Is Sweden going too far re: gender neutrality?

[Guest Manny]

Females can be seen standing in long lines because of such things, while men can breeze in and out of communal urinating trofts at large venues like stadiums.

Here we have the root of the envy...

[Michael Hardner]

The Norway mass murderer is hardly the same thing as an illogical feminist group pushing for ridiculous bathroom renovations. Tying someone to an absurd article/poll is much less offensive than accusing someone of supporting a mass murderer. We talk about real issues plenty. There's nothing wrong with pointing out examples where certain ideas/movements go way too far.

That's fine, if we all agree to let you to put the goalposts up for all of us.

How about we try to leave the fringe groups out of these discussions and talk about the issues at face value ? I'll try to do that if others do.

[Guest American Woman]

Any extreme usually ends up being illogical.

[cybercoma]

The Norway mass murderer is hardly the same thing as an illogical feminist group pushing for ridiculous bathroom renovations. Tying someone to an absurd article/poll is much less offensive than accusing someone of supporting a mass murderer. We talk about real issues plenty. There's nothing wrong with pointing out examples where certain ideas/movements go way too far.

You missed the point. MH was trying to tell you that it's fallacious to tie the position of this "illogical feminist group" to the Left as a whole or even to feminists more generally. Your reply goes on to talk about which one is somehow "better" than the other.

[cybercoma]

I still say that trying to deny differences

Nobody's denying differences. In fact, raising their child without forcing gender norms upon him or her, the parents are bringing gender differences into strong relief. There's nothing wrong with highlighting that gender expression is an individual choice that everyone must make.

[cybercoma]

The problem with discussing these things on this forum was illustrated perfectly in the thread about the transgendered Miss Universe competitor. There are far too many people on this forum that do not know or refuse to accept generally accepted facts about sex, gender, and sexuality. When people ignore these facts, it is impossible to have any kind of discussion about these issues. People still think that there's a sex dichotomy--male and female--and that's all there is to sex, sexuality, gender and gender expression. Birds and the bees--end of story. Reality shows that this is not at all the case. All of these things have their own respective continuums.

For instance, biological sex is not just a binary of male (XY) and female (XX). There are many people that are born intersexed, that is some combination of the two. There are certain chromosomal 'disorders' where a person is born neither XX nor XY. For example, persons with Klinefelter's Syndrome are born with XXY chromsomes. There's an androgyny syndrome that some infants are born with where they have clearly female genitalia, but carry the male XY chromosomes. These things happen and the fall outside our general notion of the male (XY: penis and testes) and female (XX: vagina and ovaries) binary. Thus, there is no biological binary of male and female. There is a continuum from male to female, passing through variation of intersexuality.

Gender identity is what a person believes about their self. It has to do with the hormonal levels a person has and how they interpret their gender. This is completely distinct from the biological sex a person is born with. Someone could be born female, but hormonally and psychologically truly believe that they are a male trapped in a woman's body. This again is a continuum, as there are some that don't believe they are either male or female. There are people that believe they're both, others that believe they're neither, some that believe they're a third gender, still others believe that their identity is constantly in moving between the two, and finally there are some that believe their gender overlaps to varying degrees. So there are many variations between believing that you are man or woman. This too is not a binary.

Gender expression is the gender that a person presents. This too is often seen as being binary between masculine or feminine. Again, there are varying degrees to masculinity and feminity and it doesn't matter what your biological sex is. There's also a third option of androgyny, which is neither masculine nor feminine or in some cases both masculine and feminine. It too is not a binary.

Sexual orientation has to do with who you are attracted to based on their sex or gender as it relates to your own. This is also sometimes mistaken as a binary. Some people believe that you're either gay or straight. Others believe that nobody is truly gay. It's generally accepted that there's a third option, bisexual. However, there are many misconceptions about that. Some people believe bisexuals are gay. They're not. Moreover, there are people that are neither; they're asexual. Asexuals have no attraction to any sex or gender. Again, sexual orientation is not as simple as people either being gay or straight.

Until people can understand these various categories and the complexity of them all, a rational discussion about these sorts of gender issues is almost impossible. The misconceptions just get in the way of what's going on and having any sort of open discourse about the issues. At the most basic level, I would be satisfied with everyone realizing that sex and gender are two different things. That would be one tiny step towards actually having a knowledgeable discussion about these issues.

[Bonam]

You missed the point. MH was trying to tell you that it's fallacious to tie the position of this "illogical feminist group" to the Left as a whole or even to feminists more generally. Your reply goes on to talk about which one is somehow "better" than the other.

I wasn't equating it to the "left as a whole", if you read my post.

[Bonam]

Until people can understand these various categories and the complexity of them all, a rational discussion about these sorts of gender issues is almost impossible. The misconceptions just get in the way of what's going on and having any sort of open discourse about the issues. At the most basic level, I would be satisfied with everyone realizing that sex and gender are two different things. That would be one tiny step towards actually having a knowledgeable discussion about these issues.

And how does any of this relate to the ridiculousness in Sweden that this thread is about? Does recognizing the difference between sex and gender make the statement about peeing standing up being a violent gesture of masculine dominance make any more sense?

[cybercoma]

And how does any of this relate to the ridiculousness in Sweden that this thread is about? Does recognizing the difference between sex and gender make the statement about peeing standing up being a violent gesture of masculine dominance make any more sense?

So you're making this thread about a stupid comment made by a feminist group, rather than the gender-neutrality concept?

[Bonam]

So you're making this thread about a stupid comment made by a feminist group, rather than the gender-neutrality concept?

The original post mentions something that is just as stupid: making schools pretend that there is no such thing as boys and girls. (The no peeing standing up thing is a natural extension). And taking away "free play" is a hugely destructive move as well.

People can be tolerant of various genders and sexual orientations without society around them pretending like these things simply don't exist.

[bleeding heart]

People can be tolerant of various genders and sexual orientations without society around them pretending like these things simply don't exist.

Sure, but no society--including Sweden--is pretending any such thing.

As MH has intimated, these sorts of discussions often seem to get overblown, as if they symbolize the whole issue(s) of which they are in actuality only a tiny fragment.

For example, when people complain about funding for the arts, they still bring up the "Piss Christ" controversy...and that occurred in 1987, and amounted to a few thousand dollars in tax-funded, controversial art.

In other words, these things approach, in importance, almost nothing; but become large in the public imaginary, often without really good reason.

Now, yes, I do agree that many seemingly small matters can and are used as slingshots to discuss larger issues; and that's what's happening here. That's cool. But there is no massive feminist movement to get boys to sit down while they pee. Of course not.

And incidentally (or not so incidentally) I note that these gender discussions always end up centering on things that are perceived as feminizing males...the crux of the outrage, in my view.

Edited April 18, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

I think the article is making it sound like this is more of an issue than it really is.

So you've based that opinion on reading one article? How would you know how much of an issue it really is without looking into it further?

Evidently "gender neutrality" is a hot topic in Sweden right now - and this is an issue. I don't understand how anyone who is familiar with "gender identity" can ascribe it to society. Studies have shown otherwise. For example, when a baby boy's circumcision was botched and he was told that he was a girl, he was raised as a girl, he never felt as if he were a girl. The same argument applies to transgenders - they don't believe they are what society tells them they must be. It's much deeper than that. So I have to wonder why some people think raising kids with "gender neutrality" will change any of that.

I've said it more than once and I've never seen it addressed - to me, gender neutrality implies that there is inherently something wrong with the fact that there are two genders - and I don't see the problem as just the fear of "feminizing boys" but also giving the message that there's something wrong with being a girl; that being a girl implies inferiority. I agree that toys etc. should be presented "gender neutral," not ascribed to one sex or the other, but kids aren't toys - and they aren't "gender neutral" - they are boys or girls.

I posted the video of the Canadian couple raising their baby "gender neutral" to show that this idea isn't unique to Sweden. Here's more: link

In the interview, Guillou also refers to the gender-neutral activists as "feminist activists who want to destroy our language."

Here in Canada, similar debates have taken place, such as the 2010 federal government review of the Canadian national anthem wording, reports the CBC. After considering making the lyrics more inclusive by not using the term "sons", negative public reaction led to the decision to leave the lyrics in their original form.

Last year in Toronto, a couple decided to give their baby a gender-neutral name, Storm, and keep its sex a secret, as a tribute to the freedom of choice. Public reaction to the much talked-about story was mixed.

Do you think Canada should adopt a similarly gender-neutral term for 'he' and 'she'? Or is this going too far?

I think that rather than pretend that there aren't differences, the differences should be presented positively, strongly.

Edited April 18, 2012 by American Woman

[Machjo]

So you've based that opinion on reading one article? How would you know how much of an issue it really is without looking into it further?

Evidently "gender neutrality" is a hot topic in Sweden right now - and this is an issue. I don't understand how anyone who is familiar with "gender identity" can ascribe it to society. Studies have shown otherwise. For example, when a baby boy's circumcision was botched and he was told that he was a girl, he was raised as a girl, he never felt as if he were a girl. The same argument applies to transgenders - they don't believe they are what society tells them they must be. It's much deeper than that. So I have to wonder why some people think raising kids with "gender neutrality" will change any of that.

I've said it more than once and I've never seen it addressed - to me, gender neutrality implies that there is inherently something wrong with the fact that there are two genders - and I don't see the problem as just the fear of "feminizing boys" but also giving the message that there's something wrong with being a girl; that being a girl implies inferiority. I agree that toys etc. should be presented "gender neutral," not ascribed to one sex or the other, but kids aren't toys - and they aren't "gender neutral" - they are boys or girls.

I posted the video of the Canadian couple raising their baby "gender neutral" to show that this idea isn't unique to Sweden. Here's more: link

In the interview, Guillou also refers to the gender-neutral activists as "feminist activists who want to destroy our language."

Here in Canada, similar debates have taken place, such as the 2010 federal government review of the Canadian national anthem wording, reports the CBC. After considering making the lyrics more inclusive by not using the term "sons", negative public reaction led to the decision to leave the lyrics in their original form.

Last year in Toronto, a couple decided to give their baby a gender-neutral name, Storm, and keep its sex a secret, as a tribute to the freedom of choice. Public reaction to the much talked-about story was mixed.

Do you think Canada should adopt a similarly gender-neutral term for 'he' and 'she'? Or is this going too far?

I think that rather than pretend that there aren't differences, the differences should be presented positively, strongly.

There is a difference between the Swedish and Canadian Anthem debates. In this Swedish debate, it's strictly a question of whether to raise boys and girld differently or identically; in the Canadian Anthem debate, while one group was debating eliminating gender references in the Anthem, another was arguing from a Conservative standpoint of returning to our roots (since the proposal was to return to the original anthem as worded by Weir, which happened to be more gender-neutral than the new modified version).

[Guest American Woman]

There is a difference between the Swedish and Canadian Anthem debates.

I agree.

[huh]

We live in a perennially violent world that appears to increasingly dysfunctional on many levels. I'm just surprised more people aren't pulling out different stops in an attempt to turn things around.

I think what we really need is a way to raise kids into ideologically-neutral adults.

I suppose im an average male, i suppose that comes with some baggage, but then that's the way nature intended it, if you (if your male) don't want to be an average male, that's your choice, you aren't alone, they are plenty of men out there who behave like women, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Guest Manny]

I agree with American Women here, this is going too far. It's like saying there is something wrong with a boy being masculine or a girl being feminine. This all seems designed to advance a specific political agenda, not to put forward what's in the best interest of children. I say let them be what they wish to be, play with toys as they wish to be. Those are just natural things and someone who has advanced knowledge about equality or womens rights, they have to realize they are much further along in their thinking than a little child could understand. We all have to grow and experience things in our own time.

In my view better to educate children that they have equal opportunity as a boy or a girl, but to do that they need to be able to understand themselves for who they really are. Not what someone else wishes them to be.

But I also don't see anything wrong with girls toys and boys toys. not saying a girl is not allowed to play with boys toys, or play baseball but we shouldn't eliminate toys just because they express a gender. What's wrong with a little dolly?

Edited April 18, 2012 by Manny

[Guest American Woman]

But I also don't see anything wrong with girls toys and boys toys. not saying a girl is not allowed to play with boys toys, or play baseball but we shouldn't eliminate toys just because they express a gender. What's wrong with a little dolly?

I have to clarify that I see nothing wrong with the toys themselves; I meant that I agree with presenting toys in a gender neutral way. Girls enjoy toy cars too and boys enjoy playing with dolls, yet ads for toys are usually very gender specific. In other words, I don't think toys themselves express a gender - I think it's the way they are presented. Also, I think that a girl dressed as Batman for Halloween likely wouldn't cause anyone to bat an eye, but a boy dressed as Wonder Woman? - I think that would. I agree that the reaction to both should be the same, so I agree with presenting play/toys/dress up/etc. as gender neutral.

[bud]

The problem with discussing these things on this forum was illustrated perfectly in the thread about the transgendered Miss Universe competitor. There are far too many people on this forum that do not know or refuse to accept generally accepted facts about sex, gender, and sexuality. When people ignore these facts, it is impossible to have any kind of discussion about these issues. People still think that there's a sex dichotomy--male and female--and that's all there is to sex, sexuality, gender and gender expression. Birds and the bees--end of story. Reality shows that this is not at all the case. All of these things have their own respective continuums.

For instance, biological sex is not just a binary of male (XY) and female (XX). There are many people that are born intersexed, that is some combination of the two. There are certain chromosomal 'disorders' where a person is born neither XX nor XY. For example, persons with Klinefelter's Syndrome are born with XXY chromsomes. There's an androgyny syndrome that some infants are born with where they have clearly female genitalia, but carry the male XY chromosomes. These things happen and the fall outside our general notion of the male (XY: penis and testes) and female (XX: vagina and ovaries) binary. Thus, there is no biological binary of male and female. There is a continuum from male to female, passing through variation of intersexuality.

Gender identity is what a person believes about their self. It has to do with the hormonal levels a person has and how they interpret their gender. This is completely distinct from the biological sex a person is born with. Someone could be born female, but hormonally and psychologically truly believe that they are a male trapped in a woman's body. This again is a continuum, as there are some that don't believe they are either male or female. There are people that believe they're both, others that believe they're neither, some that believe they're a third gender, still others believe that their identity is constantly in moving between the two, and finally there are some that believe their gender overlaps to varying degrees. So there are many variations between believing that you are man or woman. This too is not a binary.

Gender expression is the gender that a person presents. This too is often seen as being binary between masculine or feminine. Again, there are varying degrees to masculinity and feminity and it doesn't matter what your biological sex is. There's also a third option of androgyny, which is neither masculine nor feminine or in some cases both masculine and feminine. It too is not a binary.

Sexual orientation has to do with who you are attracted to based on their sex or gender as it relates to your own. This is also sometimes mistaken as a binary. Some people believe that you're either gay or straight. Others believe that nobody is truly gay. It's generally accepted that there's a third option, bisexual. However, there are many misconceptions about that. Some people believe bisexuals are gay. They're not. Moreover, there are people that are neither; they're asexual. Asexuals have no attraction to any sex or gender. Again, sexual orientation is not as simple as people either being gay or straight.

Until people can understand these various categories and the complexity of them all, a rational discussion about these sorts of gender issues is almost impossible. The misconceptions just get in the way of what's going on and having any sort of open discourse about the issues. At the most basic level, I would be satisfied with everyone realizing that sex and gender are two different things. That would be one tiny step towards actually having a knowledgeable discussion about these issues.

it's a shame that quality posts like the above so often go to waste because of some people's inability to have a real and open-minded discussion.

Edited April 18, 2012 by bud

[BC_chick]

Personally, I very much doubt that this modification of the language is going to have a serious impact on gender awareness. I think it's more innate than anything spoken language could ever influence. I didn't discuss gender at all with my daughter and by 18 months she was aware of it.

Still, the results should be interesting.