So long as they're keeping the best interests of the child in mind, and not exploiting him for political statements, good for them.

I just hope that Pop doesn't become alienated from his peers due to the unconventional approach of his/her parents. Social isolation at such early stages of life can be very damaging to a child's personality development.

I'm confused. Is there a reason you used a male pronoun in the opening of this story, then use gender nuetral for the rest of it or was that a mistake? Lucrece uses a male pronoun for Pop, followed by gender neutral too. Is there something I'm missing?

The parents approach is interesting and would be great in a perfect world.

I'm concerned about how the parents are going to keep this up without isolating Pop from other children and society.

How will Pop react when the kids in the neighborhood know whether they are boys or girls and Pop doesn't? How will the other kids react to Pop? Not well, I fear.

It seems like it would be equivalent to giving your kid a stupid haircut and expecting other kids to treat the kid the same as everyone else.

Keeping Pop's gender secret could create even more questions for Pop and, I suspect bullying and ostracization by other kids and their parents. Potentially (and, perhaps, likely) Pop could end up with even more problems than might be caused by being perceived as a gender that doesn't fit.

I would feel much better about this if the family lived in a community of people with similar ideas and all raising their children the same way.

In fact, I think this would be a great social experiment if it could be designed properly.

I hope that Bilerico will continue to cover this.

I will be curious to see whether Pop decides to be a boy or a girl - or something else. And, if Pop decides to be a boy, will that be due to seeing that society likes boys better than girls or a real choice?

Liz

This dates me, I know, but this post reminded me of the book X: A FABULOUS CHILD'S STORY by Lois Gould. It was a feminist hit published by a feminist press, about parents who do not tell anyone the gender of their child. I think I have found it online here (although I can't vouch that it is exactly the same as the book because I misplaced my copy of the book long ago):: http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/345609/X_A_Fabulous_Child_s_Story_by_Lois_Gould_1972

This is ridiculous. They are exploiting their child to prove a point about gender.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being either male or female or anywhere in between. They will end up teaching the kid that his/her genitalia is more important than anything else in their life, but should be kept secret and hidden. That's not enlightened at all.

Pop will be whomever Pop is and I think that will be true leven when the child interacts with other children. I find that a lot of the gender typing that children do is because it is something they see and learn from their parents and siblings.

As a little kid I didn't really care one way or the other if I played with girls or boys, I actually liked playing with the girls better because the boys were in general rougher. I was pressured however, by my peers and parents, to play with the boys since, when it came time to pee I could do it standing and from a distance, rather than sitting on the toilet. Didn't seem like such a great distinction at the time to me, but shows you what I know.

I AM confused, but I suspect that has as much to do with category confusion in the piece as anything native to my own mind, sex or gender.

I would have thought those who change Pop's diapers would see Pop's anatomical sex. And while, after Butler, many believe--have adopted a theoretical/philosophical stance--that any way of describing what was once thought of as the primary sexual characteristic is itself gender.

To be sure, when the doctor presiding over our birth declares "Its a boy" or "Its a girl" he--used to be usually a he--is assigning birth gender.

But when you say male or female these terms, historically, are sex; feminine, masculine, woman, man refer to gender.

Again, post Butler, many believe these are the same, in fact, to quote one of Butler's famous phrases, everything "always already" is gender.

There are some--including Julia Serano and Jay Prosser--who challenge this view. And in the process open up space for transsexual people to be transsexual rather than transgender. And by making this statement, I open up an ontological challenge to the program of making transsexual people transgender.

No, we are not the same.

But back to Pop.

I thought the David Reimer tragedy demonstrated with sad effectiveness no matter what misguided attempts at nurturing a gender identity/gender expression, the foundational sex identity--what I would with Serano call "subconscious sex"--abides.

In her essay on Reimer, Butler never did understand his rage. Her whole position simply does not comprehend there is something outside/before The Law.

Whether the experiment is by nature, an ambitious doctor or even loving parents, it is the child--and the sexed person the child always already is--that suffers.

I see no harm in what these parents are doing, but I think they'll be surprised to discover that their child will most likely automatically begin to identify with one or the other parent, according to hir gender identity, by the age of 3 years.

However, though hir gender is hardwired from birth, Pop could grow up in a home where gender stereotypes aren't enforced (depending how well hir parents are able to root out the stereotypes that they themselves were taught from an early age). Pop's gender identity will be free to develop naturally and without shame.

I would've been very happy to grow up without being labeled as either gender. For that matter, as an adult, I would still be happy to not be constantly gendered by others.