Gender change as a child

[Empired]

therefore parents or whoever else should teach bullies not to be ignorant instead of trying to change the mindset of a young boy/girl who hasn't done anything wrong

I know that and you know that, but most parents of bullies don't. I understand your frustrations jurvy but expecting bullying to be eradicated "because it should be" is an impossible expectation. Instead we should be teaching our children to be accepting of others and resilient to unavoidable bullying.

[FlyingJesus]

You've lit just said "we can't stop people from being ignorant so we should try to stop them from being ignorant"

[Empired]

You've lit just said "we can't stop people from being ignorant so we should try to stop them from being ignorant"

what no
I thought i was saying you can't make other kids stop being ignorant but you can influence your own children. you can't stop other peoples' kids being bullies but you can stop your own

??????????

[mrwoooooooo]

That's what happens when you name your child Shiloh :rolleyes:

Edited by mdport. (Forum Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly!

wasn't a pointless post. thanks

Edited by Calum0812 (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly, thanks!

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't allow it, no - and hopefully it would just be a phase.

Well done also to those in this thread who have argued, despite running the risk on this forum (which doesn't reflect the general population at all) of being called every name under the sun. The fact is that a little girl, unless a tomboy, should be encouraged and should want to dress and play as a little girl and vice versa for a little boy. Every parent wants their children to be normal, and hopefully guide them towards that... if in the longer run it doesn't work then that is sad and that's another topic, but at younger ages it is up to the parent how the child dresses and not the child. Boys and girls are different.

Little Johnny shouldn't be wearing his sisters knickers or skirt.

[FlyingJesus]

The fact is that a little girl, unless a tomboy, should be encouraged and should want to dress and play as a little girl and vice versa for a little boy.

Why is this? I know you think that anything other than lumberjack boys and housewife girls is some abomination and we should all worship the Victorian factory life but you never come up with anything other than "because it/they/we should". Then again you also state that every parent wants their child to be normal as opposed to happy, so I guess we shouldn't take your thoughts on parenting too seriously

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is this? I know you think that anything other than lumberjack boys and housewife girls is some abomination and we should all worship the Victorian factory life but you never come up with anything other than "because it/they/we should". Then again you also state that every parent wants their child to be normal as opposed to happy, so I guess we shouldn't take your thoughts on parenting too seriously

Well exactly, because it undermines a society blending boys and girls so that men act like complete wimps. Virtually all successful civilisations need the alpha male to provide and defend for them just as it is our basic human instinct that goes right back to when the males protected the small tribal group, it has been that way throughout history: dressing little Johnny up in a dress doesn't make you progressive, clever or compassionate. Infact, it is very strange and only confuses the poor children, as well as undermines his confidence in himself as a man.

Boys need role models to aspire too (Nelson, footballers, Churchill, masculine superheroes) & girls the same. Boys & girls are different, I won't pretend otherwise.

[FlyingJesus]

So you think girls are wimps, and that there's somehow still a need in metropolitan society for hunter-gatherer warlike type males en masse...

And no, what undermines ones confidence "as a man" is being told that the things you love somehow make you less of one. Furthermore dresses have only been seen as unmanly for the past like 200 years so either you want to stick with ancient tradition and animal instinct or you want modern enforcements, pick one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you think girls are wimps, and that there's somehow still a need in metropolitan society for hunter-gatherer warlike type males en masse...

Females aren't as masculine naturally and thus for example don't inspire leadership or strength in the way a man does. The modern feminists can deny it all they want, but even the most successful women in leadership have adopted masculine traits in order to be able to compete on the level of men: I mention Elizabeth I below but could just as easily mention Margaret Thatcher who shaped her public image very much as a man. Why? Because masculinity by nature provides for good leadership and that is just the natural order.

It's interesting that the degenerate side of this debate wants to have all the little boys dress as their sisters and vice versa, and basically bring up a generation of losers - which is just what happened in education where by social scientists said not to push children into a certain field because they should do whatever makes them feel good: so you have a load of losers prancing about on stage feeling good about themselves meanwhile the kids in China and the far-east are learning how to add up and spell. Which civilisation is going to come out on top? And it's the same with this, will a civilisation that tells its children (especially the men) to dress up like girls and act like girls if it makes them feel good survive or will a civilisation that teaches its men to build character and act like men survive? It's a no-brainer.

And no, what undermines ones confidence "as a man" is being told that the things you love somehow make you less of one. Furthermore dresses have only been seen as unmanly for the past like 200 years so either you want to stick with ancient tradition and animal instinct or you want modern enforcements, pick one.

Don't give me this revisionist rubbish that boys have only been seen as masculine in the last 200 years since the Victorian or Regency era, complete rubbish. Even Elizabeth I as a female monarch made huge efforts to be seen as a masculine monarch which you can see in her portraits and so on. The truth is, masculinity comes naturally more to boys (with some exceptions) and the more feminine side to women: anybody who has a standard family (aka two parents together the HORROR!) knows this, they know that a mother and father are both different but important in different ways.

So I won't be dressing my little lad up in a dress, no.

[FlyingJesus]

masculinity by nature provides for good leadership and that is just the natural order.

Partial truth. This combined with your use of the term "alpha male" shows that you don't really know what you're talking about past a few buzzwords, as otherwise you'd be aware that an alpha is a singular leader of an entire group - you cannot have a whole society of alphas, and therefore your ideal of forcing everyone to be the same cookie-cutter macho man falls flat

It's interesting that the degenerate side of this debate wants to have all the little boys dress as their sisters and vice versa

[citation needed]
I know lying about what your opponents have said is your main form of debate, but seriously no-one has said anything like what you're suggesting is being said

Don't give me this revisionist rubbish that boys have only been seen as masculine in the last 200 years since the Victorian or Regency era, complete rubbish.

Again not what I said, you are really quite useless in debates. What I said is that men have only been taught not to wear dresses in the west in the past couple of centuries, which absolutely is correct as any dress historian can tell you. You leaping to the assumption that I then meant that masculinity hasn't existed before then shows exceptionally poor reading and comprehension on your part

masculinity comes naturally more to boys (with some exceptions) and the more feminine side to women: anybody who has a standard family (aka two parents together the HORROR!) knows this, they know that a mother and father are both different but important in different ways.

So I won't be dressing my little lad up in a dress, no.

So again you're back to "that's just the way it is!" and "this is what we all HAVE to do" without giving a real reason. Warrior/defender males and housewife/babymaker females are not roles that are necessary to stick with in modern society (something you claim to be a supporter of) as we do not face natural threats the way humans used to, and going by your own biological determinist theory all of the things that you think of as masculine or feminine are going to be inherent in the child anyway, so their fashion decisions won't affect them anyway