Skip to comments.NY Times Magazine Asks: “What’s So Bad About a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress?”
Posted on 08/12/2012 5:23:22 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
NY Times Magazine Asks: Whats So Bad About a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress? By Paul Wilson Created 08/12/2012 - 12:14am
By Paul Wilson | August 12, 2012 | 00:14 A A
The New York Times quest for tolerance has taken a lunatic turn. A contributing author for New York Times Magazine is now pushing for boys who want to wear womens clothing to be allowed to do so, in the name of gender fluidity.
The New York Times Magazine published a 5,500-word celebration of boys breaking traditional gender boundaries. Ruth Padawer, a professor at the Columbia University School of Journalism, wrote a long August 8 piece with the provocative title Whats So Bad about a Boy Who Wants to Wear a Dress? She then proceeded to attempt to convince readers that nothing was wrong with that with a litany of examples of young boys happily wearing girls clothing despite the skepticism of queasy parents and the bullying of intolerant individuals.
Padawer began by telling about two parents sending an e-mail to other parents at their sons preschool, which stated that their son has been gender-fluid for as long as we can remember, and at the moment he is equally passionate about and identified with soccer players and princesses, superheroes and ballerinas (not to mention lava and unicorns, dinosaurs and glitter rainbows).
Their e-mail, of course, assumes that gender is fluid and the idea of that middle space between traditional boyhood and traditional girlhood is correct. This worldview was hammered home again and again by Padawer, who wrote: But the parents of the boys in the middle space argue that gender is a spectrum rather than two opposing categories, neither of which any real man or woman precisely fits.
And Padawer made it very clear that she supports the idea of that middle space, writing: As much as these parents want to nurture and defend what makes their children unique and happy, they also fear it will expose their sons to rejection. At another point, she made her position even clearer: Moreover, the visibility of transgender people be it for office or tangoing on Dancing With the Stars has provided an opening for those who fall between genders. Padawer also gave a shout-out to doctors who claimed gender nonconformity was normal, writing: Clinicians who oppose traditional treatments contend that significant gender nonconformity is akin to left-handness [sic]: unusual but not unnatural.
Padawer quoted more than 10 separate voices from various backgrounds supporting the notion of gender fluidity, such as: a blogger and mother who wrote: It might make your world more tidy to have two neat and separate gender possibilities, but when you squish out the space between, you do not accurately represent reality, University of California psychologist Diane Ehrensaft, who declared: Theres a lot more privilege to being a man in our society. When a boy wants to act like a girl, it subconsciously shakes our foundation, because why would someone want to be the lesser gender?, and a boy who asserted No, I dont want to be a girl. I just want to wear girl stuff.
The one quote that Padawer did cite opposed to this madness was from a Culture and Media Institute article about a transgender-promoting J. Crew ad. The quote was exactly eight words long: behind the facade of liberal, transgendered identity politics. Padawer did not even bother to reference the author of the quote, merely citing one commentator.
The author, so hell-bent on tolerance, could perhaps have entertained the idea of quoting experts who might object to boys wearing girls clothing. But the one thing the proponents of radical redefinitions of gender cannot tolerate is a view contrary to their own.
Padawers piece ended with a typical parable of bullying overcome by open-minded tolerance: Toward the end of the first week of kindergarten, Alex showed up in class wearing hot-pink socks a mere inch of a forbidden color. A boy in his class taunted, Are you a girl? Alex told his parents his feelings were so hurt that he couldnt even respond. In solidarity, his father bought a pair of pink Converse sneakers to wear when he dropped Alex off at school.
Alexs teacher, Mrs. C., jumped in, too. During circle time, she mentioned male friends who wore nail polish and earrings. Mrs. C. told them that when she was younger, she liked wearing boys sneakers. Did that make her a boy? Did the children think she shouldnt have been allowed to wear them? Did they think it would have been O.K. to laugh at her? They shook their heads no. Then she told them that long ago, girls werent allowed to wear pants, and a couple of the children went wide-eyed. I said: Can you imagine not being able to wear pants when you wanted to? If you really wanted to wear them and someone told you that you couldnt do that just because you were a girl? That would be awful! After that, the comments in the classroom about Alexs appearance pretty much stopped.
It took Alex several weeks to rouse his courage again. And then, about once a week, he would pull on his pink socks and sparkle kitten sneakers and head boldly off to kindergarten.
Padawer is no stranger to writing controversial pieces on social issues. In August 2011, she wrote another long piece titled The Two-Minus One Pregnancy, which examined the practice of selective reduction, where women with multiple pregnancies choose to abort one or two of their children in multiple-birth pregnancies.
With this latest article, Padawer has sought to stretch the bounds of gender norms not to mention common sense.
If you have to ask, you wouldn’t like the answer anyway so why bother responding to such puke?
I think Pravda prints the News that is more believable
Lots of the NYTimes staff is gay so what do you expect. And the ones who are not gay dig the gay lifestyle. If you described gay male sex to the average 15 year old he or she would be sickened and would be shocked that anyone would want to do this. It is only adults who become tolerant of this sodomite lifestyle. In the closet was OK but now it’s thrown in our faces and threats are made when normal people don’t approve of gay marriage
Nobody better call a kilt a dress.
They can use all the fancy terms they want, but at the end of the day, these parents turned their kid into a queer - and not even the classy, stay in the closet older bachelor who dresses a little too "neatly but otherwise stays out of your face - but the glitter wearing, banana hammock and leather cap sporting, man-purse-full-of-rainbows kind that's too creepy even to be a circus clown.
-——Nobody better call a kilt a dress.——
No silly, everybody knows a kilt is a skirt
then you should let those fluidity-inclined males use the women’s restroom when your daughter is in there. Also that would apply to the women’s locker room at the gym while you are changing.
These parents are worse than a child molester. At least they are outright in their intentions. These freaks get off on psychologically screwing up kids.
This tells you exactly how schools are programming your children and grandchildren from kindergarten on to accept what for centuries has be recognized as perversion.
If you can’t find an affordable private school, home school your children.
That’s pretty funny right there.
15 year olds are told that “gay sex” is just holding hands, and singing bad cover songs on a show called Glee.
Oh, it’s OK to guide your boy down the path to gender confusion and perversity. I’m wondering what advice they would give on color of lipstick?????
My boys never wore Glitter Kitten sneakers. Why? Because I didn’t allow it.
Parents need to act like it. I don’t blame the kid, I blame them.
Woa, wait a minute. The parents are implying that the child's "gender fluidity" is genetic with statements like, "...[he] has been gender-fluid for as long as we can remember...", yet we're supposed to believe that this genetic trait predisposes the boy to like the color "hot-pink"?? Uuuuhhhhh, I don't think so. This kid's "gender fluidity" is a result of his environment, not his genes.
Astounding ignorance, secular and sacred.
As a humane culture, we do not brand deviants with a red ‘D’ on their foreheads, so if they want to reveal their status with their attire, I’m all for it.
Lighten up, Francis. I was just commenting about kilts.
Comment was to the article...not specifically to you.