Start them early
What fresh hell is this?
“PLANET GIRL” is pink – “PLANET BOY” is blue – now there’s progressive for ya!
“Which planet were you sent to as a baby?”
I beg your fucking pardon?
Why is “NON-BINARY PLANET” much bigger than PLANET GIRL and PLANET BOY and also the original or parent planet that the inferior two are sprouting out of?
The people from PLANET IDIOT need to go away and stop messing with children.
Not even a slight attempt to hide the sexist and traditionalist core of gender theory. They aren’t doing anything progressive and haven’t since the movement changed language from ‘transsexual’ to ‘transgender’.
Remember this girl?. She’s about 15 now. I hope she hasn’t bought into this crap.
WaM, I was thinking about her the other day. I was reading my Skeptical Inquirer, and reading Benjamin Radford. I can’t forget his “debunking” of her…he was such an idiot. But he often is. I once sent a letter pointing out something he got so wrong, statistically speaking. It was never printed.
I agree with you. I hope she hasn’t bought into this crap. I didn’t have pink shoved on me as a kid (well, I did have to wear a pink dress at Easter, but the rest of the time whatever color). I played with both boy and girl toys. I hated dolls; they are the most boring toy I could imagine. Who knew at the time I was announcing my non-binary status?
The frustrating bit for me is that this is so damned close to actually being a good lesson for kids, but it gets muddled and trashed by the empty-headed noggins who insist on pushing these things.
It absolutely IS a good idea to get kids to realize that “Planet Boy” and “Planet Girl” are generally bad ideas when talking about personal preferences (toys, clothing, colors, professional ambitions, etc). Gender roles (as opposed to sexual divisions) are bullshit. As I’ve noted before–every definition I’ve seen attempted for “non-binary” that isn’t utter rubbish applies to literally every human being on the planet, by virtue of the fact that the ostensible ‘binary’ is an artificial construct in the first place, but only when applied to gender, not sex.
I think Non-binary Planet is supposed to be closer to the viewer.
Did you happen to notice that the bridge between Planet Girl and Planet Boy is the transgender flag?
Are those Trumpian scare quotes around ‘girly’ and ‘boyish’? Because if not it seems the authors of this piece of nonsense do have some awareness of the arbitrariness of gender. I suspect they’re inhabitants of planet non-binary i.e. they understand the reality of gender but choose not to admit it like the good and kind accommodationists they are.
“Which planet do you feel closest to today?”
> I am uncomfortably and permanently closest to Earth, whether I feel like it or not.
“Do you think there should be rules about gender?”
> Do you think that question reinforces gender stereotypes?
@iknklast,
I learned about that video at the other place, where the girl was rightfully hailed as a hero. But that was before it was sucked into the TRA vortex.
There’s an article in the Washington Post today about “lobotomy chic”, which apparently has become a trend. It’s all part of a long history of treating sociological/cultural issues (forcing girls and women into predetermined, subordinate roles) as if they were psychological/spiritual (“hysterical”, “born into the wrong body”). And the solution to those issues is to deform the body, I guess because that’s easier than changing societal expectations.
Lobotomy chic???? Great god almighty.
Apparently a big part of it is the look, “the ‘duckface of a nihilistic era’…[,] the ‘dissociative pout’ as the new it-girl go-to for selfies…[,] the aesthetics of sullen eyes and swollen lips.”
Sound familiar?
Our eight-year old granddaughter likes pink things. I don’t think anyone ever told her that little girls were supposed to like pink things (but maybe it was an idea she picked up at infant school). We have a fork with a pink handle (I’ve no idea where it came from; I’m pretty sure I never bought it), and as soon as she saw it she decided it was her fork. Her twin brother, on the other hand, likes blue things and playing with little cars.
Their mother, on the other hand, liked playing with little cars when she was that age. We never told her that that was a “boy” thing (she has grown up to become a civil engineer). At a birthday party for her once we gave one of her friends a little car as a prize in a game. She immediately threw it on the floor.
I had to look at the thread for source, since the usual tactic when confronted by these blatant sexist stereotypes aimed at children (“the Gender-bread Person”) is to deny they’ve actually been used in real-life situations. They have.
According to an additional chart, “Gender Expression” can be masculine androgynous feminine. But what then does that leave for “Gender Identity,” which hopefully describes itself as being man, woman, non-binary or ? but gives NO way to determine any differences. Do they think children will figure it out without falling into the sexism trap? Only if they’re assenting without any thought (which may put them on the level of the adults.)
The more I read this nonsense the more convinced I am that 90% of those who buy into it think it’s about rejecting sex stereotypes. Slipping “sex” into “sex stereotypes” goes smoothly only because humans are such incredibly sloppy thinkers. They see the problem enough to say That Never Happens but perform a sleight-of-mind when it obviously does: “Yes — and so?”
What, you want to force girls to wear dresses if they don’t want to?
I vaguely remember seeing the video of that little girl years ago. I only now noticed the image on her t-shirt – a pair of skinny legs wearing girly shoes. Is that an odd design choice? It’s not… ya’know, sexy legs with high heels. But still, it weirds me out.