Gender neutral preschool in Sweden

Originally Posted by Terezi

except that with nouns you have a very wide selection to choose from, which is good because people vary significantly. However in English and many other languages, every single pronoun that refers to any single person must either be masculine or feminine, and the only way to avoid using pronouns is to always use the person's name or some other awkward replacement.

So if I screw up on the gender of some unknown person, its somehow offensive? Seriously, that's a common mistake. It is human to assume something so innocent and be wrong.

except that once again that's not the problem. With gendered pronouns, you need to be able to know the sex of every single person that you ever want to refer to for any purpose whatsoever, whether you're attracted to them or not. Not only that, but such gendered pronouns also assume that every single person you could possibly ever need to refer to can easily fit into one of the two groups that you have to choose from.

He and she are not gendered pronouns. They're sex pronouns. They are denoting if somebody or if someones possession is male or female. That's about it. You are finding hidden meanings in silly things, no wait, you are GIVING them meaning, and an incorrect one at that.

when did I say anything about oppression, ever, in this thread? I said that gender-based pronouns promote division and reinforce stereotypes. I said that instead of doing these two things, we should promote equality and individualism.

what do you have against equality and individualism?

Wow, now who is using straw men?

I'm all for equality and individualisim. Should women get a fair hearing after being raped? Damn straight. Should they get equal pay? Of course! Should a man and woman be allowed to dress how they want and do what they want without consequence? Yes and that is exactly what I support about this preschool. It has the right idea.

However, attacking pronouns and calling them "divisional" and saying they "enforce gender stereotypes" has no logical basis. Its silly, sapping away any and all effort to actually fight actual discrimination. It is making a mountain out of an imaginary mole hill.

Originally Posted by Finbarr

It's like walking through a field of strawmen here.

Edit: Incidentally, this isn't just about men and women. These pronouns currently exclude everybody who identifies outside the gender binary.

If someone identifies themselves as a male or female, calling them what they want to be called is pretty respectful, no? If you want to be addressed as "Sir" or "Madam" I think it'd be nice to call you that, no? Because its how you want to be addressed.

Seriously, labels based on outside/sex differences are just freaking labels for statistical purposes. Its when people begin to discriminate and use stereotypes based on actions does it become a problem.

Originally Posted by Nox

If someone identifies themselves as a male or female, calling them what they want to be called is pretty respectful, no? If you want to be addressed as "Sir" or "Madam" I think it'd be nice to call you that, no? Because its how you want to be addressed.

Seriously, labels based on outside/sex differences are just freaking labels for statistical purposes. Its when people begin to discriminate and use stereotypes based on actions does it become a problem.

I was talking about non-binary people. As in, people whose gender identity is neither male nor female.

Originally Posted by Finbarr

I was talking about non-binary people. As in, people whose gender identity is neither male nor female.

Well then inventing a new term for a "third gender" isn't such a bad idea then. Its been done in other languages and cultures before. I think Polish has about, 3 different gender pronouns?

Or would this create more "division"? People want to identify themselves however they feel. As long as their identity isn't self-destructive, then its whatever.

Originally Posted by Nox

Well then inventing a new term for a "third gender" isn't such a bad idea then. Its been done in other languages and cultures before. I think Polish has about, 3 different gender pronouns?

Or would this create more "division"? People want to identify themselves however they feel. As long as their identity isn't self-destructive, then its whatever.

There's a lot of genders. Seems it'd be easier to just use one pronoun.

Originally Posted by Nox

So if I screw up on the gender of some unknown person, its somehow offensive? Seriously, that's a common mistake. It is human to assume something so innocent and be wrong.

is that what I said? No, no it isn't. I said nothing of the sort, in fact. Again, it's amazing how well everybody seems to be missing my point.

He and she are not gendered pronouns. They're sex pronouns. They are denoting if somebody or if someones possession is male or female. That's about it. You are finding hidden meanings in silly things, no wait, you are GIVING them meaning, and an incorrect one at that.

"he" and "she" are gender-specific pronouns. I am not giving them any meaning beyond what they already have. Their meaning is quite specific. Every single person must either be male or female and this detail is so important, more so even than any other detail about a person, that you have to know it in order to even refer to a person. That's what gender-specific pronouns mean.

Wow, now who is using straw men?

certainly not I. When did I make up an argument as a deliberate misrepresentation of your argument and then refute it? All I did here was tell you what my argument was, which you are apparently against, and ask you what exactly you had against it.

I'm all for equality and individualisim. Should women get a fair hearing after being raped? Damn straight. Should they get equal pay? Of course! Should a man and woman be allowed to dress how they want and do what they want without consequence? Yes and that is exactly what I support about this preschool. It has the right idea.

However, attacking pronouns and calling them "divisional" and saying they "enforce gender stereotypes" has no logical basis. Its silly, sapping away any and all effort to actually fight actual discrimination. It is making a mountain out of an imaginary mole hill.

I've given you the logical basis already. I never said that gender-specific pronouns were discriminatory. They are not inherently discriminatory, except in the way that they exclude a large number of people. Instead they are simply archaic, pretty much useless, at times unnecessarily confusing, often rather awkward to use, sometimes completely incorrect, and promote dividing the entire population of human beings into two distinct groups which they certainly do not and cannot fit into.

again I ask, would you have a problem if instead of basing pronouns on sex or gender our language chose instead to base pronouns on hair or eye or skin color? Or to preserve the imaginary dual nature we currently have, handedness? What purpose would such distinctions serve? Imagine the confusion and awkwardness they could lead to.

all I'm saying is that the pronouns our language currently uses are confusing, awkward, archaic, and useless and we could certainly do a lot better. Especially if we want to promote equality, uniqueness, and individualism of all people, since grouping them together based on irrelevant physical details of their body is inherently contradictory to this goal.

If someone identifies themselves as a male or female, calling them what they want to be called is pretty respectful, no? If you want to be addressed as "Sir" or "Madam" I think it'd be nice to call you that, no? Because its how you want to be addressed.

what if I tell you I am neither male nor female? What will you do then?

Originally Posted by Finbarr

There's a lot of genders. Seems it'd be easier to just use one pronoun.

But then that would assume we are all one gender. When in reality, we as people give ourselves labels. Some do it to fit in, others because its easier to stand out, and some for statistical purposes. What you are suggesting is highly idealistic. If you want to fight injustice, there are better ways then trying to prove that pronouns are somehow doublespeak used to create division or that they even imply that they enforce stereotypes.

Seriously, the stereotype does not come from the gender one bases themselves on nor anything else. It comes down to the ignorant actions committed by one person and calling claim that their group made them do that. In other words, all it takes is one moron to screw things up for everyone. I can refuse to call myself a white male all day until the cows come home, but the government and society will always see me as one. If they want to incorrectly stereotype me as part of the oppression or of the ideal human being (depending on who sees it) its their problem, not mine.

EDIT: Terazi, sorry for calling it a strawman but again, I am trying to get your argument. I really am. And all I'm getting at is that you somehow think because we say he or she, it somehow is bad because it excludes people who don't identify themselves as either gender. I have no problem with that. If they want to be called "human" or "that person" or hell, even their name (which honestly, would be very specific) then its whatever.

And honestly, if someone doesn't want to go by either gender, then people can always speak up and ask what they want to be called. Is it really that hard to tell people what YOU want to be called rather than forcing your view/word upon the English language all because it'll somehow bring us together and eradicate discrimination? There are better ways to bring people together and this isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Nox

But then that would assume we are all one gender.

No. The point of the argument is that pronouns shouldn't be gender specific (just like they aren't race specific or hair color specific, or favorite twilight movie specific) to avoid confusion. Throw away any specifics of the pronoun because they are arbitrary. That doesn't mean there's just one gender, it just means this universal pronoun isn't concerned about gender. It's a very simple argument, really.

It's the way it should be, so I can't see how Egalia is doing anything wrong with "hen".

I take offense to being called "it". I think we should remove non gender specific pronouns because they offend me, and millions of others.

this is not a trollpost

Seriously, if I were say working in a restaurant, and I overheard a mother telling her child, "Dear, could you get it's attention so we can get a refill." I would be terribly offended.

Good thing most people who want gender-neutral pronouns use ones that aren't dehumanising, then.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just invent a third set of pronouns that are used to refer to people that you don't know the gender of or don't fit into one of the other two distinctions? It would be like the neuter pronouns Russian has.

You mean like the "it" that we already have. Humans are either male (XY) or female (XX). Anything other than he or she is dehumanizing.

STOCKHOLM – At the "Egalia" preschool...
...the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm ... the most radical examples of ...

...the theory that ...society gives boys an unfair edge.

... "gender pedagogues" ...

...An obsession with obliterating gender roles... make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.

... "gender madness" in Sweden.

Those bent on shattering gender roles...

...Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase, she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.

...all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," "Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

... we suggest two moms or three moms and so on...

Egalia's methods are controversial... they amount to mind control.
... one couple has pulled a child out of the school.

...a pioneer among European countries in allowing gay and lesbian couples to legalize their partnerships and adopt children.

... the state-funded Swedish Science Council had granted $80,000 for a postdoctoral fellowship aimed at analyzing "the trumpet as a symbol of gender."

Jay Belsky, a child psychologist ... questioned whether it was the right way to go.

... a word that doesn't exist in Swedish but is used in some feminist and gay circles.

... the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct.

All I read in the OP is a bunch of crazies wasting tax payer money to force their agenda on impressionable youth.

Originally Posted by mattj

You mean like the "it" that we already have. Humans are either male (XY) or female (XX). Anything other than he or she is dehumanizing.


All I read in the OP is a bunch of crazies wasting tax payer money to force their agenda on impressionable youth.

Yes but what if people don't want to be called those? I know it's annoying and I wish it wasn't that way but we should try to respect their feelings.

Question is what would this third pronoun set be? It should be similar to the others but still different to make a distinction.

Okay I might not agree with this but that's a little harsh.

Originally Posted by Kostya

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just invent a third set of pronouns that are used to refer to people that you don't know the gender of or don't fit into one of the other two distinctions? It would be like the neuter pronouns Russian has.

That's probably the most realistic solution, at least right now. I don't see a problem with an environment that uses neutral pronouns to refer to everybody, though. Personally, I think that should be the end goal. Besides, if you're going to refer to somebody by a neutral pronoun before you know their identity, you may as well continue to use a neutral pronoun afterwards.

Originally Posted by mattj

You mean like the "it" that we already have. Humans are either male (XY) or female (XX). Anything other than he or she is dehumanizing.

Asexual humans are as human as sexual humans. There are also other configurations for the sexual chromosome besides that, and gender isn't set by DNA.

All I read in the OP is a bunch of crazies wasting tax payer money to force their agenda on impressionable youth.

Please, can you elaborate. You don't think we should strive for a sexism-free society?

Originally Posted by Kostya

Yes but what if people don't want to be called those?

See, that's the problem. We're not talking about people who want to be called something else. We're talking about impressionable youth who are being raised in a fairytale world that doesn't exist outside of that building. How is this good for kids?

there is no such thing as an asexual human every human has chromosomes
and yes, if you're talking about XXY or something like hermaphrodites (the extreme rarity), sure, but if you're talking about obvious XXs or XYs, no

Originally Posted by Finbarr

That's probably the most realistic solution, at least right now. I don't see a problem with an environment that uses neutral pronouns to refer to everybody, though. Personally, I think that should be the end goal. Besides, if you're going to refer to somebody by a neutral pronoun before you know their identity, you may as well continue to use a neutral pronoun afterwards.

I think neutral pronouns only is overdoing it a little. Maybe in a century or two but I can't see many people in the world(myself included) really getting on board with that.

As for the continued usage I think it should be up to the person you're referring to. If they want to be called something else then they should tell you and that's the end of it.

Originally Posted by mattj

See, that's the problem. We're not talking about people who want to be called something else. We're talking about impressionable youth who are being raised in a fairytale world that doesn't exist outside of that building. How is this good for kids?

there is no such thing as an asexual human every human has chromosomes

I admit this isn't the best idea and it could cause problems later in life but we have to start somewhere. Perhaps if this idea catches on all schools could do this and then the problem would gradually erase itself. Also I think their parents would tell them that thing's are different in the real world so it's not like they'll be unprepared.

Yes but some humans have different chromosomal configurations.

edit: Okay but again. What if someone doesn't feel like they fit in one of the two sexes? Even if biologically they do I think we should try to respect their wishes in some way.

If someone feels like they're a dolphin trapped in a human body should we really humor them? Or better yet put 80,000$ of taxpayer money to study whether the Oboe is a sign of human/dolphin repression? Or hire an "expert" to tell teachers that they're being specist? Am I seriously the only one who sees all of this as being insane?

Okay, putting aside the issue of gender identity for the moment, you actually acknowledged in one of your posts that some people's biological sex is somewhere between male and female. Why the hell shouldn't we accommodate them? Just because intersexed individuals are in the minority?

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

I expect science to make proper categories and sort it out for us.

Why on earth would we do such a thing?

If there are potentially a myriad of different sexes, why would we taxonomise each, label it, and place it as different? If we do does that mean we now need to make a separate change room, and toilet for each sex and gender imaginable?


Why when we could do away with the segregation altogether.

Originally Posted by Nox

Well then inventing a new term for a "third gender" isn't such a bad idea then. Its been done in other languages and cultures before. I think Polish has about, 3 different gender pronouns?

Or would this create more "division"? People want to identify themselves however they feel. As long as their identity isn't self-destructive, then its whatever.

But there aren't 3 genders, there are countless genders, and countless different combinations of sex. Why create a word to accommodate every conceivable combination of it, when we could just do away with it altogether.

Originally Posted by Finbarr

Okay, putting aside the issue of gender identity for the moment, you actually acknowledged in one of your posts that some people's biological sex is somewhere between male and female. Why the hell shouldn't we accommodate them? Just because intersexed individuals are in the minority?

Because the OP isn't talking about creating a new word (like "it" or "they" or "them" somehow isn't good enough) to accommodate XXYs. The OP is talking about creating new gender neutral words and abolishing old gender specific words and teaching our impressionable youth that the terms male and female aren't important, when outside of that particular classroom, they are. This has nothing to do with the vast minority of people who actually aren't male or female (like, not just in their mind, but their actual chromosomes are neither XX or XY), this is about some crackpots wasting taxpayer money to shove their warped agenda down the throats of impressionable children, because they know the majority of adults won't accept it.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

If there are potentially a myriad of different sexes, why would we taxonomise each, label it, and place it as different? If we do does that mean we now need to make a separate change room, and toilet for each sex and gender imaginable?

But there aren't 3 genders, there are countless genders, and countless different combinations of sex.

XX
XY
XXY

1, 2, 3

Where is this "countless, myriad of sexes" you're talking about? Is this the "invent fictitious sexes" this thread?