16
   

If you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:06 pm
“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.

Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.

Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.

She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.

While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.

The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.

“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.

When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”

Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.

The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.

Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.

the rest of the story...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story raises so many questions. Is this kid going to be more damaged by being raised genderless than it already will be by being named "Storm?" Can we do anything to prevent Storm's parents from ever reproducing again, or at least from giving any more interviews to journalists? And what's wrong with Canadians, anyway?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 16 • Views: 6,717 • Replies: 50

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:16 pm
This is the part that cracked me up:

Quote:
a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation


A baby doesn't get to choose its gender. Even if s/he's gay or ends up getting a sex reassignment it is, at this point, a boy or a girl and doesn't get to choose.

I don't get what "limitation" they think people place on a baby because of it's gender.

I don't think the baby understands language to the degree that not knowing its gender would make a bit of difference.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
I don't know, but if I need to ask what is between someone's legs, I've already got all the answer I need.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:18 pm
@boomerang,
parents have too much free time
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:28 pm
@joefromchicago,
There is a link to the recent radio interview with the parents here

Quote:
They wanted to set the record straight as they feel much misinformation is being reported by the mass media.


http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2011/06/06/why-has-storms-story-struck-such-a-nerve/

(a little over 26 minutes long, so you've got to be more than a tiny bit interested or really really bored)


Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 05:20 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
And what's wrong with Canadians, anyway?


Joe, there ain't enough bandwidth . . .
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 05:27 pm
Jazz?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  4  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 05:28 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

This is the part that cracked me up:

Quote:
a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation


A baby doesn't get to choose its gender. Even if s/he's gay or ends up getting a sex reassignment it is, at this point, a boy or a girl and doesn't get to choose.

I don't get what "limitation" they think people place on a baby because of it's gender.

I don't think the baby understands language to the degree that not knowing its gender would make a bit of difference.


Whether they are right or wrong in what they are doing, people treat girls and boys very differently from the beginning. Well before the baby knows about what sex it is, it is being given very different treatment depending on what is between its legs.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 09:04 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
I don't think the baby understands language to the degree that not knowing its gender would make a bit of difference.

I agree, it's a little unclear just who is supposed to be influenced by this experiment, Storm or the rest of the world. At this point, Storm probably doesn't care very much about gender roles -- and neither do the other kids in the family. This is as much about changing everyone else's behavior as it is about changing Storm's.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 09:24 am
Fascinating story. I wish the parents good luck.

Thanks for the article Joe, and thanks for the radio link, Beth!
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 09:41 am
Like it or not - gender is part of who you are. What's next - not determining whether you are a human or a dog so they can choose?

I think this may end up causing the child many issues and teasing in the future. I mean the child still needs to live in society.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 09:42 am
@ehBeth,
I was really, really interested when it was broadcast--until i'd listened to the parents for a while, at which point i got really, really bored.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 09:49 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Is this kid going to be more damaged by being raised genderless than it already will be by being named "Storm?"

Hardly. The damage because of the name is too great. Obviously, when River Phoenix killed himself with a drug overdose, it was all about his name. What else could it have been?

joefromchicago wrote:
Can we do anything to prevent Storm's parents from ever reproducing again, or at least from giving any more interviews to journalists? And what's wrong with Canadians, anyway?

Everything. Now, can New Jersey secede from the US and join Canada? Please?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 10:05 am
I was just thinking about the title to this thread that is based on a comment the parents made in the interview

Quote:
If you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs


I can't think of many things that allow you to get to "know" a baby. When was s/he born? How much did they weigh? Is it a boy or a girl? It's not like you can ask it a question about what it thinks about this or that. When people ask those questions it is really more polite conversation instead of an inquisition on the social politics of the parents.

And if the whole thing was prompted by an innocent question from their 5 year old I really wonder how it ended up in the newspaper at all. Five year olds come up with all kinds of crazy stuff that doesn't end up in the paper.
Shapeless
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 10:14 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
Like it or not - gender is part of who you are.


I think this is precisely the point, from the parents' perspective. Gender is a part of who you are and is a large determinant in how people treat you, and this seems to be exactly what Storm's parents are trying to fight, however naively or misguidedly.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 10:22 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
And if the whole thing was prompted by an innocent question from their 5 year old I really wonder how it ended up in the newspaper at all. Five year olds come up with all kinds of crazy stuff that doesn't end up in the paper.

According to the interview behind Beth's link, the parents practice un-schooling, a mode of education that is driven by the child's interest, not a curriculum. Their son was interested in the question, so the family agreed not to tell about the newborn's sex as an object lesson in civics. Their decision wasn't meant to reach anyone outside their immediate social circle. As it happened, their social circle includes a newspaper journalist who got interested. The rest is history---but making history was never the parents' intention.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 10:46 am
@Thomas,
Really though, most parents practice unschooling when their kids are five years old and younger.

Even if their social circle included a journalist there still had to have been a point where the question "do you mind if I write about this?" was asked. They certainly could have prevented it from becoming news.

They remind me of the "Tiger Mom" who put her ideas in the public marketplace and then was upset that everyone didn't agree with her.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 11:07 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
They certainly could have prevented it from becoming news.


If you listen to the interview, you realize that they really didn't think it would be particularly interesting to anyone else.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 11:10 am
@Shapeless,
Shapeless wrote:
this seems to be exactly what Storm's parents are trying to fight, however naively or misguidedly.


they seemed naive to me when I listened to the interview. Very earnest and Canajun as well.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 11:13 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Even if their social circle included a journalist there still had to have been a point where the question "do you mind if I write about this?" was asked. They certainly could have prevented it from becoming news.

There is "do you mind if I write a column about this in the gossip section at the back of a newspaper?", and there is "do you mind if I make this headline news and cause an international brouhaha?" From how I understand the interview, the parents thought they were consenting to something like the former. They never consented to the latter.
 

Related Topics

My daughter - Discussion by Seed
acting out or real problem - Question by Bl08791
Tween girls - Discussion by sozobe
Nebraska Safe Haven Law - Discussion by Diest TKO
For Parents - Discussion by shawn1989
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If you really want to get to know someone, you don't ask what's between their legs
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:43:00