Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't new. My kids were raised in the 70s and 80s and they were free to be what they wanted, and play with what they wanted. It should be noted that both our neighbors had, what turned out to be, gay children, but the boys were not running around in pink tutus and the girls were not at all butch.
That is the dilemma that needs to changed. Because some boys are just born in the wrong body.
That's kind of an odd concept. To many all we are is our bodies. That almost implies there is something else, something besides our physical bodies that goes beyond DNA. After all, the brain gets the same DNA as the rest of the body.
Girls actually have had it easier. There have always been "tomboys" and an acceptance of them, girls didn't just start playing with boys toys, they always have. The majority of girls prefer girl toys like dolls but you can go back to women of other generations who will tell you their dolls laid naked at the bottom of toy box.
Girls can dress like boys and it's accepted. Even back when dresses were worn to school and work, women could put on mens clothes do do chores. Boys doing the same but with dresses would be mocked. Girls putting on their dad's flannel shirt or wearing their boyfriend's jeans don't get their sexuality question but a boy putting on his mom's blouse or borrowing his sisters clothes would.
Boys don't have an equivalent of "tomboy" that is socially acceptable in the same way. A boy who enjoys dolls --- and not just making them fight --- is not viewed the same way as a girl who wants a train set.
So true. Boys have much less freedom to explore their 'feminine' side. It simply is not permitted. I know parents who freaked OUT when their young boy wanted to play with a pretend kitchen. I had to remind them their father was a cook and owned a restaurant. Heaven forbid if a little boy wants a pair of red, shiny shoes. He won't get them no matter that he is too young to know that 'boys don't do that'. Heaven forbid a little boy wants to play with dolls; can't let him do that or he will turn out to be gay.
Boys are much more constrained when it comes to expressing themselves or trying out different roles as a young child.
Nobody is "born into the wrong body."
XY = male
XX = female
It's that simple.
Time for some basic biology.
First, no it is not "that simple". Sometimes genotype is NOT phenotype. There is a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome were people are XY, but due to a simple point mutation androgens, like testosterone, cannot turn the base fetus (which is always female btw) into a male one. These girls are female externally, frequently hyper female due to a complete lack of androgens getting into cells. And they have underdeveloped testes internally and no internal female organs.
Second, sometimes there is a sex chromosome trisomy, XXY or XXX. Sometimes there is even just one X.
So please, don't tell anyone "its just that simple". Biolgoically gender and sex are not simple and NEVER HAVE BEEN. As an example, it is COMMON in many vertebrates for animals to switch genders during their lifetime.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
So please, don't tell anyone "its just that simple". Biolgoically gender and sex are not simple and NEVER HAVE BEEN. As an example, it is COMMON in many vertebrates for animals to switch genders during their lifetime.
Many vertebrates? That is a bit of a stretch. Some fish, perhaps a few frogs/lizards. No mammals that I've ever heard of. There are more inverts.
I doubt our "doctor" really is one because most of this stuff was debunked long ago, and the spelling of plurals as "boy's" and "girl's" is a great tip off. Nice catch!
This topic is a discussion about parenting and whether or not you should raise them the traditional way.
It is not a spelling bee or your 5th grade essay. If you cant come up with something intelligent to post and instead make child like remarks in your attempt to sabotage some one else reputation in an honorable position in society because YOU cant come up with your own logical thoughts.
Then please leave this thread and join the hello kitty forum instead. If you continue to post asinine comments about apostrophes and other none sense. You will only prove my point and the rest of your post will be ignored by me.
I welcome you to join this discussion like an adult but I will not tolerate child-like trollish behavior.
Why in the world would I want to provide and take care of myself, when I have a lovely, loving, giving man who provides and takes care of me? Bonus: if I outlive him, I get -everything-. It's not much, but it's more than I'd get if I didn't have him.
I have a few responsibilities, but none of them are demeaning, or troublesome. I'm not much of a housewife, and I work part-time as a way of a) getting me out of the house, b) interacting with other human beings every day, and c) providing us with grocery money so that his income can cover the bills, and still allow us enough every year for a modest vacation.
Sure, I -could- be an independent woman who provides for herself, but frankly, I'm way too lazy for that. That's what husbands are for; to serve their wives
I 100% agree with what your are saying. But not all Women enjoy the same life style as you and are more ambitious towards financial goals.
First, no it is not "that simple". Sometimes genotype is NOT phenotype. There is a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome were people are XY, but due to a simple point mutation androgens, like testosterone, cannot turn the base fetus (which is always female btw) into a male one. These girls are female externally, frequently hyper female due to a complete lack of androgens getting into cells. And they have underdeveloped testes internally and no internal female organs.
Second, sometimes there is a sex chromosome trisomy, XXY or XXX. Sometimes there is even just one X.
So please, don't tell anyone "its just that simple". Biolgoically gender and sex are not simple and NEVER HAVE BEEN. As an example, it is COMMON in many vertebrates for animals to switch genders during their lifetime.
This isn't new. My kids were raised in the 70s and 80s and they were free to be what they wanted, and play with what they wanted. It should be noted that both our neighbors had, what turned out to be, gay children, but the boys were not running around in pink tutus and the girls were not at all butch.
Its not 'new' but I'm talking about 100 years ago this concept would be considered very obscure. And the concept in 2013 seems to be normal and far more popular than the 70's - 80's
I think the years of women being solely dependent on a man have been over for quite some time. I am 48 years old and it is quite normal for women of my generation to have had an education and career of their choice.
You are the one who said "...free of a man in her adult life" not me.
What I meant is women no longer are 100% dependent on her man she doesn't have to be bound to him for financial security.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
