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
Ahhh those crazy Cannucks……God only knows what they’lll do next!!
Judy,
“I don’t understand why people are treating this as though the parents are trying to impose a strict genderless rule when it’s the exact opposite. Infants have their rooms plastered with ‘gender appropriate’ decorations from birth. But what if Jane likes trucks and Joe likes dolls? Parental correction, disdain, but rarely acceptance.”
I doubt that all parents plaster their babies’ rooms with gender appropriate decorations from birth. My husband and I didn’t. My daughter didn’t play with dolls. She preferred Matchbox cars. She was very athletic and played sports from third grade through her college years. She was definitely not a girlie girl. Still, she is very much a female–and is a married woman now.
*****
“Let the child enjoy what makes them happiest, and they can sort out what’s really important at puberty. It is entirely about freedom.”
I agree. To each his own.
Sorry, Professor, but I gotta agree with the parents in this case. I go into the reasoning on my blog (http://no-boxes-allowed.blogspot.com/2011/05/fighting-gender-stereotypes.html), but the gist of my reasoning is this:
Sex is biological. Gender is social. There is nothing inherently feminine about having long hair (men had long hair for millennia) or wearing skirts (men wore skirts in ancient Greece and Rome; at one point Romans considered wearing pants to be feminine) or tights/hose (men wore tights from the late Roman era through the end of the Renaissance). Gender restrictions on clothing or interests, often arbitrary, are enforced socially, and against boys and men they are enforced ruthlessly. Best example is that women are allowed to wear pants — remember that early adopters of pants among women were heavily criticized themselves — but men are generally not allowed to wear skirts.
The point the parents are making, perhaps clumsily, is that their children can choose what they want to wear or do regardless of whether it is considered — by others — to be “appropriate” for their gender.
The harm does not come from what the parents are doing, but from how others will react, and, in fact, are reacting already. The problem is not with the parents or the kids’ choices, but the harassment the kids will get because of those choices. It takes some bravery to try this, to be sure, but its betetr than forcing their kids to do something they may not want to do simply because everyone else expects them to do it.
Those turning their guns on the parents should step back and examine the real cause of any harm here — perhaps their own role in it — and explain just how anyone else is harmed by boys having long hair or wearing skirts.
pete,
lol x 2 (beauty contest and RICO)
I don’t understand why people are treating this as though the parents are trying to impose a strict genderless rule when it’s the exact opposite. Infants have their rooms plastered with ‘gender appropriate’ decorations from birth. But what if Jane likes trucks and Joe likes dolls? Parental correction, disdain, but rarely acceptance. Maybe we don’t need to assert our toddlers femininty/masculinity for them. Let the child enjoy what makes them happiest, and they can sort out what’s really important at puberty. It is entirely about freedom.
Otteray Scribe –
Wow. Thanks for that link. That site is awesome!
Elaine M: Not sure of the origin of the story but I immediately thought this may be a manufactured controvery and it possibly could be an explotation for monetary gain. Guess we’ll have to wait for the Tv movie.
Bob,
Personally, I don’t see how without color anyone can tell the difference in these pictures
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spiralsheep/2566603855/
http://www.cottinghamhistory.co.uk/Schools.htm
“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”?
Actually, a hundred years ago boys were dressed in pink and the girls were dressed in blue.
That factoid courtesy of the British show QI.
http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/7/7/
Blouise
or if someone charged the catholic church under RICO
Tim,
You know, I’ve found that if I want to have a worthwhile conversation online, it helps if I go to the zoo, pound my chest and show my sharp teeth to the largest Gorilla I can find. Having thus established my dominance, I can actually read what people saying without having to worry about prove who’s in charge.
Also, a good skeptic is always willing to prove his own claim. So where exactly is your evidence that “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”? Oh, and I’m also curious as to what evidence you intend to use to your support your assumption that clothing is the most important defining characteristic of gender.
Lotta,
Eh, I’ve known a few geniuses that were jerks. Folks is folks, even smart folks. That said, I generally take the view that the more someone has to tell you that they’re good at something, the worse they really are.
Timwayne, My Grandmother kept a diary of mny Dad as he was growing up, until age 8 when she had another child. When he was 4 or 5 he talked about growing up and he and his little wife would have a bunch of babies and one of the girls would be called Betsy. I had to laugh when I read that because we all knew my sister Betsy was his favorite. I always thought it was because she was so good with the livestock!
Merry,
Do you know how the press/media got wind of this story? Could this be a family looking for media attention? Remember “balloon boy?”
to my email bud … yes, I was being sarcastic.
I have no idea if Storm’s parents are capable of accomplishing their goal or even if their goal is worthy but I do believe the state has no business interfering. Storm’s parents could decide in the next few years to send their child to a Catholic grade school. Given the incredible numbers of children abused by pedophile priests … a proven and well documented practice … should the state intervene?
Now, wouldn’t that be an interesting debate? 😉
The whole gender controversy will end soon enough. First of all, six people currently know the secret, two of whom are young children. Good luck keeping that info safe. Secondly, as Lottakatz points out, the child will notice a difference at the appropriate time, parental discussions not withstanding. And lastly, when you read that this all started with a video and a “waterbirth” you can guess that the parents are not the conventional type and wish to participate in something experimental which does not appear harmful to the child.
Live and let live. I wish more people minded their own lives and were less interested in the way others are behaving.
i’d be more concerned if the parents were withholding medical treatment or entering the child in beauty contests.
besides when the child has his/her first morning hardon or start of menses then ricky and lucy gonna hava some splanin to do.
timwayne,
Were the boys and girls who all dressed alike years ago treated as if they were genderless or all the same gender?
This post isn’t about Storm’s manner of dress. It’s about the parents keeping the child’s gender a secret from everyone–even the grandparents–and the parents’ plan to raise him/her as a genderless child.
Ignoring these two idiots and their kid, a real civil libertarian interested in rights of parents would be telling us all what a bullshit test “best interests of the child” is, and how it is mainly used to allow idiot judges to preempt due process and equal protection and substitute their own moronic, usually sexist and bigoted views.
And then an effective and responsible civil libertarian lawyer would dedicate much of his career to fight this.
Timmy, you are in the wrong diary. You may feel more at home over here:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/