Torontonians Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been the subject of plenty of debate since they decided to keep the biological sex of their four-month-old child, Storm, a secret. They plan to raise a “genderless” child.
“In not telling the gender of my precious baby,” Stocker wrote, “I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”
As was the case in the past with stories of children who didn’t conform to clear gender roles, some people are livid at the parents’ choice, saying that it can only cause confusion for the child.
Some news outlets have deemed the “genderless baby” concept a cruel experiment, one with severe potential to mess up the child. But what are they so afraid of? That Storm won’t know whether to pick up a doll or a ball during playtime, or that, when faced with the “girl” or “boy” toy option for a McDonald’s Happy Meal, the child will get too confused and cry? Instead of imposing societal norms about gender on their baby, Stocker and Witterick are allowing Storm to express natural preferences. Storm can choose the doll or the ball, but won’t be expected to choose either; the child won’t be forced into choosing between following our culture’s strict gender codes or following the child’s own preference.
An article today in The Guardian features a point/counterpoint about raising “genderless” children. Oliver James’ offers a good summary of the more thoughtful counter-response to Storm’s upbringing (as opposed to the dozens of unthoughtful, hateful responses expressed elsewhere):
It is true that the gender can be concealed from visitors and strangers, at least in the early years. But the cost of doing so, and of parents attempting to ignore their own projections, could be massive confusion for the child. Identity has to come from somewhere. Gender is one of the bulwarks of social identity.
It is a fantasy to suppose every individual can find their “true self” independent of their relationship with parents and society. Unless you want the rudderless blank of an institutionalized child, accepting gender as one of the signposts for who your child is seems not only inevitable, but also desirable. Far more important than rejecting gender altogether is that parents understand their own gender-related unconscious projections.
But what James and others get wrong is that Witterick and Stocker are being conscious of their gender-related projections. By concealing Storm’s gender, they’re ensuring that no one else is projecting gender-related biases on the child. People won’t call Storm “Princess” or “Champ” solely because of the baby’s biological sex, and their expectations for how a baby boy and a baby girl should be treated won’t come into play.
I’d love to see my child be able to escape from society’s forced gender roles, freely trying out “boy” and “girl” things for the first few years of life. If it’s a boy who likes playing princess, like Sarah Hoffman’s adorable son, I don’t want him being attacked for being too queer. And if it’s a daughter who likes playing sports, I don’t want her to be pigeon-holed as a tomboy. Storm’s parents are just taking more preemptive steps in not allowing other people to categorize their child.
(Photo mumka)
About Adam Polaski
Okay, I’ll bite.
The problem I have with this so-called experiment is that part of what we are comes from what we must struggle to overcome.
When I was growing up, there were certain societal expectations on what girls should and should not do. Sadly, it wasn’t that long ago. Part of defined *me* was challenging those norms. I was a girl who rode horses bareback, beat the boys at baseball, played geek games, played flute because I liked the sound, read romances, and dressed as I pleased, from jeans to dresses. I can cook a gourmet meal and I’m an excellent shot. I can fix a drain and embroider.
Some of those things, I would never have done if I hadn’t been contrary enough to want to prove that I *could* do them and still be feminine.
When I think genderless, I think of those horrible 70′s science fiction films in which everyone, somehow, ended up wearing those featureless white bodysuits. I think LACK of individuality. I think forced conformity.
I’m a feminist. I’m very proud of being a woman. I wonder how we got to the point where a woman’s sexuality (or a man’s, for that matter) was considered wrong and threatening. I’m not overly socialized. I just don’t think putting people into a blender and making everyone homogeneous is the answer.
In the absence of conflict, in the absence of challenge, we are nothing. These people aren’t raising a genderless child. They’re raising a blank slate. The *harder* thing to do would be to allow their child to develop his or her own identity — and encourage them to be open and accepting.
MY goal with MY daughter is to teach her to dress in ways which make her feel confident and proud and which please her — be that in skull-bedecked grungewear or lace and flowers. I will teach her to look at people for what they are and what they can accomplish. I will also teach her how to find her own identity. I expect her to struggle. I expect her to fight. I expect her to recognize the opinions of others, to understand the crushing weight of peer pressure…and learn to stand against them.
Raising your child in a vacuum isn’t a challenge. It’s a copout.
Raising a genderless baby is all well and good when it comes to telling other people nothing about the child’s gender. At four months old it really could just be a question of pink and/or blue jumpers. It’s another matter when the child is able to communicate and ask questions. What I am curious about is how the parents would handle the fact that mom and dad (sorry, gender-laden terms!) are each from a particular gender. How does one answer anatomical questions like why do I have one of these but only one of my parents does? (Yes, I know physiological characteristics and gender are not the same thing, but they are frequently connected within societies.)
Maybe it’s a shame that many societies force children to make a binary choice between two gender identities, but I’m wondering what some of the alternatives would look like. I wonder if Storm will be allowed to enter any bathroom, any locker room, any health club that Storm wants when Storm is old enough to choose. I hope Storm would be eligible to apply to any single-sex school that Storm wanted to attend. Would Storm as a world-class athlete be free to choose between competing in the men’s and women’s events in the Olympics? I think I’m keeping an open mind, and I appreciate the revolutionary move here, but I foresee all kinds of social complications.
What would really rock the boat is if Storm could choose among multiple gender identities at different times in life, depending on the situation. That would make Storm a very handy business executive for the purposes of equal opportunity goals. I know my co-ed softball team could use more people who could count as different genders on different weekends. Damn these tyrannical, rigid gender definitions forcing my team to forfeit!
To those who automatically think these parents are wrong: What about children who are born with an ambiguous gender/intersex? Doesnt it make more sense to raise them as gender neutral as is reasonably possible while being sensitive to the child growing into and expressing their own gender in their own time?
Remember Bruce Reimer who lost his penis as a baby due to circumcision and a gender ideologue, Dr. John Money suggested that he be brought up as a girl, that went horribly wrong. Bruce instinctively knew deep down that he was a boy, and he eventually took his own life?
This experiments is irresponsibly, IMO.
David Reimer is always brought up in cases such as these, and his story is truly horrific. But it is much more than just a circumcision gone wrong. Dr. Money was a horror who, among other things forced David and his brother to perform pretend sex acts on one another in order to ‘properly socialise’ them into their respective sex/gender roles (and also forced them to watch porn and look at adult magazines in their early years). To compare these parents with that is just not possible.
But extrapolating from one case does not a broad generalisation make. Many studies also confirmt that there are many more similarities between men and women than there are differences, thus suggesting that the strict codes of gender that define the contemporary western world have no basis in biology at all (to wit: in the 1970s, there was not nearly the clearcut distinction there is today between ‘boys’ toys’ and ‘girls’ toys’).
The parents are not denying their child anything. Quite the opposite; they are enabling the child to develop her/his [problems of language here - something that trans folk butt up against daily] own sense of gender. Gender is, after all, a performance. And some people will fit neatly into the gender conventions imposed by society and many others will not fit so neatly.
There is a very complex relationship between sex and gender. The choice these parents have made allows for an exploration of that very complexity, and it’s something that many others are just not brave enough to do. I applaud them.
But extrapolating from one case does not a broad generalisation make.
Except when all the supporters of Money’s theories use Money’s claim of success with David Reimer as “proof” about gender identity.
That said, David’s case does demonstrate that efforts to circumvent a child’s sex/gender through via a forced identity does have a detrimental effect on that child. Money’s attempts to make David into a girl did not work. Despite everything Money and David’s parents did to “make” David into Brenda, David always behaved in a masculine way. While they succeeding in hiding David’s sex from him, they did not succeed in changing his own perception of his sex or gender. If there is any evidence that this kind of experimental reassignment does not work, David Reimer is the best example.
These parents operate under the assumption that the child will never ask questions. Unless they keep this child secluded from everyone and never mention anything about males and females around the child, eventually the child will classify his or her sex/gender.
The other thing here is that we are dealing with a real person, not some hypothetical feminist thought experiment. A real child is actually living this out, and will have to live with what results occur.
“These parents operate under the assumption that the child will never ask questions. Unless they keep this child secluded from everyone and never mention anything about males and females around the child, eventually the child will classify his or her sex/gender.”
Umm, that is the whole point? To let the child classify his or her self as opposed to society forcing it upon them, they aren’t trying to make Storm genderless, just allowing Storm to determine their own gender and gender expression.
eg. Dresses are typically a “girl’s thing”, so they expose Storm and allow him or her to try them and decide for themselves if they like them, regardless of Storm’s sex, meaning that if Storm is a boy and doesn’t like dresses then they aren’t going to try and force it.
I mean it’s very simply to understand what the parents are doing but people seem to be getting the basic understanding of it wrong.
em
“This experiment is irresponsible, IMO”
One thing this article fails to mention is that gender and sex are two completely different things. Of course all babies are genderless, as gender is a socially constructed thing, but babies are not sexless.
Blue and pink is not the problem with gender identity. Genderless means no gender but that is not what children see. Children see males and females, and as toddlers accept that “difference” naturally and without confusion if allowed to.
Anatomically correct dolls (as well as diversity-correct dolls) offer children the reality they see, and will always have to respect in humans. Learning early their own identity strengthens that identity rather than confusing them with genderless possibilities that no human or animals enjoy. Genderless means to add the potential for object-driven identity as if inanimate. This is never the case for humans, nor should it be. Gender identity is one of the most important features of humans that toddlers must learn in preparation for youth and adulthood. Ignoring it is erroneous, as if the decision was made by a child alone, not biology.