"Parents" Hide the Sexuality of Their Child For 5 Years - Gender Neutral English Parents!


Recommended Posts

If this was not so sad, I would have put it in humor:

Why I decided to raise my son 'gender neutral'

Beck Laxton gave her baby son a neutral name and for months refused to tell anyone if he was a boy or a girl. Now she regularly dresses Sasha, 5, in girls’ clothes. She tells EMMA HIGGINBOTHAM why.

00210594%20-%20450x360.jpg

Sasha and Beck choose some beads for him to wear

SITTING in a circle at a mother and baby group, the new mums excitedly introduced themselves and their infants, each adorably clad in a pink or blue babygrow. Except one.

“I was the last person to introduce myself, and I said: ‘I’m Beck, and this is Sasha’. And of course somebody said straight away: ‘So is it a boy or a girl?’ and I said: ‘I’m not going to tell you,’” grins Beck Laxton.

“I discovered later that I’d been described as ‘that loony woman who doesn’t know whether her baby is a boy or a girl’. And I could never persuade anyone in the group to come round for coffee. They just thought I was mental . . .”

Beck, who’s 46, is certainly eccentric: after all, concealing the sex of your baby is hardly the norm. So why did she do it?

“Because I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping,” she shrugs. “Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes? It’s like horoscopes: what could be stupider than thinking there are 12 types of personality that depend on when you were born? It’s so idiotic.”

But for Beck, slotting a child into a ‘male’ or ‘female’ box isn’t just idiotic, it’s potentially damaging. “It affects what they wear and what they can play with, and that shapes the kind of person that they become.” And if that’s skewing their potential, she believes, then it is wrong.

“That’s when I start to get cross about it: it’s not just a harmless bit of silliness, like horoscopes, it’s actually harmful.”

Beck, a web editor who also designs and edits her village magazine, Sawston Scene, has been questioning stereotypes since childhood: “My mother’s very sporty and practical, and my dad was very emotional. We’d watch The Wizard of Oz and always start crying, whereas my mum would think we were really soppy. So it’s always seemed obvious to me that stereotypes didn’t fit the people I knew.”

A self-confessed ‘radical feminist’, Beck never intended to have children, until a romance with a father-of-three changed her mind. The relationship didn’t last, but the biological pull did and, aged 39, she began to explore artificial insemination. Then she met Kieran: “I don’t believe in love at first sight, but it pretty much was. Ka-pow! He moved in less than three months later.”

Kieran already had two young children, and was happy to have another. A year later, Beck became pregnant, but finding out the sex at the ultrasound scan was a definite no-no.

“I think that’s awful. I’d ban it! It’s like opening your presents before Christmas, and I worry that people start making all these presumptions about what the child’s going to be like, which is just stupid.”

An idea began to form in Beck’s head. What if no-one knew the sex of her baby, even when it was born? The more she thought about it, the more she liked the idea, and duly drew up a list of gender-neutral names.

Sasha’s birth – at home, drug-free – was quick, and the midwives were asked not to announce the baby’s sex; instead, they simply wrapped him in a towel: “and we actually didn’t look for about half an hour.”

Wasn’t she curious?

“I was a bit, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t making any assumptions myself. So we just sat there, a bit zonked, just gazing at Sash, and at each other.”

They broke the news to family and close friends by email, simply stating they’d had a baby called Sasha, “and there were a couple of people who assumed it was a boy, because that’s the default: something’s male unless you say it isn’t,” says Beck.

“I thought that was very interesting.”

The couple did tell family and friends if pressed, but strangers were kept firmly out of the loop. A keen blogger, Beck refused to reveal his sex online either, simply referring to him as ‘the infant’.

In fact the secret was kept until the following summer, when Sasha took to running around naked in the garden. Yet Beck has continued to battle gender stereotypes.

At their (television-free) home, Sasha, now 5, is encouraged to play with gender-neutral toys, as well as plenty of dolls (“except Barbie; she’s banned because she’s horrible”), and Beck won’t dress him in overtly masculine clothes: no skulls, camouflage or combats.

Conversely she’s happy to put Sasha in pink, partly for money-saving reasons: hand-me-downs from Kieran’s daughter now fit him, and Beck is a self-confessed jumble sale rummager: “and if you buy second hand, you have to take what there is.”

But she also admits to an ulterior motive: to make mums who choose overtly ‘girly’ garb for their daughters think about what they’re doing.

“These women dress them up like dolls, but they’re not dressed like that, so why are they doing it to their children?

“I helped out at playgroup a couple of times, and the girls all sat in the sandpit, while the boys were running around, throwing things and having fun. The girls were really, really boring!

“Almost none of them wore trousers; they were wearing tights, boots, miniskirts, little waistcoats. Fussy things, impractical things, uncomfortable things that restricted their movement and that they had to look after.

“And only one had sensible short hair; the rest of them had long, tangly, tied-back, fussy hair with clips and dangly bits.

“A friend of mine said the other day: ‘Molly lost her hair clip again,’ and I thought, well, if she’s got some prissy thing she’s got to take care of, and she gets told off if she loses it, then she has to be picky about it – and then she becomes a person who’s slightly prissy and picky. But you’ve made her like that!

“She can’t climb a tree because she’s wearing a skirt, so then she can’t climb very well. But you did that, because you shaped her environment. You shaped what she could do!”

And that, says Beck, has an impact later in life. “I wonder whether the reason that childbirth was easy for me was because I do a lot of physically active things, like rock climbing. I know what my body can do, so give me something that’s absolutely at my physical limits, like childbirth, and I have confidence that my body will get through it.

“But I can’t imagine what it’s like to be suddenly forced to have that physical experience when you’d never done anything physical before. Of course you’d be freaking out and asking for drugs that would numb your whole body. It seems obvious to me.”

Sasha’s school uniform is another of Beck’s bugbears. She bemoans the uniform list, where cardigans are officially ‘girls only’, and shows me a white polo shirt Sasha wears for school: with its ruched sleeves and scalloped collar, it’s clearly intended for a girl.

Has he ever been teased about it? Have other parents pointed at him?

“Nobody’s ever mentioned it,” she shrugs, “and I would hope that if they actually said something to Sasha, he’d be confident enough to make a good response.

“I don’t think I’d do it if I thought it was going to make him unhappy, but at the moment he’s not really bothered either way. We haven’t had any difficult scenarios yet.”

Out of school, Beck thinks nothing of putting Sasha in flowery tops, and is adamant that he doesn’t mind: “He wouldn’t say anything about flowers, because nobody has ever told him that flowers are for girls. And I don’t see why they should be!

“Why do the girls get the flowers? It’s not fair! I’ve often bought flowers for blokes, and they’ve never been anything other than thrilled.

“So he’d be very unlikely to say: ‘I won’t wear the pink flowery one because everyone will laugh at me.’ Either that doesn’t happen, or he doesn’t really notice it.”

Two Christmases ago, Beck sent an email card to friends and family featuring a picture of Sasha dressed as a fairy. His all-in-one pink swimsuit – complete with glittery butterflies – is undeniably an eyebrow-raiser too: “But children like sparkly things,” insists Beck. “And if someone thought Sasha was a girl because he was wearing a pink swimming costume, then what effect would that have?”

So is she hoping that dressing Sasha in pink will change anything? “Yes. If it just made one person think: ‘No, I won’t put that frilly dress on her because it’s a bit silly’ or: ‘Yeah, if he really likes that doll, then that’s OK,’ then that would be really brilliant.

“All I want to do is make people think a bit.”

And will she mind if Sasha grows up to be a butch rugby player or, indeed, a hairdresser?

“I just want him to fulfill his potential, and I wouldn’t push him in any direction,” says Beck.

“As long as he has good relationships and good friends, then nothing else matters, does it? What’s more important than being happy, and making other people happy? It’s all that matters.”

emma.higginbotham@cambridge-news.co.uk

00210596%20-%20300x400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I don't agree with every single thing this mother is doing, but is there really anything wrong with attempting to avoid stereotypes and wanting a child to be able to explore their own interests without fear of social censure?

"Traditional" masculinity and femininity are straightjackets. Not all men want to be firefighters/soldiers/football players/etc, nor do all women want to be housewives and mothers. Nor should any man or woman be socially pressured into any specific list of hobbies or vocations simply because of a morally irrelevant accident of birth.

Individualists should (through voluntary, noncoercive means) seek to empower individuals to live their own lives, follow their own dreams, and do what they personally want to do, even in the face of popular ideas about "members of group X must do Y." Say what you want about the modern feminist movement (I'd probably agree with most of your complaints), but the early feminists merely wanted women to be treated as equals under the law and also to be respected as self-determining agents with the same moral right to pursue their own happiness as men.

Shouldn't men have the same right? A young girl goes through a tomboy phase, this is totally normal. A young boy prefers to hang out with the girls, and OMG THE KID'S TOTALLY QUEER!!! (strange logic, huh? Liking girls somehow makes one gay, and real straight men have all their significant emotional relationships with men apparently..). Girl grows up wanting to have a career and life and doesn't want kids? You go girl! Boy grows up wanting to be an artist or something insufficiently macho and doesn't want kids? FAG!!!

Look, I disagree with some of the things the mother is doing. To be honest, some of what she says seems like she's trying to stop the child from adopting even the slightest elements of anything even remotely resembling traditional masculinity, as opposed to genuinely letting her son have the choice as to what he wants to do (i.e. having feminine clothes present in the wardrobe, but banning skulls/combats/camoflauge, and having only 'gender neutral' toys + dolls, but probably banning anything typically male).

But even if I disagree with her means, her ends have a genuine argument going for them. Shouldn't people of either sex be allowed to pursue hobbies and vocations that they enjoy/are good at, even if popular standards dictate that such a hobby or vocation isn't "correct" for their sex?

I have a vested interest in this debate. I'm a goth, so I wear more makeup than my mother. I'm also very smart, but incompetent at sport or any of the other bullshit GAAAR MAAANNNRRRYY pack-animal pasttimes; I'm a nerd that was raised in a culture of jock-macho-ness (and nerds aren't 'proper men' or 'proper women'... if men are meant to be all BASH WITH STICK and women are meant to be all emotionalist and vapid, than smart people really are seen as some weird third gender (think a physical/social-emotional/intellectual split, with the first as masculine, second and feminine and third as ???). But I'm not transgender; I break the "gender rules" frequently, but I have a very masculine gender identity. I identify with the category "male" and am very happy with my biology, thank you very much.

So I happen to LIKE it when people promote messages like "yes! You can still be a dude and hate football! You can still be a dude and be better at reading and speaking and thinking than bashing things with rocks! You don't HAVE to be a cro-magnon pack-animal to have a penis!"

Interestingly, that's one of the messages Ayn Rand promoted often. Brutish pack animals were despised and she valorized the intellect over BIG MANRY MUSCULAR GAAAAAAR. Her ideal men were closer to 'nerd' than 'jock.'

My home was also relatively gender neutral in some respects; I had both the guy toys and girl toys to play with. There's a certain joy in tying dolls to the tracks of one's train set! And honestly, I don't think I'm particularly screwed up.

As I said I don't endorse everything this mother is doing, but perhaps you could at least try to be a little more charitable and nuanced in evaluating her case? Stereotypes suck; they're anti-individualist, anti-individual-flourishing (and hence anti-happiness), and cause both men and women a hell of a lot of pain. And in the case of our popular gender stereotypes, they're dangerously altruistic; women are expected to sacrifice their careers and self-development for their husbands and children, whilst men are expected to sacrifice their lives in wars or dangerous jobs in order to keep the women and children safe (and/or "for King and Country").

Yes, some kinds of feminism have done horrible things. But one doesn't need to embrace All-Men-Are-Rapists-Feminism in order to realize that Women-Are-People-Too-Feminism had a perfectly valid and legitimate complaint; social beliefs which ordain specific roles for people on the basis of their sex are simply destructive to individual happiness, individual flourishing, and ultimately individuality itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it looks more that deep down, this "radical feminist", is disappointed that she had a boy, but does not openly want to admit it because it makes her come across as guided by primitive emotions.

Imo trying to present as "progressive" dressing her son up in girl's clothes is a poorly 'disguised' (pun intended) attempt to rationalize what are really feelings of resentment toward the male gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the tutu outfit is any indication of this child's fashion sense, it had better grow up to be a man, and straight at that.

You'd be surprised. A hell of a lot of male transvestites are in fact straight. Their cross-dressing is a product of a fetishization of the female.

To me, it looks more that deep down, this "radical feminist", is disappointed that she had a boy, but does not openly want to admit it because it makes her come across as guided by primitive emotions.

Imo trying to present as "progressive" dressing her son up in girl's clothes is a poorly 'disguised' (pun intended) attempt to rationalize what are really feelings of resentment toward the male gender.

I'm tempted to agree. She clearly is only offerring her son a choice between "female" and "gender neutral" (plus, she probably chooses his clothes). If her rhetoric about choice were sincere, the kid would have at least a third option there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with every single thing this mother is doing, but is there really anything wrong with attempting to avoid stereotypes and wanting a child to be able to explore their own interests without fear of social censure?

Andrew:

"...is there really anything wrong with attempting to avoid stereotypes and wanting a child to be able to explore their own interests without fear of social censure?"

This is the key question.

Say what you want about the modern feminist movement (I'd probably agree with most of your complaints), but the early feminists merely wanted women to be treated as equals under the law and also to be respected as self-determining agents with the same moral right to pursue their own happiness as men.

I have no problem whatsoever with the originalist feminist movement. Equality under the law is the baseline. My disagreement is with the gender feminist psycho bitches.

I grew up in a "firefighter" household. My dad went to Stuyvesant High School in the 1930's when Italians did not get into an elite school like that. He had to quit City College in his third year to help the family in the height of the depression just before WW II, in order to get his two (2) younger brothers through school.

My parents were superior folks. Education was stressed. They put me into ballet classes when I was about five (5), about the same time I began to learn chess.

No one ever pushed me into sports or tried to channel me into a "role."

Therefore, we agree.

My problem with these parents is that they were terribly controlling. I want to follow this kid and I will bet you he has some serious problems down the road. Hope I am wrong.

My home was also relatively gender neutral in some respects; I had both the guy toys and girl toys to play with. There's a certain joy in tying dolls to the tracks of one's train set! And honestly, I don't think I'm particularly screwed up.

Love this one. I did the same thing myself, lol.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew:

"...is there really anything wrong with attempting to avoid stereotypes and wanting a child to be able to explore their own interests without fear of social censure?"

This is the key question.

I absolutely agree with you.

Say what you want about the modern feminist movement (I'd probably agree with most of your complaints), but the early feminists merely wanted women to be treated as equals under the law and also to be respected as self-determining agents with the same moral right to pursue their own happiness as men.

I have no problem whatsoever with the originalist feminist movement. Equality under the law is the baseline. My disagreement is with the gender feminist psycho bitches.

I think its fair to say we absolutely agree here. Although I think the term "gender feminist" is a bit misleading... the term was coined by Christina Hoff Summers, who is a conservative and also believes in Gender Essentialism (what we O'ists would call Gender Intrinsicism). Hoff Summers frames the debate as one of "men and women are naturally different" vs. "masculinity and feminity are socially constructed," and basically says that all the misandrist-feminists are of the latter type.

I don't think that is a correct understanding of the debate. First, it is a false dichotomy, and second, one can reject gender essentialism and reject the misandric streak of most modern feminism.

I see the debate as split on the basis of methodology; there's methodologically individualist feminism (Individualist Feminism/Libertarian Feminism/Classical Liberal Feminism fits here) versus methodologically collectivist feminism (or, to use my terms, Women-Are-People-Too-Feminism vs. All-Men-Are-Rapists-Feminism respectively).

One can deny gender essentialism and be in either of these categories.

The typical "manhater" feminist indeed believes gender norms are social constructs, BUT this feminist is also a methodological collectivist; said feminist typically believes people are conditioned into their gender categories, and are thus basically molded into classes. Thus, this feminist analyzes the clash of genders as a Marxian-esque class war between an "oppressor class" and an "oppressed class." There are no individual men or individual women (and don't even speak of diversity within a class!), there's only the classes. Concrete individuals are 'less real' than the abstract collective.

Ironically, this manhater feminist is in effect a gender essentialist since this feminist treats socially constructed norms as having the same consequences as metaphysical essences. Said feminist uses an epistemic-conditioning argument (i.e. denies free will) to justify essentialist methodology (intrinsicism naturally collapses into methodological collectivism) without being saddled with having to justify an essentialist metaphysics.

That said, yeah, I would agree with you 100% that these methodologically collectivist feminists are crazy psycho manhater bitches! But where I disagree with them is not in the position that gender norms are generally arbitrary bullshit (I basically accept this proposition), but rather with their methodology.

I grew up in a "firefighter" household. My dad went to Stuyvesant High School in the 1930's when Italians did not get into an elite school like that. He had to quit City College in his third year to help the family in the height of the depression just before WW II, in order to get his two (2) younger brothers through school.

My parents were superior folks. Education was stressed. They put me into ballet classes when I was about five (5), about the same time I began to learn chess.

No one ever pushed me into sports or tried to channel me into a "role."

I understand. I also was raised by parents that were generally openminded about these things, but unfortunately my nation's culture and my age group and my schools weren't openminded whatsoever.

My problem with these parents is that they were terribly controlling. I want to follow this kid and I will bet you he has some serious problems down the road. Hope I am wrong.

I agree the parents do seem quite controlling. As I said earlier I think the mother seems to be more focused on AVOIDING anything traditionally masculine rather than on allowing her son to choose. After all, she clearly has tons of traditionally feminine stuff avaliable for him, the lack of avaliable traditionally masculine stuff indicates something very off-balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon observation, it immediately becomes apparent to me and most pre-school Educators, that toddler boys are different from toddler girls but that all toddlers express a sense of self sovereignty. There are varying degrees of differences between the sexes but boys are boys, girls are girls, and gays are gays. I think it is partially genetic, and / or reflecting differences in the womb environment. In either case, it is not a volitional choice. It is innate. I can’t tell for sure from what I just read about the cross dressing boy but if given a real choice who would he be playing with and how would he be playing, like a boy or a girl?

Peter Taylor

Objectivism and Homosexuality – Again

Chris Matthew Sciabarra

When SOLO was founded, Lindsay Perigo persuaded me of its importance because of its singular and intense concern with all things cultural. I have always believed that genuine revolutions are not primarily political; they are, in fact, cultural. And because culture speaks to aesthetics, ethics, and sexuality, not to mention pedagogy and social psychology, it is culture that must ultimately be affected if individualists wish to achieve the revolution they envision. It is for this reason that my recent articles in The Free Radical have focused on everything from music and drama to the politics of culture.

I have been especially impressed with SOLO's credo that "acknowledge that Ayn Rand made mistakes; that she did not address some philosophical questions needing to be addressed; that she was wrong about some matters of considerable existential moment, such as homosexuality." It is this last issue, in particular, that has always provoked some of the most virulent responses I have ever witnessed in Objectivist circles. Some of these responses would make a right-wing Moral Majority member blush. In future articles, I hope to explore the reasons for this virulence. Here, I wish only to revisit the treatment of homosexuality by Objectivists. Suffice it to say, I applaud Lindsay Perigo for providing a forum for discussion of this issue.

Rand herself said very little about homosexuality, and what she did say was particularly unflattering. The Objectivist literature included a few fleeting references to the subject; Rand was livid, for example, that some "Women's Libbers" were declaring "spiritual sisterhood with lesbians, "part of a set of such "repulsive . . . premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print" ("The Age of Envy"). A few comments here and there ridiculing sensitive homosexuals or boys fleeing into homosexuality because of their fear of the opposite sex can be found in various early Objectivist publications. But no statement was quite as explicit as the one made by Rand, in 1971, during a question-and-answer session following her Ford Hall Forum lecture, "The Moratorium on Brains."

As I summarize in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical: Rand asserted that although every individual has a right to engage in any consensual sexual activity, homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, unfortunate premises," and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting." Ignoring factors of social environment and/or genetic-biological endowment, Rand viewed homosexuality as a moral issue, based on her implicit assumption that it was a consciously chosen behavior.

Of course, I have always believed that by describing homosexuality as "disgusting," Rand was probably not focusing on ethical concerns, so much as very specific sexual imagery that turned her stomach. After her death, Rand's attitudes were subsequently challenged - to varying degrees - by her successors, including Leonard Peikoff, Edith Packer, and Nathaniel Branden. As I state in Russian Radical, "these thinkers continue to regard homosexuality as a psychological detour from the norm, [but] they are less inclined to moralize about it."

For example, in his radio show broadcast on February 13, 1996, Peikoff states that there is "no official Objectivist stance on gays." He argues that the subject is "not part of the Objectivist philosophy," and that any views he expresses are strictly his own. He does not speak for Objectivism or for Ayn Rand, though he does believe that Rand would have agreed with much of his perspective. He views gays as "abnormal," but "in many cases, moral." They are "abnormal" because homosexuality per se "presupposes a problem or error of a major kind." (Like Peikoff, Packer believes that she too can show that all homosexuality is rooted in psychological errors of various kinds.) Rejecting any notion of homosexuality as innate, Peikoff proposes the following theory: that sensitive and thinking young men may not be able to fit into the cultural stereotype of the macho male and, hence, they remain "fixated" to the point where they "need and want the approval of other males." (Ironically, it never occurs to Peikoff that Objectivists themselves seem fixated on trying to grasp the roots of male homosexuality; one almost never finds any discussion of the roots of lesbianism.) In Peikoff's opinion, such male-fixation eventually manifests itself in same-sex intimacy. But Peikoff also maintains that this behavioral trait is usually so ingrained as to be ineradicable. Hence, it is perfectly moral to pursue one's sexual desires in this realm.

A much more open and expansive view is offered by Nathaniel Branden. As I write in Russian Radical: Branden . . . has exhibited much growth in his view of homosexuality. He formerly maintained that the polarity between man and woman most fully fosters Each individual's awareness of his or her male and female aspects. He therefore saw both homosexuality and bisexuality as a "detour or blockage on the pathway to full maturity as an adult human being." More recently, however, Branden has argued that many factors contribute to our integration as psychological and physical beings: genetic endowment, maturation, biological potentials and limitations, life experiences, explicit knowledge, conscious philosophy, and subconscious conclusions form a complex interrelated totality that cannot be easily reduced to any of its component parts. Indeed, science has yet to discover the roots of sexual orientation. Thus, Branden argues against moralizing about homosexuality, for it is not within the realm of conscious choice and cannot possibly be a moral issue. Allan Blumenthal, a psychotherapist working within the Objectivist tradition, has expressed the same opinion.

One interesting turn among Objectivists is the attempt to deal with homosexuality in a less-than-monolithic fashion. Packer prefers to speak of "homosexualities" (plural) and even Branden states (in a 1996 Full Context interview) that "there is more than one kind of homosexuality," in that there may be in-born characteristics for some, or learned or situational behavior (as in prison) for others, and it is simply incorrect to treat all manifestations of it in the same fashion. (Of course, it would also be interesting to ask: Is there more than one kind of heterosexuality?) Still, there is an apparent bias at work even in Branden's more enlightened statements on the subject. He observes, for instance, that if someone comes to him in therapy "and insists that he or she genuinely wants to change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation, sometimes I am able to help, without judging the client's choice, one way or the other." I wonder, however, if Branden would have the same attitude if someone came to him and insisted on changing from a heterosexual to a homosexual orientation. In other words, I can't help but think that for even the most enlightened post-Randian thinkers, it is the heterosexual model of sexuality that continues to inform the discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that - given that most of these writers are speaking from their own heterosexual context. But to reify that specific context as the whole is to marginalize much of the incredible diversity in human sexuality.

The discussion of this topic has been advanced in these very pages by other writers, including David C. Adams ("Rand Among the 'Queers,'" November/December 1998) and Nick Wiltgen ("Employment 'Rights' vs. Equal Rights," February/March 2001). In the former article, Adams tells us that Objectivism, "a philosophy celebrating the individual" and challenging "stale social convention . . . [and] the irrationality of religion and bigotry," is a natural home for gay men and women, especially those who are alienated from the gay left political agenda. And in the latter article, Wiltgen gallantly critiques that agenda, with its emphasis on statist anti-discrimination statutes, urging all of us - gay and straight - to work "toward the elimination of institutionalized coercion, and toward the limitation of government to the protection of individual rights - rights that apply equally to all people . . ."My own discussion of homosexuality in The Free Radical has been featured in several articles, especially my review of "The Laramie Project" (July/ August 2000), a play that detailed the murder of gay college student Matthew Shepard and the subsequent reactions of the townspeople in Laramie, Wyoming. The article inspired one reader to write in, with hopes that I might join the AIDS-infected Shepard in hell. These kinds of reactions happen quite typically in "flame wars" on various Objectivist discussion groups and usenet lists. Though I think one is apt to find much more enlightened viewpoints among young Objectivists of whatever sexual orientation, I still have vivid memories of unpleasant debates on this subject on the now defunct "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy." One critic of my work, so incensed by my "tolerant" attitude toward gays and lesbians, discovered that I'd gotten all three of my degrees at New York University in gay-friendly Greenwich Village. He wondered if I'd achieved these distinctions "on my knees." That was actually one of the nicer things he said to me.

In future articles, I hope to explore the reasons for these kinds of outbursts, especially among people who, ostensibly, belong to a philosophical movement that finds joy in the individual's quest to realize a vision of personal happiness. That so many individuals have been hurt and damaged by the cruelty of their Objectivist sisters and brothers is something that demands further investigation.

And so I'm issuing this invitation: I would like to hear from people, especially gay men and women, who have some history in the Objectivist movement. I want to explore and represent your experiences with Objectivism in these pages, with emphasis on how your sexuality was accepted - or not - by the Objectivists in your midst. I have heard plenty of horror stories, but I think it is time to bring this history out of the closet. It is only by articulating it and facing its implications that we may be able to move toward some kind of understanding. Therefore, this invitation extends to straight men and women as well. I will be interviewing people from diverse walks of life over the coming months in an effort to grasp the individual and group dynamics here. If we are aiming to create a new and revolutionary culture, changing the attitudes of an intolerant Objectivist sub-culture might be a good place to start.

As Lindsay has said on more than one occasion: Watch this space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon observation, it immediately becomes apparent to me and most pre-school Educators, that toddler boys are different from toddler girls but that all toddlers express a sense of self sovereignty. There are varying degrees of differences between the sexes but boys are boys, girls are girls, and gays are gays. I think it is partially genetic, and / or reflecting differences in the womb environment. In either case, it is not a volitional choice. It is innate. I can’t tell for sure from what I just read about the cross dressing boy but if given a real choice who would he be playing with and how would he be playing, like a boy or a girl?

Peter Taylor

Objectivism and Homosexuality – Again

Chris Matthew Sciabarra

<Article Follows>

Peter,

I have a question...

Why does "cross-dressing" necessarily connect to a discussion of homosexuality? There are plenty of traditionally masculine homosexuals, and plenty of effeminate straight men. Most male transvestites are actually straight; their penchant for women's clothes is generally an outgrowth of the lust for the feminine. That, or they simply like how the clothes look and the preference is purely aesthetic (see Eddie Izzard for an example of this latter type).

Also, "boys are boys, girls are girls and gays are gays" is a meaningless string of tautologies. If "boys are boys" then there's no rational reason to be scared if a boy starts playing with a doll or something; it's not as if his action can somehow defy the laws of identity and causality.

But I'm curious about this... "boys are boys, girls are girls and gays are gays" might be true, but there's a category-fudge. The first two tautologies talk about gender identity, the last tautology is about sexual preference. Unless, somehow, you seem to think that "gays" are a "third gender."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laughter is the closest distance between two people. - Victor Borge

Studiodekadent who’s admitted hobbies are Drinking, Blackjack, and Debauchery of Assorted Varieties, wrote:

I have a question . . . Why does "cross-dressing" necessarily connect to a discussion of homosexuality? There are plenty of traditionally masculine homosexuals, and plenty of effeminate straight men. Most male transvestites are actually straight; their penchant for women's clothes is generally an outgrowth of the lust for the feminine. That, or they simply like how the clothes look and the preference is purely aesthetic (see Eddie Izzard for an example of this latter type).

end quote

Legally, and from a psychiatric perspective actions define personal and professional descriptions and definitions though occasionally a mental preoccupation also defines who you are. I am thinking of the Rod Steiger character in the movie, “The Sergeant,” who though not overtly homosexual, was obsessed in a sexual way with other men. So I will agree, a fop or cross-dresser is not necessarily a homosexual. It is not my area of expertise, but I would also presume a cross-dresser does not mind being mistaken for a woman. Even a guy with long, female hair does not mind being mistaken for a woman . . . from behind 8 -) I also agree that an effeminate sounding boy can be greatly influenced by a feminine sounding mother and that indicates no sexual orientation.

Decadent, you make fun of the *core of your soul* in your assumed OL name, and your hobbies. You are not proud of yourself. So it is disingenuous of you to ask to be taken as anything but as somehow lacking. Abnormal need not be lacking virtue but you feel that about yourself, so I think you are undercutting your case by your description of yourself and dressing in the *wrong* fashion. Your claim that, “the preference is purely aesthetic,” is not accurate if you see yourself as if in a funhouse mirror, with your overdone makeup, nail polish, and clothes. As the rural folks around here would diplomatically say upon seeing you, “That ain’t right.” You are saying the same thing about yourself. You are ashamed, so you do not give your name.

The person with no name also wrote:

If "boys are boys" then there's no rational reason to be scared if a boy starts playing with a doll or something; it's not as if his action can somehow defy the laws of identity and causality.

end quote

I agree and there is no reason for him to be bullied either, but other kids know “what ain’t right,” and will pass judgment.

“I’ve been through the desert with a horse with no name” wrote:

But I'm curious about this . . . "boys are boys, girls are girls and gays are gays" might be true, but there's a category-fudge. The first two tautologies talk about gender identity, the last tautology is about sexual preference. Unless, somehow, you seem to think that "gays" are a "third gender."

end quote

When I first wrote that I left off “gays are gays” but added it as an afterthought, almost in a conciliatory, PC fashion. Mentally, gays are not orientated in a body defined, evolutionary gene transferring fashion. So if “sex” means transfer of genetic material from one “sex” to another then a gay is not a third sex. This is the first time I have thought about that. Does it make any sense?

I am not under the impression that doing things usually preferred by the opposite sex necessarily makes a person a homosexual. It does imply a seeker of controversy and social un-ease.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Taylor's new business venture...***

300px-Lucy-van-pelt-1-.jpg

***Lucy's psychiatry booth is a running gag in the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz. Lucy van Pelt is the manager of a psychiatric booth, which the other characters come up to tell her their problems, and, like a psychiatrist or a psychologist, she gives them advice. It is a parody of the lemonade stands operated by many young children in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Studiodekadent who’s admitted hobbies are Drinking, Blackjack, and Debauchery of Assorted Varieties, wrote:

I have no idea why you're bringing my admitted hobbies into this discussion. They are irrelevant in context.

So I will agree, a fop or cross-dresser is not necessarily a homosexual. It is not my area of expertise, but I would also presume a cross-dresser does not mind being mistaken for a woman.

Okay, I'm glad we essentially agree.

Decadent, you make fun of the *core of your soul* in your assumed OL name, and your hobbies. You are not proud of yourself. So it is disingenuous of you to ask to be taken as anything but as somehow lacking. Abnormal need not be lacking virtue but you feel that about yourself, so I think you are undercutting your case by your description of yourself and dressing in the *wrong* fashion. Your claim that, “the preference is purely aesthetic,” is not accurate if you see yourself as if in a funhouse mirror, with your overdone makeup, nail polish, and clothes. As the rural folks around here would diplomatically say upon seeing you, “That ain’t right.” You are saying the same thing about yourself. You are ashamed, so you do not give your name.

This is an instance of utterly gratuitous psychologizing.

How do my screen name or my hobbies indicate "undercutting the core of my soul?" You provide not even the slightest evidence or justification for this, apart from the fact some rural people would think I'm "not right." Well of course they would since a very large number of rural people are idiotic backwater-dwelling religious-fundamentalists.

Appealling to the "wisdom of the common people" (at least as you're doing it in this situation) is a pure instance of romantic collectivism and social metaphysics. No, I'm not accusing you of being a romantic collectivist or social metaphysician, but I am saying your reasoning technique (in this instance) is derived from it.

I "am not proud of myself" because I wear makeup. Really? Please actually justify this. Are women not proud of themselves because they wear makeup? Are rock musicians who wear makeup not proud of themselves? Your argument that I must subconsciously see myself in a "funhouse mirror" is, quite frankly, stupid.

You don't know me. You know a slice of my philosophical writings and a description of my hobbies and my screen name. This is hardly sufficient evidence for you to make pronouncements like the ones you currently are.

For the record, my screen name is the name of my Industrial music project, Studio deKadent. I chose the name because 1) I think it sounds cool, 2) my non-industrial music influences included synth-rock/glam-rock (these genres primarily influenced my stage act/image, although I do intend on sometimes making a more industrialized version of Marilyn Manson circa Mechanical Animals' and Orgy circa Vapor Transmission's sound, 3) I was experimenting with twists on the typical Cyberpunk cliches; typical Cyberpunk's grim-and-gritty act is awesome but can get boring so I decided to look at the idea of 'vice' (sex/drugs/gambling/rock'n'roll/etc) in the future, and 4) "Studio deKadent" sounds like a high-class bondage bordello.

There's also an "ideological" reason for the name; Industrial music started out as explicitly Marxist (although these days its mostly depoliticized). Ironically, by Marxist standards one has to be a Capitalist (in the Marxist sense, i.e. owner of the means of production) in order to make Industrial music; its made with synthesizers and during Industrial's heyday, syntheiszers cost more than a typical car (and given the amount of commerce generated by Industrial music culture (synths, music, clothing etc), I think it is fair to say the Marxists would see the irony).

Given the fact I'm an Objectivist, I thought it made more sense to use the products of human inventiveness to celebrate individuality and thinking independently... things which Marxists would consider "bourgeois decadence" (like sex, drugs and rock'n'roll generally.... the orthodox Marxists were actually quite socially conservative in many respects; some of them even argued that homosexuality was bourgeois decadence).

Hence, Studio deKadent is a subversive name which embraces the "bourgeois decadence" which the Marxists (alongside the social conservatives) condemn. It celebrates the human creativity and independent thought which is behind the "sinful" or "decadent" industries. It hails the cultural creative destruction which Enlightenment institutions (such as a generally market-oriented economy) unleash.

If Marxists see dark and cruel and oppressive and alienating futures under (what they call) Capitalism, I see Las Vegas and Louis Vuitton-Moet-Hennessy under it.

And if Marxists want to call that "bourgeois decadence" well so be it.

This is where my screen name comes from.

Back to your post; "purely an aesthetic preference" is taken out of context. In context that phrase referred to why some male cross-dressers (like Eddie Izzard (who's straight) and Pete Burns (who's bi)) like women's clothes. The phrase does not apply to me; I wear male clothes, I just wear makeup as well, some of the time. And it isn't "overdone" makeup; you seem to think I dress like a drag queen or something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not.

As for "abnormal," well yes I am abnormal. I am not the statistical "norm." I am not "average." Neither were Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart. I do not think abnormal lacks virtue. Quite the opposite, honestly. For me, "freak" is a compliment. It is a badge of honor. If, by the standards of most people I am "wrong" then quite frankly I don't want to be "right" (according to them). It is not due to a lack of pride that I defy their norms; it is due to my conviction in the correctness of my moral beliefs that I gleefully pour scorn upon the norms of the normal.

I don't give my name, apparently? My real name is located in my profile. It is quite easy to just click on my screen name to see my real name. Adam goes by a pseudonym too (Selene) but I don't hear you saying he lacks pride in himself.

The person with no name also wrote:

If "boys are boys" then there's no rational reason to be scared if a boy starts playing with a doll or something; it's not as if his action can somehow defy the laws of identity and causality.

end quote

I agree and there is no reason for him to be bullied either, but other kids know “what ain’t right,” and will pass judgment.

So not only are you arguing for gender intrinsicism but you're ALSO arguing for moral intuitionism as well? That children just "know" what "ain't right" and then pass "judgment?" This moralistic language pretty much says that you believe people that defy the gender norms are immoral.

So go on. Say it to my face. Have the courage to stick with your convictions and morally denounce me just like you believe a child, or a correct and consistent Objectivist, would.

Do the same to Adam as well. He admitted in a previous post that he played with dolls as a kid. Or are you going to start arbitrarily cutting out some wiggle-room?

Condemn every man that wears a skirt. While you're at it, conveniently blank out the fact that skirts were originally made as battle wear for the Roman army and were hailed for improving troop mobility.

So if “sex” means transfer of genetic material from one “sex” to another then a gay is not a third sex. This is the first time I have thought about that. Does it make any sense?

I was using "sex" to refer to "biological sex" ("male" and "female"), rather than sexual reproduction (the process) or sexual activity (i.e. to have sex, the verb).

I am not under the impression that doing things usually preferred by the opposite sex necessarily makes a person a homosexual. It does imply a seeker of controversy and social un-ease.

A seeker of controversy and social un-ease. You mean like Ayn Rand? She deliberately called her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" specifically to shock people. She confesses it in the introduction; she uses the word 'selfish' "because you are afraid of it" and IIRC Barbara Branden states in The Passion of Ayn Rand that Rand loved to shock people.

This is not second-handing. If Rand's ultimate end was to shock people, it would've been second-handing. But her ultimate end was to make an argument and to draw reader's attention to her argument so as to convince people.

Nor is my ultimate end shocking people. But just because it isn't my ultimate end, that does not mean I do not or cannot enjoy it.

Also, when you talk about "doing things usually preferred by the opposite sex" and how this must "imply" a seeker of controversy, you are trying to extract a correct-in-all-cases statement from a "usually" statement (i.e. a broad generality). This means you're not acknowledging that there is perhaps another reason that someone might want to do something "usually preferred by the opposite sex." Perhaps this someone might actually enjoy the activity for its own pleasures?

Anyway, to be absolutely blunt, your post was quite honestly the most gratuitous example of psychologizing that I have ever experienced during my time as an Objectivist. You jumped to completely wacky conclusions on the basis of very, very little evidence. And, truly, your judgments of me came across as excruciatingly shallow to the point of prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No name wrote:

As for "abnormal," well yes I am abnormal. I am not the statistical "norm." I am not "average." Neither were Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart. I do not think abnormal lacks virtue.

end quote

John Galt, wearing toreador pants and ruby, two inch heeled slippers watched Dagny as she walked by the train tunnel entrance. His raccoon eye shadow acted as camouflage but his bright red lipstick reflected the light and Dagny spotted the glint. John crept further into the dark. “Who’s there,” she asked. John boldly answered in his highest and sweetest falsetto, “It is I Dagny. I am here to warn you that your fashion sense is hopelessly out of date.”

Seriously, I am prejudiced? Theatrical makeup hides. It is worn to create a character like a toddler wearing mummy’s hat. Sign your name if you aren’t ashamed to do it.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No name wrote:

As for "abnormal," well yes I am abnormal. I am not the statistical "norm." I am not "average." Neither were Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart. I do not think abnormal lacks virtue.

end quote

John Galt, wearing toreador pants and ruby, two inch heeled slippers watched Dagny as she walked by the train tunnel entrance. His raccoon eye shadow acted as camouflage but his bright red lipstick reflected the light and Dagny spotted the glint. John crept further into the dark. “Who’s there,” she asked. John boldly answered in his highest and sweetest falsetto, “It is I Dagny. I am here to warn you that your fashion sense is hopelessly out of date.”

I think I already clarified I do not wear nearly that amount of makeup. Nor do I wear toreador pants or two inch heels.

Seriously, I am prejudiced? Theatrical makeup hides. It is worn to create a character like a toddler wearing mummy’s hat. Sign your name if you aren’t ashamed to do it.

Peter Taylor

Yes. You are prejudiced, in the literal sense. Pre-judice, pre-judging. You assumed I wear obscenely over the top, theatrical drag-queen makeup. I don't. You made far-reaching stabs-in-the-dark about my psychology when you haven't even talked to me.

My name is already disclosed on my profile, so I don't see any reason to sign here. This idea that not typing one's name after a post on a message board is indicative of shame is just demented.

That said, just to prove my point, I'll do it.

-Andrew Russell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, just to prove my point, I'll do it.

-Andrew Russell

Thank you Andrew. I think that Mom who dresses her boy up as a girl is extremely cruel, as are parents who give their child a bizarre name. However, if you are dressing yourself up in an abnormal fashion you are seeking negative reactions and NOT doing it for the image you see in the mirror. You are doing it for other people, and you are being cruel to yourself. If you were on a desert island like Robinson Caruso you would probably wear utilitarian clothing, but because you are in a society where you have resources you are more concerned with being ignored.

There is a state of being normal, and a state of naturally being different, but there is also a state of deliberately being abnormal. It is raging against the machine, rebellion or whatever, but it is not being productively exceptional because it is not achieving and it requires others for affirmation. I would stop a person from banging their head against the wall. But, I will not psychologize further than that. Obviously, giving a “normal observation” is going too far. Will you grow out of it?

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Andrew. I think that Mom who dresses her boy up as a girl is extremely cruel, as are parents who give their child a bizarre name.

Assuming that the child indeed is not choosing those clothes (and this is probably true), I agree it is cruel.

However, if you are dressing yourself up in an abnormal fashion you are seeking negative reactions and NOT doing it for the image you see in the mirror. You are doing it for other people, and you are being cruel to yourself.

I disagree. And don't presume to know more about my motivations than I do.

There is a state of being normal, and a state of naturally being different, but there is also a state of deliberately being abnormal. It is raging against the machine, rebellion or whatever, but it is not being productively exceptional because it is not achieving and it requires others for affirmation.

I reject the italicized section.

Will you grow out of it?

I'll start taking accusations of immaturity seriously when I hear a defensible definition of "maturity," i.e. one which isn't merely an arbitrary attempt by the definer to self-congratulate and manufacture an excuse to reject an argument by denying the credibility of the arguer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew wrote:

I'll start taking accusations of immaturity seriously when I hear a defensible definition of "maturity," i.e. one which isn't merely an arbitrary attempt by the definer to self-congratulate and manufacture an excuse to reject an argument by denying the credibility of the arguer.

end quote

Arbitrary? Hmmm? I have extra sensory perception. I can see you through my computer cam and I am shocked, Andrew! Don’t duck down below your computer screen you twit. You can’t hide from me, girly- man.

I can’t really see you of course but you are so needy, you describe yourself, for me to IMAGINE what you look like. You require my mental picture of you to validate your mental picture of you. Should I be

shocked? What is a freak? Isn’t it someone who wants to be shocking, even over the impersonal internet? Attention seekers, humph! Don’t complain that this is not what you wanted, Andrew. You want me to imagine you and be shocked.

Yikes. What the . . ? Who are you and how did you get into my computer? Oh my god, it’s Nathaniel Branden. Welcome Doctor Branden. No I am not. I am not bullying Andrew. He started it. OK, OK. Basic relaxation and ego strengthening time for us, Andrew. I will relay what Nathaniel is saying. Take a deep breath. Imagine a warm breezy day in The Outback and you are floating on a cloud. You are at peace. As you float along you breeze through a rain cloud that washes you clean of all makeup, guilt and neediness. You are now your own person as clean as a newborn. As you descend to earth Andrew, Peter should imagine you as a man in a buckskin outfit, cowboy hat and a big, but not phallic, knife. Yes! Yes, Nathan! I see Andrew. He looks just like Crocodile Dundee! Mr. Branden is a genius.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You require my mental picture of you to validate your mental picture of you.

Actually, I don't. What goes on in your head has no effect on my self-understanding.

I'd be wearing what I currently wear even if Peter Taylor vanished from this earth.

Because I don't think of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I just caught this thread.

I know some kids in the culture Andrew belongs to.

It's another world. But it's harmless.

They have their theater for walking on the wild side and our generation has ours. For example, how many times do we watch a football game and get a small thrill when a player games the system just a little, fools the referee and gets a small advantage?

I know some other cultures where the people think American football is brutal and mindless. And gaming the system in all that senseless violence to them would show just how corrupt we truly are. And off they would go attributing us with all kinds of unsavory intentions and psychological defects. (I know they would because I've heard it.)

But you and I know that's now where it's at. All football and fudge amounts to is highly enjoyable entertainment with controlled competition and controlled rebellion.

I believe this kind of approach is more Andrew's case than any need to hide his true self.

The conformists are actually the ones who scare me. Germany was full of those in WWII.

The intelligent people who sometimes swim upstream are good people to me. The ones who hear the call of the wild, but stay civil. Besides, when you do something like that, it's a good way to show to yourself that you can. I think it's healthy.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Andrew. I think that Mom who dresses her boy up as a girl is extremely cruel, as are parents who give their child a bizarre name.

Assuming that the child indeed is not choosing those clothes (and this is probably true), I agree it is cruel.

ITA.

Has the mother offered her son a 'male' alternative in choosing his outfits? If not, "cruel" is the correct term.

"Now she regularly dresses Sasha, 5, in girls’ clothes".

It looks like the boy has no say in the matter.

“I helped out at playgroup a couple of times, and the girls all sat in the sandpit, while the boys were running around, throwing things and having fun. The girls were really, really boring!

I ask myself what planet this woman lives on. Actually sandpits are bonanzas for little boys!

I can't count how often my kindergartners have cried out to me: "Look, look, at what we have built here!!" Proud-faced, they then 'explain' it to me: it's a big castle, a tunnel system, a volcano crater, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone heard, or seen, any interviews with the the husband, or is he completely cuckolded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Andrew. I think that Mom who dresses her boy up as a girl is extremely cruel, as are parents who give their child a bizarre name.

Assuming that the child indeed is not choosing those clothes (and this is probably true), I agree it is cruel.

ITA.

Has the mother offered her son a 'male' alternative in choosing his outfits? If not, "cruel" is the correct term.

"Now she regularly dresses Sasha, 5, in girls’ clothes".

It looks like the boy has no say in the matter.

“I helped out at playgroup a couple of times, and the girls all sat in the sandpit, while the boys were running around, throwing things and having fun. The girls were really, really boring!

I ask myself what planet this woman lives on. Actually sandpits are bonanzas for little boys!

I can't count how often my kindergartners have cried out to me: "Look, look, at what we have built here!!" Proud-faced, they then 'explain' it to me: it's a big castle, a tunnel system, a volcano crater, etc.

When my first boy was 4 he asked for a sandbox for his birthday, so my husband built him one, on the balcony of our 11th floor apartment. It was probably illegal I now think. I loved that sandbox as much as he did, as it necessitated me spending hours out there instead of inside doing any housework.

One of the first things he built was a Tardis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew wrote:

Because I don't think of you.

end quote

Good for you. And that is an excellent song lyric:

“The Peterless Boy”

We had our time together.

Now our time is through.

I am happier wearing grungy leather.

Because I don't think of you.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now