The Prince has a penis

Has this conversation seriously turned into a talk about gender and labelling him as a boy. Jeez...I think some people are being far too serious. It's a baby. They've said he's a boy. End of story for now.

 

WHAAAAT?!?? I TOTALLY care and there's not one hint of sarcasm in my voice AT ALL! :dry:

 

Personally, I do find it a tad annoying. Not this case alone but I'm not a big fan of people saying "we have a boy" or "we have a girl" because that's what's in their pants (or, I guess, will be). It's like if they just said "our kid is straight" based on it being more widespread. You don't know that. You are making an assumption that may not prove true. Why label a kid who can't even talk yet? Let them decide for themselves. Sorry about the short rant, just a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

 

So, you think you shouldn't announce whether or not a baby's a boy or girl until they decide?

That's ridiculous. He has a penis, thus he's a boy.

 

You don't seem to contradict what I said lol. My ideal world would be genderless, but the world isn't like that atm, unfortunately.

 

No, I don't think it's wrong. As of now, since the baby had a penis, it IS a boy, and why shouldn't the public have a right to know? Besides, they're just throwing a big deal about it because they're excited, I don't think it's anything to criticize them about, and to be fair, most people, especially those who aren't familiar with LGBT issues, have trouble distinguishing between gender and sex. In any case, the idea that gender-assignment is constricting is understandable, but why should it always be a bad thing? Some of us like falling into a gender category because it's a part of who we are, and it gives us an identity. The prince can always adjust to his true gender and/or sex as he gets older. I mean, given the circumstances it's not likely that the prince would deviate from the public's expectations, but times are changing, it is by all means possible.

 

I understand that we need to make an assumption until the kid says otherwise, but those of you who're saying that penis = boy are kinda pissing me off.

 

Agreed

 

Really? Then what about transgender people, genderless people and people who fall into any other gender (or lack thereof) that doesn't fall into male/female?

 

My opinion is that if you have a penis you are male, and if you have a vagina you are female. This is totally disregarding the emotional aspect of gender. That being said, having a penis doesn't necessarily make you a boy, but it could make you a girl or anything else.

I also think that when a child is delivered, it should be stereotyped based on its genitals. So if it has a penis, it should be labelled as a 'boy', and if it has a vagina it should be labelled as a 'girl'. I find it quite demeaning to be so overly cautious and protective and not give a baby a gender at all. Like, calling a baby 'it' because you want to avoid the baby being confused and unhappy if they happen to be uncomfortable in a gender role?

As human beings we sort of need stereotypes to understand the world around us. By telling your penis-procuring baby it is a boy, he will then know what a boy usually is. I feel you should also tell your baby what it usually means to be a girl, which is procuring a vagina.

When you do this, you make your baby aware of their gender, which in turn is constructed around their sex. From then on, if they are dysphoric, like "oh, i have a penis mom, and you said boys have penises, but I feel like a girl and hate being a boy!" then the child would know what the problem is, and that is because they were educated on what they were and what they were perceived to be. In this case I feel like stereotyping would be a good idea as it clarifies what it usually means to be a girl or a boy and could lead to minimal confusion and dysphoria down the line.

In summary, putting young children in stereotyped "boxes" should continue, as it educates them on who they are based on what their genitals are, and if they are dysphoric, they know exactly why and are not left confused and unknowing for more years than necessary.

 

Okay, so from my understanding, here's what you think should happen:

Every person born with a penis should drive monster trucks, get ripped to the teeth, be the QB of their local football team, have an insane sex drive to penetrate anything that moves, show off every bit of themselves, have no morals whatsoever and be a complete dunce yet somehow be able to build an insane, well-oiled machine.

Every person born with a vagina should dress up with lots of frilly dresses, cake enough makeup on their face to create tiers of layers and impress a clown, have an hour-glass shape body (or 36-24-36), contradict everything they say with the next sentence, get straight A's on their tests and still have no skills to show.

You should be running around in the streets completely naked and hairless waving a rainbow flag shouting at the top of your lungs, "FABULOUS!" over and over again, only to stop at the hottest nearest guy you see, flick your wrist and say "Hay, girlfriend,"

I'm sorry, but those are the stereotypes.

 

First of all, thank you sooo much for being rude towards me and attacking ME personally!

Second of all, when I say we should stereotype our newborn children, I don't mean forcing them to be all into monster trucks or barbie dolls, I mean just exposing them to the pre-conceived notions of what it is to be a gender and what it usually means to have a penis or vagina. From then on the child would decide, at an age appropriate for thinking about their sex and gender.

I'm not saying, AT ALL, that kids should be forced into playing with monster trucks or barbie dolls or told what they should or should not be, I just think parents should sort of tell their kinds what their sex is and their corresponding gender, just so the kids could have a clarified view of who they are and whether or not they like it or not.

Let me clarify for a final time: Kids should be taught about what is between their legs, and what society thinks of them based on whats between their legs. Furthermore, parents should explain to their kids what it means to have the opposite genitalia and what society thinks of that!
So let's say that Mary and John had a baby girl named Jessica, with a vagina obviously. I think that they should buy her whatever they want, but they should especially expose her to pink or girly things. Next should come the explaining.

"Hey Jessica, you're a girl, you have a vagina between your legs, so we bought you pink, frilly stuff."
"Your cousin Jack is a boy, and has a penis between his legs, so his parents bought him blue, boyish stuff."
Of course Mary and John would continue to educate their daughter on her sexual organs and societal constructs around her organs, as well as maybe exposing her to boyish toys or gender neutral toys down the line (i didn't really mention this last post). And when she is older she may finally decide what toys she likes and how to properly align herself with her preferred gender.

All in all, parents should educate and expose their children to stereotyped toys and educate them on what is between their legs and how society contructs their gender around said genitalia.

I'm not talking about FORCING them into gender stereotypes their whole childhood like you accused me of. Seriously from your reply it makes it seem like you barely read my previous post and got way too angry or offended. Your reply was very rude and that last bit about gay stereotyping was completely unnecessary and borderlined on a straight-up personal attack.

 

^ I know what you are trying to say, but you are ignoring A TON of variables when it comes to sex and gender. Not only that, but you are connecting gender with gender expressions, and then connecting it to gender roles. All of which is a bit outdated.

Gender expression, gender roles and gender should not, in any way, be dictated by a person's sex.

So, what to do when your child is born?

You can simply raise then in a gender-neutral space that is accepting to any gender that the child might end up. This has been done for years in many countries with very little obstacles.

The question is, why should you expose someone with a vagina to pink and "girly" stuff? Why not expose them to the world and everything that they have the option to love? What if the person is indeed a cis woman, but still prefers blue and boyish stuff?

Also, what are you going to teach your kid if they are intersex?

boy and girl = gender
male and female = sex

 

Okay. I did read your response the whole way through, and I still disagree. Here's why:

Kids aren't these little robots and puppets we control and program. To a degree, they kind of are. but they're not. They're human beings with the curiosity of a chimp. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. In fact, in lots of cases, that's actually a good thing. But what I'm talking about is this:

A kid, say, Bobby, will see this really cool toy his friend Jim has. He'll play with it a bit, and decide he wants it. A couple days later at the store, he sees it. "Mommy, mommy! Can I have that?" And from there, the parent decides. Sometimes the answer is "Sure, Bobby. You've been good this week" Sometimes the answer is "No, Bobby. Throwing your ice cream at others at the restaurant does not give you special gifts"

There still are parents that say "No, Bobby. That's a girl toy." and leave it at that. Bobby wants a girl toy, but his mom said "no" simply because it's a toy where girls are the target audience. Perhaps she doesn't want him ridiculed for it? Sure. But I'd still find it abusive because she's denying Bobby to be who he/she really is.

I will agree that kids do need to be taught about what's between their legs. How else are they going to learn how to use the restroom?

But kids will quickly learn what society expects of them, and decide to conform or not to conform.


I still disagree with stereotypes as a whole, though. Because of stereotyping, millions of people have been abused, beaten, or killed because they were black, gay, a "sexist" boy, a "bitch" girl, etc.

Society has this strict set of rules that absolutely nobody can follow, because everyone is a different person with a different background. We're all individual people with our own goals that tie in with other people's own goals. Because of stereotyping (and religion), society has become a monstrous beast that expects and assumes something of someone. And when just a tiny little thing is out of place or seems like it might be, BAM! they're dead.

That's why I put in the gay stereotype part. It wasn't a personal attack against you. I don't expect you to go around waving a rainbow flag screaming "fabulous" at the top of your lungs. Hell, if I saw you, you'd probably be somewhere eating a sandwich. Drinking coffee. I dunno. Point being I don't expect you to follow stereotypes. Why? Because you're an individual human being. And stereotypes make large generalizations about people. That's also why it kills. If we kept following stereotypes, we'd just keep on feeding the biggest assassin that's been at large for thousands of years.

 

Are we SERIOUSLY segueing over someonthing that can barely move?!?

IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE AS WHEN YOU MEET SOMEONE NEW, STRAIGHT UNTIL PROVEN GAY. or in this case, CIS UNTIL PROVEN TRANS. The odds are low, so odds are no, it won't be TRANS. It's stupid to say otherwise. I respect the TRANS* community but, seriously it's the parents choice now, until they(baby) reaches age of reason, and says different. THE BABY IS A MALE.

 

Okay. So. I've been debating people left and right here. Here's my stance on the actual topic (which hasn't changed since the beginning):

The baby has a penis. Okay. That's perfectly clear. It's a tangible ding-dong. Touching it probably won't make him cum, but maybe make him giggle a bit. So. Here's where I lie:

His sex is male. That's where the penis comes in. He has a penis, so his SEX is male.

His gender is up for him to decide later on. Is there a chance he'll be transgender? Yes. There is. Is there a high chance? No. Scientifically, it's not likely. But at the same time, there is still a chance. Am I going to assume he's trans? No. I'm not. Am I going to assume he's cisgendered? No. I'm not. That would be wrong of me, considering I don't live inside his brain.

 

Its actually a huge deal, but its something that us cisgender people will take for granted.

The gender that you are assigned will determine a shit ton of things that you will be allowed to do in the future 20 years of your live. That alone is HUGE! Then you have the fact that trans* population suffers from depression from being misgendered since they are very little and many of them will never make it to 20 years old because there is no way in hell that they can come out and be happy.

So yes, gendering kids from an early stage can be tremendously harmful and is something that you can easily try and avoid.

 

Appeal to probability is not a good argument.

 

I don't think this is a good mindset to have. You shouldn't be assuming someone's sexual orientation until proven otherwise, nor you should be assuming someone's gender identity until proven otherwise. Let individuals identify themselves as they choose before coming to conclusions.

Anyway I also disagree overall with the notion that this is only relevant with regard to trans issues. Not only trans people are harmed by perpetuating tired gender norms that put people in one of two little boxes. Forcing a gender identity upon a young child is wrong in and of itself, we should be working to tear down gender norms and encourage unique individual development instead of trying to make even little babies fit tired old stereotypes of masculinity and femininity.

 

I don't like it either, but it is something that people in the public eye have to put up with. My sister asked about if he were gay, and my mom simply replied "he wouldn't be." I guess that's just what it's like with royalty