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)
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… Read more »
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.
em
“This experiment is irresponsible, IMO”
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »