No Boy, Girl

[Robbie]

I agree with that & would think most of us have that attitude with our families but to completely avoid - or ban - saying boy or girl seems extreme; we are girls and boys after all and many of us like what we are.

[floo]

There's a difference between eliminating gender and not emphasising it; the gender identity will be there, but if you don't make reference to it - especially not in undifferentiated binary terms - then it develops along its own fluid pathway rather than being corralled down a road of cultural expectation.

O.

Agreed.

[Walter]

I agree with that & would think most of us have that attitude with our families but to completely avoid - or ban - saying boy or girl seems extreme; we are girls and boys after all and many of us like what we are.

well said Robinson

[Maeght]

Pedantry warning:

In the first sentence, did you mean "effect" or "affect"?  A single mis-applied letter totally changes the meaning of the sentence.

Affect. I always struggle with that.

[Rhiannon]

Very wrong indeed but happens less often than in the past.  Thinking about it, my parents didn't condition me (or my sister), in that way all those many years ago but my mum had a career.

I disagree with this. True, it is not expected that both men and women will work but there is still an expectation that boys do this and girls do that. More than that though is the expectation of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. I was shocked at the marketing of stuff to girls that just didn't happen when I was a kid - we had 'science kits', now there are 'girls science kits' that make perfume and lip gloss. Check out the Argos catalogue which might as well have been printed in 1973 - boys playing with cars, girls doing the pretend ironing, just like mummy. And this is without the influence of fat shaming, porn etc etc etc.

[Maeght]

I disagree with this. True, it is not expected that both men and women will work but there is still an expectation that boys do this and girls do that. More than that though is the expectation of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. I was shocked at the marketing of stuff to girls that just didn't happen when I was a kid - we had 'science kits', now there are 'girls science kits' that make perfume and lip gloss. Check out the Argos catalogue which might as well have been printed in 1973 - boys playing with cars, girls doing the pretend ironing, just like mummy. And this is without the influence of fat shaming, porn etc etc etc.

Totally agree.

[floo]

I disagree with this. True, it is not expected that both men and women will work but there is still an expectation that boys do this and girls do that. More than that though is the expectation of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. I was shocked at the marketing of stuff to girls that just didn't happen when I was a kid - we had 'science kits', now there are 'girls science kits' that make perfume and lip gloss. Check out the Argos catalogue which might as well have been printed in 1973 - boys playing with cars, girls doing the pretend ironing, just like mummy. And this is without the influence of fat shaming, porn etc etc etc.

I agree.

[Udayana]

I disagree with this. True, it is not expected that both men and women will work but there is still an expectation that boys do this and girls do that. More than that though is the expectation of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. I was shocked at the marketing of stuff to girls that just didn't happen when I was a kid - we had 'science kits', now there are 'girls science kits' that make perfume and lip gloss. Check out the Argos catalogue which might as well have been printed in 1973 - boys playing with cars, girls doing the pretend ironing, just like mummy. And this is without the influence of fat shaming, porn etc etc etc.

Yes.

This just shows that despite all the posturing and PC language society in general has not changed much - businesses and advertisers follow public demand as much as direct it.

Issues need to be widely discussed and understood before change can be anything other than superficial. This is obvious isn't it?

Failing that. people could lead by example and put up with being mocked until it catches on. Mostly we are monkeys at heart.

[Walter]

Yes.

This just shows that despite all the posturing and PC language society in general has not changed much - businesses and advertisers follow public demand as much as direct it.

Issues need to be widely discussed and understood before change can be anything other than superficial. This is obvious isn't it?

Failing that. people could lead by example and put up with being mocked until it catches on. Mostly we are monkeys at heart.

speak for yourself, I'm a funky gibbon 

[Sriram]

I disagree with this. True, it is not expected that both men and women will work but there is still an expectation that boys do this and girls do that. More than that though is the expectation of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. I was shocked at the marketing of stuff to girls that just didn't happen when I was a kid - we had 'science kits', now there are 'girls science kits' that make perfume and lip gloss. Check out the Argos catalogue which might as well have been printed in 1973 - boys playing with cars, girls doing the pretend ironing, just like mummy. And this is without the influence of fat shaming, porn etc etc etc.

What do you mean 'True, it is not expected that both men and women will work'..?!   Why is it not expected that both men and women will work?  In lower classes both men and women have worked side by side for millennia.

I think we are over reacting to the men-women role stuff.  Whenever the situation has demanded both men and women have risen to the occasion and did what was necessary. Many women have fought in wars even in ancient times.

But that is not the same as not recognizing boys as boys and girls as girls.  That is rubbish!  'Hen' indeed! 

[Rhiannon]

What do you mean 'True, it is not expected that both men and women will work'..?!   Why is it not expected that both men and women will work?  In lower classes both men and women have worked side by side for millennia.

I think we are over reacting to the men-women role stuff.  Whenever the situation has demanded both men and women have risen to the occasion and did what was necessary. Many women have fought in wars even in ancient times.

But that is not the same as not recognizing boys as boys and girls as girls.  That is rubbish!  'Hen' indeed! 

It should be 'now' and not 'not'. Typo.

[Sriram]

It should be 'now' and not 'not'. Typo.

Ok...that's alright then...(although some people have agreed with you regardless).

But my point still stands. Women and men have been working side by side for millennia in fields, farms, laundries, managing shops, and eateries, as butlers and maid servants  and so on.  Men have been cooking at restaurants for centuries.  Some women have even worked as soldiers and spies in ancient times. Many women have ruled kingdoms. But it was always a matter of necessity and not about a fancy.

We are making too big a deal about this men-women roles. And that still does not justify the 'No boy, girl' nonsense.

[Robbie]

I think it is expected that both men and women work, especially now.  I know that up to the end of the first half of the last century and maybe a bit more, women often did not work outside of the home.   Fine if that was their choice and they had fulfillment and sufficient funds but that was not everyone's ideal life.   It was insulting to expect that of a woman!

[Sriram]

I think it is expected that both men and women work, especially now.  I know that up to the end of the first half of the last century and maybe a bit more, women often did not work outside of the home.   Fine if that was their choice and they had fulfillment and sufficient funds but that was not everyone's ideal life.   It was insulting to expect that of a woman!

I don't understand your point. Where possible and necessary, both men and women have worked all through history.  Many upper class women did not need to is a different matter.

We must also remember that the conditions in earlier times were not conducive for women to work outside the home. Electricity & lighting, mobile phones, cars and buses, luxurious eateries, toilets and such facilities are available today. Police protection is a phone call away. Elegant offices, corporate office work, easy desk jobs, computer technology are available.  Child care centres are available. Wild animals and highway robbers are not a problem.

This was not so even a few decades ago.  In some countries these are not available for many people even today.

Its easy for women to talk of working outside the home under today's conditions. Even hundred years ago it would have been almost impossible for even most western women to work outside the home, given the conditions.

[Robbie]

It seems I haven't understood all points made in recent posts on this thread, sririam, so, instead of making errors, I'll leave it for now.   I'm tired (& full of food atm), but will return later.

Later.  I think I understand what others have been saying, I can see all points of view in most of the posts. Don't think I can add any more that's useful.

[Sriram]

The UK seems to have taken this nonsense a little further. 

From the 2021 census, UK citizens will not have to state whether they are Male or Female in the census forms.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-sex-please-this-is-the-census-sswntgs5z

***********

The UK is to become one of the first countries in the world not to require its citizens to let officialdom know what sex they are.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is proposing to make the sex question in the next census voluntary, after protests that it discriminates against transgender and other non-binary people.

The change will leave Britain without an accurate figure for the number of men and women living in the country.

The proposal was greeted with horror last night by some feminists, who see it as part of a growing trend to remove all mention of the biological female sex.

***********

[Maeght]

Its a 'tentative' recommendation that the question is made voluntary so not decided yet. I think this is mire to do with the increased awareness of transgender than trying to avoid references to boys and girls.

[Rhiannon]

I've tried a google to find the horrified feminists but nothing doing.

[Maeght]

Germain Greer is quoted as being 'sick and tired of this' but that's about it.

[SweetPea]

Sriram

Not recognizing boys as boys and girls as girls is sad, appalling, worrying and dangerous and quite unbelievable. A child should be able to realise and find joy in the wonders of being a girl or being a boy. To take this away from them is a form of abuse and very wrong.

This sadly though is a reflection of the mixed-up, upside down society that we live in, where evil is good and good is evil.

[Shaker]

Sriram

Not recognizing boys as boys and girls as girls is sad, appalling, worrying and dangerous and quite unbelievable. A child should be able to realise and find joy in the wonders of being a girl or being a boy. To take this away from them is a form of abuse and very wrong.

What's your comment on girls who don't feel like girls and boys who don't feel like boys?

This sadly though is a reflection of the mixed-up, upside down society that we live in, where evil is good and good is evil.

You could always leave it, if you dislike it so much.

[Rhiannon]

There's a thread about the 'wonders' of being female.

[Sriram]

Sriram

Not recognizing boys as boys and girls as girls is sad, appalling, worrying and dangerous and quite unbelievable. A child should be able to realise and find joy in the wonders of being a girl or being a boy. To take this away from them is a form of abuse and very wrong.

This sadly though is a reflection of the mixed-up, upside down society that we live in, where evil is good and good is evil.

Yes...SweetPea.....you're right.   

Being considerate towards minorities is fine but this should not sink into minoritism. 

[Maeght]

I don't think that is what it is about though but rather about gender stereotyping which leads to people of all sexes thinking there are certain things they should do or which they shouldn't (or aren't able) to do, say, dress etc.

Regarding the comments about allowing girls to enjoy being girls and boys enjoy being boys what characteristics, behaviours or activities do people think being a girl or being a boy entails? I think each person should enjoy being them and not feel they have to conform to a cultural gender stereotype.

[Sriram]

Please refer to my post 38.  There is no such thing as a boy or girl without suitable nurture and cultural input, added to the genetic profile. Genes alone do not make boys and girls.