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
“The data you provided didn’t hold true for all cultures and countries.”
That makes no sense to me.
Turley’s assertion is that raising a child without gender specific identification is potentially harmful. I said that it wasn’t, and gave proof that it was not. It is not my job to prove that it is not harmful in every place on Earth throughout time – it is only my job, as someone who disagrees, to disprove it *once*. If it is disproved *once*, then it is disproved, period.
The rest of your comment is gibberish.
timwayne,
The data you provided didn’t hold true for all cultures and countries. Maybe you should take the advice that you gave to me. I’d suggest you check out the book “How to Be a Better Genius in Ten Easy Lessons.”
😉
timwayne,
I have no idea whether you wore a dress or pants when you were little. I do know one thing for sure: You certainly didn’t grow up to be a gentleman.
Thanks, Carol. That was exactly my point. (except, I thought gendered clothing happened earlier – it’s interesting to find out it went on later than I thought)
Pfft.
You need to chill out, stop being thin-skinned and get a sense of humor tim. Your profile quote seems to fit you nicely: “I’m a genius but I have to do dumb and self-destructive thing…”. Except for the genius thing. I’ve met a few, married one. They don’t brag and they’re all as courteous to friend and stranger as can be. It’s the genius thing I’m sure, they understood what their parents told them about being courteous and good manners at an early age and it stuck with them. Sorry, you fail the test.
timwayne, one of my favorite pictures of my Dad is one his Mother took when he was 3 years old. He was born in 1913. He wore a dress and had long sausage curls. What a cutie. He grew up to be a farmer and had 8 kids.
“Was that true everywhere in the world? In all cultures?”
No, but it was true here in the US and Canada. We survived as a species. Storm will survive his hippie parents and probably become Republican.
“I think in places such as those it’s easy to tell the boys from the girls.”
What you think is irrelevant. I asked for data. Do you have data? No? Then STFU.
timwayne,
“A hundred years ago, you wouldn’t be able to look at a 6 year old and tell from the clothing whether it was a he or a she. And that’s the way it had been was for a loooooong time.”
Was that true everywhere in the world? In all cultures? In some parts of the world, very young children wear little or no clothes. I think in places such as those it’s easy to tell the boys from the girls.
“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.”
—–
No, emphatically no, it does not. What great virtue is there societally to somehow start gender stereotyping a child at 5 months (and before) that would raise such a question? How exactly is the child benefited and what proof is there that to not do so is harmful?
This kerfuffel seems to be about how uptight adults are about gender. The more comfortable a society is with gender assignment and enforcement the greater the societal disadvantage to a child that is not so typed and trained from a young age IMO. This story just points up how rigid and dogmatic the culture is.
The kid will inquire about its equipment at about the age all kids notice that their playmates don’t have the same kind and at that point mommy and daddy will probably have to have the first of a series of talks with their child just like all parents have done for countless millennia.
Might I remind also that the conventional wisdom held that the world was flat, bad humors caused disease and women weren’t suited for public office because they had monthly bouts of hormone-induced insanity. Appeals to the “general view” do not a compelling case make.
AY, fanned and faved.
A hundred years ago, you wouldn’t be able to look at a 6 year old and tell from the clothing whether it was a he or a she. And that’s the way it had been was for a loooooong time.
Gender in the clothing of children younger than the age of reason is a product of the 20th century.
“That does not, however, diminish my strong emotions in hearing about this case and the potential harm to this child.”
You really should try to prove this, somehow, in some way, WITH A SINGLE SHRED OF DATA. You won’t, though, because you can’t. You can’t prove it because there is no data.
I like this blog but man, it is so sloppy some times.
Unless the parents are going to teach the child that his body must be hidden, and he should keep secrets from everyone, I just don’t see how this could work for more than a few more months. Certainly it will require limits on the child’s “freedom and choice.”
I don’t understand how that works. Eventually a kid has to notice what it is……..or not? Do you go live in the wilderness so the kid won’t have anyone to compare with…I just don’t understand people sometime.
A great classical composer, Frank Zappa, named his son Dweezil and his daughter Moon Unit.
Memes, they are not just for spaghetti anymore.
The “general view” that this is harmful?
It takes a village to raise a child, but that doesn’t mean the village can take it away from its parents, especially without evidence of wrongdoing, neglect, or actual harm.
Hey, Teacher…leave those kids alone…..
“I tend to favor parental rights in such cases and would support the right of these parents in this case.” (JT)
whew
I know of a set of parents who actually thought their son was capable of handling the awesome responsibilities that comes with the office of President of the United States. I wish the state would have intervened when that child was an infant.
You want to go fishing? Need a license! Wanna drive? Need a license! Wanna have kids? Well you just go ahead and do whatever the hell you want! 🙂
I think any extra terrestrial folk watching the civilization on Earth would name the whole damn shebang “Storm” and call it “it” too.
New data came out showing that last year had the greatest release of green house gases, which comes 52 years after the first warning in Scientific American magazine.
I’m a fan of your blog and sometimes link to your posts on my own. I’m a bit surprised to see you illustrating this with the SNL photo — which seems to me to be somebody else’s copyrighted work. (Additionally, there’s the apparent use of somebody’s likeness without permission).