There's a really in depth piece in this month's Atlantic about the growing movement to honor the wishes of transgender children and all the complexities therein. Though I don't claim to be anything near an expert on this issue, I thought that writer Hanna Rosin did a commendable job of bringing in plenty of diverse opinions and exploring so many different angles (and truth be told, I was shocked that the usually stodgy Atlantic devoted so much precious real estate to the issue).
She looked at the sociological, biological, and psychological implications of transgender children's rights through the story of one fascinating family living in a very conservative, small town. Tina, the mother of 8-year-old Brandon (who wants to be Bridget), had never even heard the terms "transgender" until Barbara Walter's special on the topic aired.
(I have my own beef with Barbara. While I admire her long and groundbreaking career, I sort of feel like she can't help but simplify most complex feminist issues into shock-and-awe nonsense. See her recent special on "the pregnant man.")
In any case, the article shows the ways in which this 8-year-old's mother and father come to grips with their child's gender nonconformity. They find community at the Trans-Health Conference, consider the pros and cons of hormone blockers, and experiment with letting Brandon be Bridget when they get back to their tiny town. It's not easy, as you might imagine, but I thought it was beautiful portrait of a family's honest struggle.
I leave you with my favorite moment in the story:
Nothing can do more to normalize the face of transgender America than the sight of a 7-year-old (boy or girl?) with pink cheeks and a red balloon puppy in hand saying to Brandon, as one did at the conference:
Wow. The FBI rounded up 600 adults and rescued 47 children in 29 different cities for sex trafficking of minors.
"Sex trafficking of children remains one of our most violent and unconscionable crimes in this country," Pistole said.
The 47 rescued children ranged in age from 13 to 17, and all but one are female. Of these, Pistole said, 10 had been reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Child prostitution has taken on a new urgency in recent years with the growth of online networks where pimps advertise the youngsters to clients. The FBI generally gets involved in child prostitution cases that cross state lines.
A University of Pennsylvania study estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes.
Those are staggering statistics. There is no other demographic data on the youth, but I do wonder what impact the declining economy has had on this issue.
Fellow midwest diva Rachel sent along the following picture she snapped at a Target store in St. Paul, Minn.:
This wall decoration was for sale in the baby-items aisle. Apparently it's never too early to start fat-shaming and instilling body-self-consciousness! I wonder if parents who buy this also buy their infant daughters "high heels" and their six-year-olds padded bras? Ugh.
I'm sure you remember the epically sexist Rose Petal Cottage commercial. About five minutes ago, during a commercial break from Heroes (yes, I like the show) the ad comes on again. I'm already pissed, thinking that this stupid commercial should have been complained off the air months ago. Then something incredible happens. At the end of the standard ad (above) a quick promo for Hasbro's latest disaster, the Sweet Lily Castle, is tacked onto the end.
I can't remember what it said word-for-word, but I swear the last sentence was about letting her have a place where she "can wait for her prince." Seriously. I mean, the frigging castle even comes with a frog to kiss. I think I need to go to bed early tonight. Sigh.
One of the reasons that baby clothes are so strongly gendered is that babies themselves are often androgynous. If you put them only in a diaper, it's often hard to tell what sex the baby is, but that androgyny doesn't fit well into our gender polarized society, so this is where the clothes come in. Those clothes have underlying and blatant messages. Baby boy clothes have subtle and not so subtle messages. They say-be active, be bold, enjoy the outdoors, and get a paid job. It doesn't seem that baby girls clothing has similar messages.
We all know that sexualizing young girls is no new trend; between underwear telling girls their vagina is a commodity to padded bras for six year olds, we can't be too surprised that young girls - including infants - are now being sold high heels.
She'll feel extra fab prancing around in these Hot 2 Trot wedges by Mia. . . . Crossing patent vamp straps wrap over the arches to a slingback . . . . A 1/2 inch cork textured midsole rises to a 2 1/2 inch wedge heel.
In the meantime, the Today Show had a feature this morning on high heels for babies. While the line of heels are soft (because if not, you know, an infant could break her 3-month old ankle on it) and the Heelarious founders seem to imply that this concept of heels for babies is strictly for humor, the shoes still run for 35 bucks a pop and are being pitched as a trend by the likes of Nicole Richie and others. And they come in zebra, hot pink and leopard. (Pic above)
Bobbi Thomas' comment on the Today Show was quite nauseating: "Little girls can get a jump start on their strut and be top-models-in-training before they leave the crib."
Recently I have authored a few posts about spanking. This issue continues to weigh so heavily on me in part because I myself amno stranger to the belt, and because I truly believe in the right of all living beings to be free of violence. Spanking a child is a violent act and any attempt to justify it is just denial. Children are amongst the most powerless in our society. They are considered to exist without bodily integrity and cannot legally act on their own behalf. Parenting by its very nature is authoritarian, and this has lead some to believe that they have right to strike a child in the name of discipline.
Some parents repeatedly refer to a lack of spanking as a failure to discipline. This spank or no discipline argument is a ridiculous strawman and they know it. How do these parents believe that things like groundings, and timeouts came into practice in the first place? There is also such a thing as rewarding positive actions to create a desire to continually perform behaviour that is socially acceptable, and responsible.
When parents assert to legislators that they are taking away their right to parent/discipline, what they they are seeking is to maintain authoritarian control over children. Our offspring are of us, but do not belong to us. In a society in which many feel powerless, parenting is one of the few areas left where people feel that they have the right to complete control and ownership.
Some continue to hide the desire to wield power over another by calling spanking an act of love. It is encouraged that the child be told that they are loved after each incidence of violence. What does this teach the child but to associate violence with love? How many women fall into abusive relationships after being abused themselves as children? This occurs in part because they understand violence as being part of loving someone.
What hurts me the most, is that there are not more pleas that base love as a supreme act of teaching. When you reach for your child their reaction should not be to shrink away with fear. We don’t exhort parents to model the behaviour that we wish children to perform. It seems our entire focus is rushing them from one event to another without actually communicating about life and sharing lessons. We can schedule play dates, but sitting down and critically engaging with children is something we simply don’t have time for.
Children are not robotic individuals that can be programmed to obey on command. Part of the process of growing is testing boundaries, and making mistakes. To be punished physically for maturing in the natural process impedes personal growth. It teaches a child that they are not worthy of respect. If we can socially decide that beating an animal is wrong why can we not decide that hitting a child, the fruit of our wombs is equally wrong?
There are certain headlines that I really never want to see. This is one of them:
Dora to explore older, racier market
For those who don't know the fabulous Dora the Explorer, she's the character of a top-rated Nickelodeon television show about a little girl who goes, well, exploring while also teaching children Spanish. It's a great show. But apparently, it's not sexy enough.
Dora the Explorer, the wide-eyed cartoon character adored by young children around the world, is facing a makeover amid competition from older, racier rivals.
Nickelodeon, the children's television network owned by Viacom, has been discussing a redesign of some Dora-themed toys and other merchandise that would make the character appear more feminine, say people familiar with the talks. (Emphasis mine)
Oh dear. Dora wouldn't be the first beloved cartoon character to get a sexy new look, but for some reason I find this more depressing than past "makeovers."
You can contact Viacom, who owns Nickelodeon, here.
