We previously followed the bizarre story of Pop — a child being raised genderless by his Swedish parents. Now, Canadians Kathy Witterick and David Stocker are raising a five-month-old child, named Storm, and are hiding his gender to raise the child as an “it.”
Witterick and Stocker would not even tell the grandparents the gender of storm in their crusade against gender stereotyping.
The parents told friends that their decision was “a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime.” In the article below, they are quoted as saying that “[t]he strong, lightning-fast, vitriolic response was a shock” and that “Storm will need to understand his/her own sex and gender to navigate this world (the outcry has confirmed it!).”
This appears more driven by the parents’ social engineering efforts but no leading children psychologist or expert has supported such a course, which can have highly negative consequences of the child’s development. This seems much more about the parents than their child.
I will acknowledge that I have written columns (here and here) that squarely put me on the nature side of the nature/nurture divide. However, this seems better suited for a topic of fun debate at a dinner party than a serious plan for raising a child. It also raises the question of whether the best interests of the child warrants an intervention by the government — given the general view that this is in fact harmful for a child. I tend to favor parental rights in such cases and would support the right of these parents in this case. That does not, however, diminish my strong emotions in hearing about this case and the potential harm to this child. This strikes me as a couple taking a radical, low-grade concept of social engineering and using their own child to prove their point.
Source: ABC
Jonathan Turley
hello!,I really like your writing very much! proportion we communicate extra about your article on AOL? I need a specialist in this area to resolve my problem. Maybe that is you! Having a look forward to see you.
Just a thought: I knew a kid in Junior High who while she was born a female identified as a male.
I’m a lesbian trapped in a mans body 🙂
Just a thought: I knew a kid in Junior High who while she was born a female identified as a male. Oddly (considering I grew up in a really conservative town), nobody had a problem with this, except when she went into the boys locker or bathrooms. Not all gender issues deal with social norms.
‘Choice’ for Baby Storm not simple
Choosing not to choose for the child is a choice made by the parents and may have serious consequences
By Margaret Somerville
(Margaret Somerville is founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.)
Vancouver Sun
May 31, 2011
http://www.vancouversun.com/Choice+Baby+Storm+simple/4866312/story.html
Excerpt:
Media reports quote the parents, Witterick and Stocker, as wanting their children to be “gender creative.” In trying to further this goal, they allow the two older boys “to make their own choices” with respect to clothing and hair styles (they wear pink feather boas, dresses and braids). As a result the boys are often mistaken for girls and other children do not want to play with “that girl-boy.”
The sex of the baby, Storm, has not been disclosed to anyone other than the midwife who delivered the baby and his/her father and two siblings, who have been told to keep it secret (which also raises ethical issues). They refer to the baby as “Z,” not he or she. Even the grandparents don’t know Storm’s sex.
To analyze this situation, ethically and legally, the basic presumption from which we start is that the parents have a right to make decisions concerning their children and obligations to them in doing so.
That right can be displaced, however, when the parents’ conduct constitutes neglect or abuse. My guess is that most people would be very reluctant to argue that’s the case here, but, at the same time, many believe that these children are going to have a difficult path in life, as a result of the nature of their upbringing.
So what do we need to consider trying to gain some insights as to whether the parents’ present approach is acceptable?
The parents seem to believe that children “can make choices to be whoever they want to be,” including regarding their gender, and they are giving them the opportunity to do this. Are the parents, however, conducting a social experiment on their children -as it has been described -a social experiment of nurture? If so, the principles governing experimentation are especially stringent when children are the subjects, because they are classified as “vulnerable persons.” Ethics requires that where there is a conflict that prevents honouring everyone’s rights or claims, we must decide so as to give a preference to the most vulnerable people.
As with all experimentation, we can only find out later what harm may result, but we have obligations, at the least, to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm and we might learn from past unethical experimentation in this regard. Sexologist and psychologist Dr. John Money’s experiment on David Reimer is a tragic example. In the infamous case, Reimer was sexually reassigned after a botched circumcision, but he lived a tormented life and finally committed suicide.
I suggest that we might also gain insights from asking: Are the parents doing this for the kids, as they claim, or are they doing it for themselves? My guess is that they would say and probably believe it’s for the kids, but that the main motivation is their own ideological and political beliefs. When the “best interests” of the children and adults beliefs in such regard are concordant in such regards, there is no problem, but when they clash there is. The situation is very similar to a physician asking a patient to participate in a medical experiment. Long ago, as a protective measure, we started to teach patients to ask doctors who approached them to be research subjects: “Are you doing this for me doctor or am I doing it for you?” These kids need someone to ask their parents that question for them.
It merits noting that there is an ethical difference between parents having children who are non-conformist in some ways and intentionally making them non-conformist as in this case. As well, choosing not to choose for the child is a choice by the parents.
The strong emphasis of the parents on the idea of choice and on giving their children choice, even at such a young age, is also noteworthy. In many ways it seems naive. It is a rejection of the belief that there is a natural reality, including with respect to our own selves, with which we need to live in harmony and balance. Far from everything that makes each of us as we are and matters to us as a human being is open to choice. The new field of epigenetics is showing us, from one scientific perspective, just how complex the interaction of nature and nurture is in forming who we are and who we become.
There is also arrogance in ignoring millennia of human wisdom of what we need to become as fully actualized persons as we can be. Before the “choice armies” come after me, let me quickly add this does not mean that we must not change or not continue to evolve socially, including with regard to respect for girls and women, but in seeking to do good, we must be careful that we do not do serious harm to individuals or society.
“However, I get the sense that they are seeking publicity…” -DigitalDave
http://www.parentdish.com/2011/05/31/parents-of-gender-neutral-baby-storm-speak-out/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|67036
Reforming society to create a better place for your children to live is a good thing — one way of expressing The American Dream.
On the other hand, using your own child as a tool to change society, that’s simply despicable. Whether or not that is what’s really happing here, it IS what I think most people are reacting to.
Personally, I think it’s fine to ask a new parent what the gender of their new baby is simply so that you can think to the future for this child. But as for the here-and-now, that baby won’t care until it is old enough to speak and walk. Until then, just focus on surrounding the child with love and warmth. If that is what Ms Witterick and Mr Stocker are asking for, then I can agree. However, I get the sense that they are seeking publicity…
“This strikes me as a couple taking a radical, low-grade concept of social engineering and using their own child to prove their point.” Professor Turley
Yes. And the duplicity in this experiment is troubling, as well… “Oh what a tangled web…” comes to mind.
Judy,
“However, there are still so many people stuck in a strict boy stuff/girl stuff mindset though, and those parents[help to] create kids growing up with insecurity and self loathing.”
There is no guarantee that Storm won’t grow up with insecurity–and possibly self loathing–because of the way he/she is being raised. I wonder how Storm’s siblings feel about being told they must keep Storm’s sex a secret. I wonder how that will affect them.
I agree with Professor Turley. I think this is more about the parents than their child.
Perhaps this is a case of “We say we’re for choices, but if we don’t like your choice, then phooey on you.” -Jude
Children’s “choices” change — kids experiment. What they choose one day isn’t necessarily what might be chosen the next.
Let the child enjoy what makes them happiest, and they can sort out what’s really important at puberty. It is entirely about freedom. -Judy
I’m pretty sure that the kids will figure it out, eventually.
Live and let live. I wish more people minded their own lives and were less interested in the way others are behaving. -MerryMargie
Hear, hear. Too much meddling in the lives of others.
And Blouise, excellent point about putting children in the line of fire by entrusting them to the care of priests…
I LIKE these parents!
I was really referring to the kind of media created ‘perfect child template’, I know there are many parents that allow and encourage their children’s individuality, and parents like that are typically good people all around.
However, there are still so many people stuck in a strict boy stuff/girl stuff mindset though, and those parents[help to] create kids growing up with insecurity and self loathing.
‘Even cowgirls get the blues’. Sorry, that was the first thing to come to mind. Carry on.
What is written here I can fully support. However, there is more to this story than what is blogged about here. The parents have older kids and one of them, Jazz has decided that he wishes to be a boy – he wears dresses and has long hair, though… Nothing wrong with that. However, he has chosen to be a boy… But his parents refuse to correct anybody that calls him a girl. It seems as though they find it important to let their children make up their own choices, but refuse to reinforce those choices when it is made… Perhaps this is a case of “We say we’re for choices, but if we don’t like your choice, then phooey on you.”
Canadian Eh!,
god love ’em 🙂