HUZZAH! Banned from Rentech.com!

[ZephyrZodiac]

I read on a British-American dictionary website that the British do not put a period after titles such as Mr. and Mrs. as Americans do.  I was reading a book that was British once, and I thought it was a misprint because there were no periods after those titles.  Perhaps there are other things as well.

We do place a full stop after titles as they are a contraction, so still not clear what's going on there. Enlightenment is realy needed, please.

I think in modern business English, it's now normal practice to miss out the full stop, also the commas at the end of lines of an address, and this is what is now taught in school.  However, since we don't have the equivalent of the Academie Francaise which can change grammar and spelling rules and has the full backing of the French government, these changes are always arbitrary and very much a matter of personal taste.

[Inge]

I would think therefore that it is gender that should be considered in social speech, not sex.  If someone with a biological sex of male considers themselves to be of female gender, then it would be appropriate to refer to them as "she" - so that's gender, not sex.

[veilchen]

According to Dr. Bruce Kind, a biopsychologist, the concept of gender was adopted to distinguish culturally specific characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity from biological features, and thus was used to repudiate biological determinism. Meaning, that gender is not a natural category, but instead is the social construction of femininity and masculinity (King, 2002).

Gender  = from latin genus and the Old French gendre, meaning "kind" or "sort".

There is no direct relationship between sex and gender. There are individuals with ambiguous genitalia, and there are individuals with unambiguous genitalia but whose gender identity dos not match their anatomy. 

Consider: A person goes to a gynecologist because of health concerns. The doctor discovers that this person - whose outward appearance (including no penis) and sense of self are both female- has no uterus or ovaries, but instead has male (XY) chromosomes. Is this person male or female?

[Inge]

Apparently it's a legal requirement to assign a sex to a baby soon after birth.  It can be *changed* but cannot be blank.   I was reading a few sites about ambiguous birth sex babies and there were so many werid combinations of chromosome and genitalia etc etc that often it just comes down to throwing a dice.  Having made the decision, they are then forced to grow up with it unless a big fuss is gone through later to get it changed.

And apparently many of us so-called "normal" men and women are going through life never knowing that we have chromosomes different to our apparent sex!   Influences in the womb can set about the entire sex differentiation process in a direction other than that suggested by the chromosomes!   That was really new to me.

[veilchen]

Yes, and that is, in my opinion, just not right.

The dichotomy in biological determinism identifies people by their genitals. However, there are cases in which the birth assignment went haywire (by western standards of dichotomy). For example, in the Dominican Republic in 1974, they found 38 boys who displayed a type of androgen insensitivity. The chromosome combination was male (XY), and the internal structure was also male. Because of the inherited syndrome deficiency, the testosterone was not converted into dihydrotestosterone (necessary for the proper function of the external genitalia). Their genitalia looked like the female genitalia, the testicles did not descend, and they had a short, closed vaginal cavity.

Eighteen of these children were raised as girls, but at puberty everything changed. Suddenly the organs started secreting large amounts of testosterone, the voices deepened, muscles developed, and the testicles descended. What was thought of as being the female genitalia (labia), suddenly grew into the male genitalia (penis). Sperm production began. Luckily for those children, their culture recognises all three sexes; in the western culture they would have been freaks, or worse, their parents might have tried to "set things right" by sexual re-assignment at birth; surgery in the name of cultural bias.

During the first few weeks of pregnancy, embryos can't even be distinguished anatomically as 'male' or 'female'. During the 5th and 6th week, the embryo develops two duct systems, the male and the female ones. If both were removed at this stage, the sex would always default to female, even with the XY combination. Unless there are high levels of the male hormones at a critical stage of fetal development, nature has programmed everyone for female development.

There is some excellent literature out about all this. The APA (American Psychological Association) web-site has some great articles about this as well

[ZephyrZodiac]

It would be interesting to know how many people now undergoing surgery to "change sex" were originally assigned the wrong sex when they were born, due to this need of the parents to have either a boy or a girl, and the state's inability to recognise that some babies do not fall naturally into either category, but will sometimes do so at puberty?  All the difficulties such people incur during their lives, from pure discrimination to legal absurdities, could be prevented if the law was not"such an ass".

[veilchen]

Bravo ZZ, well put.

It is frightening that the medical profession still thinks of these 'assignment proceedures' as corrective surgery, implying that there is an abnormality. I should also be pointed out that when transsexuals change (correct) their condition, they change their body, not their gender. The medical profession and society at large defends those surgical proceedures by stating that they only want to make the individual more comfortable. The only question I would like to ask is "who made them uncomfortable in the first place?"

Thank goodness there are organizations now that will help intersexed and transsexual individuals accept themselves, such as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association and the Intersexual Society of North America.

[Hairfish]

Ah, the old misplaced apostrophe. It is the bane of my existence.

I am among friends. 

[Hairfish]

I'd also like to add that the natural progression of this thread has been most enjoyable. Very non-linear. Glad to see that allowed to happen.

[ZephyrZodiac]

We seem to do that a lot here!

[laeshanin]

It's true, but someone needs to get back on the bandwagon again!

How about the censorship of sex in the Sims as being corny, and that young people are less likely to engage in sexual activity if they are well informed? C'mon, surely someone'll bite...?

[Inge]

I think there is too much focus on how to stop young people having babies and not enough on how to enable them to have babies while they are young and healthy and their DNA telomeres have not started breaking down, and how to actually enable them to continue to enjoy their youth  after having given birth.   Ie too much nuclear family going on nowadays.   A baby should be a child of society, not just the responsibility of the mum (and/or dad if he's around).

Next time you see a baby whose mother is dependant on state benefit think:
1) where is the rest of that baby's family?
2) this is a small price to pay for the kid who might become the doctor who saves my life.

[ZephyrZodiac]

There are more problems with teenage pregnancies than you might think.  Late teens, early twenties, are probably the best time, and more should be done, I think, to enable young mothers to cope with babies and college, i.e. creches and pre-school should be available on campus and free.  Student accommodation should include mother and baby flatlets where the young mums would have the support of each other instead of being stuck somewhere in a lonely bedsit.

However, in my opinion, the best support most young mums could have would be from the child's own father, and not enough is done to educate young males in their responsibilities.  Children are generally happiest when raised by two loving parents (I mean that both parents love the child, even if they no longer love each other) who put the child's needs very high on their list of priorities - and I mean the child's needs, not their own!  All too often children become the parents' battleground, which is a sign of immature parents who should have grown up before having kids!

And, at the end of the day, it's really down to that - the maturity of the parents!  Some youngsters are mature and sensible at 15, others reach 45 and still haven't grown up!

[Inge]

Well it shouldn't depend on the maturity of the biological parents.  That only becomes an issue in an isolated nuclear family (mother, father, baby for those who aren't familiar with the term "nuclear family")   With a decent extended family, the tiny children can inherit the vigorous genes of their young parents, the energy of the young parents to play with them, yet benefit from the maturity of the elders for discipline and financial stability.

Let's face it, our society has become so complex and demanding that people are often well into their late 30s before they have got themselves sorted out well enough to feel they can be good parents.   That's sadly often too late for a healthy and successful procreation.   Instead we could have 30-something *grandparents* doing the child-rearing of their grandchildren.  The same workload would befall the same people at the same age, but the gene pool would be healthier.

[Renatus]

30-something grandparents? That's a little insane! I'm kind of confused as to how this would make the gene pool healthier. I know that a woman's ability to conceive a healthy fetus goes down after she reaches a certain point in her 30s, but I don't see how this would make the healthy fetuses better. I certainly can't see recommending teenagers having children, regardless of who raises them, as they aren't even physically fully grown and a pregnancy can have a negative impact on a teenaged girl's health.

And the mental issues... oi.

[Inge]

Well I think the "mental issues" associated with teens getting pregnant are *caused* by society's attitude towards it.   Now I am NOT condoning paedophilia, sex with girls or boys who are not physically mature is not healthy or natural.

Let's make it clear I am talking about fully developed young ladies who are old enough to know they want sex and like the idea of a baby.   And this puts them from about 15/16 upwards.  16 is the legal age of consent in this country, and if any girl of that age feels she is ready to begin having children, then society should get behind her and enable her to do so in comfort and happiness.

[J. M. Pescado]

Let's make it clear I am talking about fully developed young ladies who are old enough to know they want sex and like the idea of a baby.   And this puts them from about 15/16 upwards.  16 is the legal age of consent in this country, and if any girl of that age feels she is ready to begin having children, then society should get behind her and enable her to do so in comfort and happiness.

I disagree. Society is not responsible for making somebody comfortable in spite of their poorly thought out decisions. It is highly unlikely that somebody of that age is financially stable and can afford such a thing, and it is not society's responsibility to provide for such foolishness. They rightly DESERVE to be ostracized and left to die on the streets, an exercise in Darwinism at work.

[Renatus]

*g* JM the misanthrope to the rescue once again.

15/16 is not a fully developed young lady. It is a young lady who is still growing and whose hormones are still stabilising. I can't imagine myself or any of the girls I knew at that age having a child; I still had another growth spurt to go through, and a lot of my friends had menstruation issues that could have just been their bodies sorting things out... or could have been signs that their reproductive organs were NOT suited for bearing children without seriously harming or killing them and the fetus. It's difficult to tell, in many cases, until a female reaches her mid-twenties.

And yeah, society's attitude towards things doesn't help matters, but I don't see it changing any time soon, especially with childhood seemingly being prolonged the longer life expectancy is. Again, myself and most of the girls I knew were still playing with dolls at 15 years old. Society's beliefs changing would also have to go against some extremely deep-seated prejudices and lack of infrastructure. In the US, any 15/16 year old girl thinking that it is a good idea to have a baby right then is setting herself up for a hell of a lot of trouble unless she is independantly wealthy or her parents will cheerfully fund everything and provide childcare whenever needed.

With the world being as complex as it is and difficult to figure out, how is it really smarter for someone young enough that they are very unlikely to have figured out what they want and how to get it to make the decision to bring yet another life into existance? It's a nice dream to think that girls should be able to have and realistically (knowing every single damned thing involved in the process of having and raising a child) making the decision to have a child, but the way things stand it would do far more harm than good. I'd much rather teen girls now be encouraged from not having babies until they know they can support them, even if this leads to some cases of less-than-perfect DNA. It's not going to bring the human race crashing down, not with nearly 7 billion of us in the gene pool.

No, it'll take a giant meteor and the ensuing ice age to do that.

[ZephyrZodiac]

I totally agree with what you are saying, Renatus!  And as I said before, a child needs two parents  - not grandparents, aexcet in unts and uncles as substitutes, but the actual biological father!  You only have to know the agonies that some adopted children go through because, although they can often track down their mother, their father is often impossible to find, and if found, will have nothing to do with them!  That just goes to show that the father had no right to bring a child into the world in the first place, and maybe with better sex and moral education while a teenager, he would not have done it!  As I said, it takes two to make a baby, and it should take the same two people to raise it!  The child is their responsibility, not the grandparents' and not society's, except in those cases where things have obviously gone wrong, and then it should be for the sake of the blameless child, not the irresponsible parents!

[KellyQ]

Let's make it clear I am talking about fully developed young ladies who are old enough to know they want sex and like the idea of a baby.   And this puts them from about 15/16 upwards.  16 is the legal age of consent in this country, and if any girl of that age feels she is ready to begin having children, then society should get behind her and enable her to do so in comfort and happiness.

Well I really don't give two hoots in hell what society thinks about it but I'll tell you that if my 15/16 yr old daughter or son came home and announced she/he is "fully developed", "wants to have sex"and "likes" the idea of having children, the last thing I would do is make sure she or he could do so "in comfort and happiness". The idea that since I'm in my 30s  I should be ready to *grandparent* and  help with a teenager "child-rearing" her children, is more then laughable! I work for a living, like most people in their 30s do. As does my mother, who is in her early 60s and certainly didn't and still doesn't, have time to help with "child-rearing"; she already raised her children! Does she love and see her grandchildren? Of course she does! Do I expect that because I made a decision to have children she should have a hand in raising them or financially taking care of them? Of course I don't! A teenager might "like" the idea of a baby but I don't get a puppy everytime my daughter "likes" the idea of one of those either.

[ZephyrZodiac]

Most teenagers "like" the idea of babies - they're cuddly and apparently all they need is feeding, bathing and nappy-changing and a cot to sleep in!  They are too young to realise the implications of babies growing into toddlers, then children who need help with schoolwork etc. - all this while young mum wants to go out and party with her friends!  Babies are embryo children/teenagers/adults, and teenagers are really not ready to take on that kind of responsibility - they aren't even old enough to be responsible for themselves, let alone another human being!

[Inge]

You've been conditioned to thinking a home means Mummy, Daddy and Baby.  In that case, no, a 16 year old cannot make a home for a child and support it financially unless they are an exceptional 16 year old.   But if you'll pardon the pun, this is pretty much throwing the baby out with the bathwater

What exactly is wrong with playing with dolls after having a baby?  Has anyone here managed to fool themselves into thinking they're *not* playing with dolls when they load up The Sims?

[ZephyrZodiac]

The basis of your argument, Inge, was that teenagers have better genes than older women.  However, the very teenage girls who tend to have babies very young tend to be from backgrounds which are unstable, and threfore cannot provide the necessary support, and often those girls have inherited low intelligence etc., which is hardly what you are recommending passing on.

If, and only if, the human race was on the verge of extinction, could I see any argument, however unethical, which could justify turning young girls into milch cows as a matter of public policy!

[Kitiara]

You've been conditioned to thinking a home means Mummy, Daddy and Baby.  In that case, no, a 16 year old cannot make a home for a child and support it financially unless they are an exceptional 16 year old.   But if you'll pardon the pun, this is pretty much throwing the baby out with the bathwater

What exactly is wrong with playing with dolls after having a baby?  Has anyone here managed to fool themselves into thinking they're *not* playing with dolls when they load up The Sims?

I've been reading this thread with my mouth hanging open.

I think you are being niave if you think teenagers are actually ready to be parents. They may think so, but most do not understand what parenthood really entails.
I have known teenage parents (and yes I realize they would not fit your scenario because they are from a society that did not encourage this), and have yet to see it turn out well. My (28 yr old) friend is still struggling to put her life with her (12 yr old) daughter  in order. She loves her daughter, but feels that both of them would have been better off if she had been older when she got pregnant.
I was 21 when my first child was born. I feel that I was too young. I was not emotionally or financially prepared for the reality of being a mother (and I was married). It is 10 years later. I am the mother of three. I love my kids. I had them too young.
I think encouraging teenagers to have children (not that they really need encouragement) would be irresponsible and lead to disastrous results. Sure, having children while younger Can be healthier, but mid-twenties is quite young enough. Teenagers often have more complications during childbirth than adults in their early to mid twenties.

[Inge]

I think you are being niave if you think teenagers are actually ready to be parents. They may think so, but most do not understand what parenthood really entails.

This is getting frustrating because some people are not bothering to read *all* of what I am saying.  You're seeing "teenagers should not be discouraged from having babies" and stopping reading at that point.   I already said I agree that most teenagers would be unable to raise a kid and run a home in the way parents are expected to in western society in 2005.   I agree with you there - have you read this now?

I am saying that I don't agree that the person who runs the home and makes decisions for the child should necessarily be only the biological or legal parents.   I am saying that yes, the parents should be around while the child is growing up, but no they don't need to be the people paying the bills, doing the cooking, driving the child to football club, or having the final say on house rules.   The people doing those things could be older family members who share the house.   Lots of cultures do it that way.   If the eldest woman continues to set the rules, then it doesn't matter if a teenager has a baby she was too mentally immature to parent - she will be taught how to do it and someone will be there to step in if she isn't getting it right, or if she deserves a night out clubbing.