment from them, but the fact that one gender will enjoy something more is socially constructed. As a child and teenager I was extremely passionate about dance, something with which I was heavily ridiculed by my peers (to the point I dropped it in college, only to pick it up after I graduated when I became more comfortable with who I am and gained self esteem). My family was always beyond supportive, but it did hurt to be told by peers that I wasn't a "boy" because of something I liked.

At the end of the day though, I think I side with those who are saying it is more important to breed an attitude of "even though you are [X] gender, you can enjoy [X] activity." By eliminating the fact that we are born either male or female, I think you are losing a lot of the progress that needs to be made. I think it's more powerful to say, "I'm a boy and want to dance ballet" or "I'm a girl and want to play rugby" than to say "I don't associate with a gender so I can do anything I want". By making that sort of statement I think you are subtly implying that if you WERE to choose a gender then things would be off limits. I can see both sides though.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

I think it's more powerful to say, "I'm a boy and want to dance ballet" or "I'm a girl and want to play rugby" than to say "I don't associate with a gender so I can do anything I want". By making that sort of statement I think you are subtly implying that if you WERE to choose a gender then things would be off limits.

You make a really interesting point.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

At the end of the day though, I think I side with those who are saying it is more important to breed an attitude of "even though you are [X] gender, you can enjoy [X] activity." By eliminating the fact that we are born either male or female, I think you are losing a lot of the progress that needs to be made. I think it's more powerful to say, "I'm a boy and want to dance ballet" or "I'm a girl and want to play rugby" than to say "I don't associate with a gender so I can do anything I want". By making that sort of statement I think you are subtly implying that if you WERE to choose a gender then things would be off limits. I can see both sides though.

Of anything I've read in this thread, I think this comes closest to my own thoughts.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of anything I've read in this thread, I think this comes closest to my own thoughts.

Agreed.

[southbymidwest]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

Torn. There are huge biological differences between the way male and female children's brains are set up and how they affect behavior ranging from adherence to "rules", the way toys are played with, communication skills, bonding with other children and coincidentally how susceptible they are to gender roles (male children are much more likely to dismiss activities purely because of gender roles than females are).

That being said, social constructs (boys like sports, girls like dance) are ludicrous. The way the brains are set up means that boys and girls will approach the same activities with very different goals and ways they derive enjoyment from them, but the fact that one gender will enjoy something more is socially constructed. As a child and teenager I was extremely passionate about dance, something with which I was heavily ridiculed by my peers (to the point I dropped it in college, only to pick it up after I graduated when I became more comfortable with who I am and gained self esteem). My family was always beyond supportive, but it did hurt to be told by peers that I wasn't a "boy" because of something I liked.

At the end of the day though, I think I side with those who are saying it is more important to breed an attitude of "even though you are [X] gender, you can enjoy [X] activity." By eliminating the fact that we are born either male or female, I think you are losing a lot of the progress that needs to be made. I think it's more powerful to say, "I'm a boy and want to dance ballet" or "I'm a girl and want to play rugby" than to say "I don't associate with a gender so I can do anything I want". By making that sort of statement I think you are subtly implying that if you WERE to choose a gender then things would be off limits. I can see both sides though.

Very, very well said. I'm the the mom of two very sports-involved girls, and I think you have hit the nail on the head. You were able to articulate what was rolling around in my head much more clearly than what I could have said.

[DrPhil]

If what DTD Alum said was that simple and straightforward, more parents who feel as these parents do would do what DTD Alum stated; and gender constructs would be less resistant to change.

The fact that 99% of parents don't do that (even if they claim that they do) perhaps means that doing that is no less difficult and no more logical than withholding the child's gender in the first place.

The EASIEST thing is to do what people do everyday. Divulge the child's biological sex, exaggerate the role of biology in determining gender, and go with the existing gender structure of "girls do this" and "boys do that."

[CutiePie2000]

When I had the opportunity to have a guided tour of the Palace of Versailles in France, I vaguely remember that there was a portrait there of a child wearing a dress. Some people commented of "what a lovely girl in the painting!"

The guide pointed it out and said that the child in the portrait was actually a boy (possibly Louis as a child, but I cannot say for sure..this was a trip that I took in 2006), not a girl -- back in the time of when the portrait was painted, that it wasn't really the custom in France to differentiate as strongly between boys and girls until the child was approximately age 5.

I thought that was interesting.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

When I had the opportunity to have a guided tour of the Palace of Versailles in France, I vaguely remember that there was a portrait there of a child wearing a dress. Some people commented of "what a lovely girl in the painting!"

The guide pointed it out and said that the child in the portrait was actually a boy (possibly Louis as a child, but I cannot say for sure..this was a trip that I took in 2006), not a girl -- back in the time of when the portrait was painted, that it wasn't really the custom in France to differentiate as strongly between boys and girls until the child was approximately age 5.

I thought that was interesting.

Also pink was a male color as it was a watered down red and girls would have worn 'baby blue' as blue was a female color and associated with the virgin. Assuming one had the money for blue that is.

Sometimes they're not sure if it's a son or a daughter int he painting and they'll look at what the child's holding, a teething 'toy' is male, etc. It's very interesting.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

When I had the opportunity to have a guided tour of the Palace of Versailles in France, I vaguely remember that there was a portrait there of a child wearing a dress. Some people commented of "what a lovely girl in the painting!"

The guide pointed it out and said that the child in the portrait was actually a boy (possibly Louis as a child, but I cannot say for sure..this was a trip that I took in 2006), not a girl -- back in the time of when the portrait was painted, that it wasn't really the custom in France to differentiate as strongly between boys and girls until the child was approximately age 5.

We have a similar picture of my grandfather (wearing white) from around 1900. That was the custom here, as well.

He hated that picture by the way.

As for the parents this thread is about, I don't know. It just seems to me they are trading one set of problems and challenges for a different set of problems and challenges. Sure, what DTD Alum describes is very hard to do, even when one is trying to be intentional about it. But I think I'd rather try to do that and not succeed completely than do what these parents are doing.

But it's their choice. Parenthood, like much else in life, is all about choices.

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The fact that 99% of parents don't do that (even if they claim that they do) perhaps means that doing that is no less difficult and no more logical than withholding the child's gender in the first place.

I disagree completely, but I guess everybody views this topic differently.