Gender !!!!!!

BlueFox181

biglewzer said:

BlueFox181 said:

I am going to have a blood test done here in Houston at the beginning of Jan- at 11.5 weeks- it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Jack or Jill test. Apparently this isn't offered everywhere, generally only done with genetic testing and it's usually not covered by insurance- but I am super excited as I am DYING to know. They say blood tests are way more accurate than the ultrasound. Anyone ever taken one of these before?

It sounds like the M21 test. I was reading up on them recently (my doctor offers, but it's not covered and $1600 at their lab). They're amazingly awesome and accurate for numerous things outside of finding out the sex of the baby. You'll be the first person I "know" that gets one though. Exciting! 

Woah- they told me it was at most $150 without insurance. I also heard somewhere (who knows?) that this is only really offered here in Houston. I clearly don't know all of the ins and outs of it- but I am super excited and dying to get it done. My mother is a PA in OB GYN in ATL and she had never even heard of it. The lady at the imaging center - my first ultrasound- is the one who told me about it. The office said that since it's being done with my genetic testing that it will most likely be covered too- even better!

RichLab

brittany&dain said:

Well I didn't realize people would be offended The ultrasound technician, nurse practitioner, and ob all referred to it as gender

Congrats on the healthy baby! It is still early to tell, sometimes the testies are still dropping and have not fused completely yet. NEAT FACT! we all start as females physically, but the sex has already been decided by our Chromosomes XX, XY. When the sex then begins to develop, it will either be ovaries that will stay inside the body or testicle that will drop. Since the skin has already developed, when the testicles drop, the skin has to seal around them, creating a scrotum. when this happenes, at the point where it seals, it leaves a line, AND for those of you as curious as I, you can investigate your SO or DS situation and you can see that line, in some males it is darker than others. OK done with that
some of the nurses at my OB did call it gender, I asked why and they told me that not everyone is comfortable with the word Sex. i told them I was, in fact, that is how I got here. They said it was just to not make people uncomfortable. I am now with a MW at the same practice, and although she uses the word sex, some of the nurses still say gender.
Some of my ILs are not comfortable with the word sex...they are a bit old school, and I am not going to argue with them about it. I still use the word sex, mostly to watch them cringe and because it is the correct term. in fact, the one person to use the word is the most open minded of all, she and i had a long conversation about it. She was the first one to point out "keep in mind, this is East Tx, no one here has sex, babies are brought in by a stork"
But now that your know better, you do better. Sex is the physical representation of the chromosomes that make up who we are, and

biglewzer

BlueFox181 said:

biglewzer said:

BlueFox181 said:

I am going to have a blood test done here in Houston at the beginning of Jan- at 11.5 weeks- it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Jack or Jill test. Apparently this isn't offered everywhere, generally only done with genetic testing and it's usually not covered by insurance- but I am super excited as I am DYING to know. They say blood tests are way more accurate than the ultrasound. Anyone ever taken one of these before?

It sounds like the M21 test. I was reading up on them recently (my doctor offers, but it's not covered and $1600 at their lab). They're amazingly awesome and accurate for numerous things outside of finding out the sex of the baby. You'll be the first person I "know" that gets one though. Exciting! 

Woah- they told me it was at most $150 without insurance. I also heard somewhere (who knows?) that this is only really offered here in Houston. I clearly don't know all of the ins and outs of it- but I am super excited and dying to get it done. My mother is a PA in OB GYN in ATL and she had never even heard of it. The lady at the imaging center - my first ultrasound- is the one who told me about it. The office said that since it's being done with my genetic testing that it will most likely be covered too- even better!

I've heard of two tests (I got my prenatal labs done today and we were chatting about it) the M21, which I had read about, and another one called the Panorama. I also learned today that my lab (Quest Diagnostics) is really expensive. 

https://laboratories.sequenom.com/maternit21plus/maternit21-plus-better-results-born-better-science

https://www.panoramatest.com/prenatal_test_overview

iris427

biglewzer said:

BlueFox181 said:

biglewzer said:

BlueFox181 said:

I am going to have a blood test done here in Houston at the beginning of Jan- at 11.5 weeks- it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Jack or Jill test. Apparently this isn't offered everywhere, generally only done with genetic testing and it's usually not covered by insurance- but I am super excited as I am DYING to know. They say blood tests are way more accurate than the ultrasound. Anyone ever taken one of these before?

It sounds like the M21 test. I was reading up on them recently (my doctor offers, but it's not covered and $1600 at their lab). They're amazingly awesome and accurate for numerous things outside of finding out the sex of the baby. You'll be the first person I "know" that gets one though. Exciting! 

Woah- they told me it was at most $150 without insurance. I also heard somewhere (who knows?) that this is only really offered here in Houston. I clearly don't know all of the ins and outs of it- but I am super excited and dying to get it done. My mother is a PA in OB GYN in ATL and she had never even heard of it. The lady at the imaging center - my first ultrasound- is the one who told me about it. The office said that since it's being done with my genetic testing that it will most likely be covered too- even better!

I've heard of two tests (I got my prenatal labs done today and we were chatting about it) the M21, which I had read about, and another one called the Panorama. I also learned today that my lab (Quest Diagnostics) is really expensive. 

https://laboratories.sequenom.com/maternit21plus/maternit21-plus-better-results-born-better-science

https://www.panoramatest.com/prenatal_test_overview

I could not believe the bill we got from Quest for my bloodwork from my first appt. Insurance should cover it for me but I was shocked at how much it was--$750!

biglewzer

iris427 said:

biglewzer said:

BlueFox181 said:

biglewzer said:

BlueFox181 said:

I am going to have a blood test done here in Houston at the beginning of Jan- at 11.5 weeks- it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Jack or Jill test. Apparently this isn't offered everywhere, generally only done with genetic testing and it's usually not covered by insurance- but I am super excited as I am DYING to know. They say blood tests are way more accurate than the ultrasound. Anyone ever taken one of these before?

It sounds like the M21 test. I was reading up on them recently (my doctor offers, but it's not covered and $1600 at their lab). They're amazingly awesome and accurate for numerous things outside of finding out the sex of the baby. You'll be the first person I "know" that gets one though. Exciting! 

Woah- they told me it was at most $150 without insurance. I also heard somewhere (who knows?) that this is only really offered here in Houston. I clearly don't know all of the ins and outs of it- but I am super excited and dying to get it done. My mother is a PA in OB GYN in ATL and she had never even heard of it. The lady at the imaging center - my first ultrasound- is the one who told me about it. The office said that since it's being done with my genetic testing that it will most likely be covered too- even better!

I've heard of two tests (I got my prenatal labs done today and we were chatting about it) the M21, which I had read about, and another one called the Panorama. I also learned today that my lab (Quest Diagnostics) is really expensive. 

https://laboratories.sequenom.com/maternit21plus/maternit21-plus-better-results-born-better-science

https://www.panoramatest.com/prenatal_test_overview

I could not believe the bill we got from Quest for my bloodwork from my first appt. Insurance should cover it for me but I was shocked at how much it was--$750!

I was told today that the blood work ordered today (HIV, RH, Hep... urinalysis) would be $2200 billed and I'd be responsible for $55. I'm interested to see the bill when it comes in. 

tealowl

I can't get past the fact that my vagina used to look like this:

=

biglewzer

After some research, the full amount of the M21 test is technically $2700. Depending on insurance and other things (even promotions) some people have gotten it for as low as $200

alygoo615

tealowl said:

I can't get past the fact that my vagina used to look like this:

=

Be careful- someone might flag you. That's super inappropriate. 8==D <--- obviously a smiley face

JMCB09

Regardless, his or her gender could be that of a female

JMCB09

I have read so many stories of people getting the blood work, being told insurance will cover it, only to find out they don't and they have to pay thousands of dollars.

You know, because everything in the internet is true

reecespieces714

BlueFox181 said:

I am going to have a blood test done here in Houston at the beginning of Jan- at 11.5 weeks- it's supposed to be 99% accurate. Jack or Jill test. Apparently this isn't offered everywhere, generally only done with genetic testing and it's usually not covered by insurance- but I am super excited as I am DYING to know. They say blood tests are way more accurate than the ultrasound. Anyone ever taken one of these before?

Just had my blood taken for the Harmony test today - in my country it is 100% covered (but I am over 35 - not sure if that makes a diff).  Excited to get the results and we ticked the box to find out the gender (because clearly that is not the purpose of the test - just the bonus). 

michellexm

Don't flame me for this, but I think before a child has had the chance to figure out what gender they feel they are (which, like many have mentioned, often doesn't happen until much later), there's little point in delineating a difference between the terms sex and gender.

If your child comes out with a penis...you probably call it a boy, regardless of how it feels about the situation, at least until it's old enough to tell you otherwise.  

People intuitively understand this concept; let's not get hung up on semantics.

biglewzer

michellexm said:

Don't flame me for this, but I think before a child has had the chance to figure out what gender they feel they are (which, like many have mentioned, often doesn't happen until much later), there's little point in delineating a difference between the terms sex and gender.

If your child comes out with a penis...you probably call it a boy, regardless of how it feels about the situation, at least until it's old enough to tell you otherwise.  

People intuitively understand this concept; let's not get hung up on semantics.

I agree with you on what you posted. However, we're talking about the sex organs of a human, not their gender or how they'll be raised to specific gender norms (ie. gender specific toys, clothing, nursery decor). 

shanaynerz

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

michellexm

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

If you are curious about how this could be and want more information, look up intersex on Wikipedia.  The book Middlesex is also a fantastic (albeit fictional) education on this topic.

reecespieces714

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Yes, I had to google the genotype/phenotype thing.  I think your finer point and broader point are both fabulous.  

hope1017

@brittany&amp;dain congrats! I'm glad everything went well for you and the baby is healthy.

It's sad that instead of people being happy for you and writing positive comments they are more concern of a word that gets misused every darn day.

I would totally start looking at pink baby clothes or ideas for nursery but I would hold on buying them since there is a slim chance for error. Just wait until 22 weeks to actually make it official. I have my appointment on Friday. I'll be 12 weeks by then. Let's see what I find out.

Huahine

biglewzer said:

After some research, the full amount of the M21 test is technically $2700. Depending on insurance and other things (even promotions) some people have gotten it for as low as $200

I had my M21 blood draw on Monday.  I should know the results by December 30th.  Out of pocket if my insurance company didn't cover it would have been $235.  But since I'm old as dirt, it is fully covered. 

Aab7114

I have a honest question and mean absolutely no harm. I completely understand and appreciate the difference between sex and gender (even though I agree the terms can be "harmlessly" interchangeable at times), but why would it be so offensive until the child has enough awareness to recognize a difference themselves? When your child is born with female sex organs or male sex organs, are you only going to dress them in neutral clothing and buy them only neutral toys until they identify? Like are you really not going to purchase your daughter anything pink or not a single baby doll? And if you will be doing this, then are you not nudging your child into a certain gender sterotype already? So then why would gender vs sex be so harmful at this stage? Just some thoughts!

To the op, even though it's early and there is a chance they could be wrong, I would still be excited by the news! I wouldn't take it any further than excitement and maybe focusing more on one sex's name options. I go tomorrow for another u/s and would be happy if they wanted to make a "guess" this early!

iris427

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

michellexm

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

biglewzer

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

michellexm

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

Which brings me to the point: if you're looking at the phenotype (what you see during an anatomy scan) instead of the genotype (what you see in a genetic test), you're not really looking at the sex.

Besides, I thought the argument was that the gender a child feels they are isn't necessarily based on sex.

biglewzer

michellexm said:

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

Which brings me to the point: if you're looking at the phenotype (what you see during an anatomy scan) instead of the genotype (what you see in a genetic test), you're not really looking at the sex.

Besides, I thought the argument was that gender isn't necessarily based on sex.

But you're looking at the physical sex organs to make this determination, not the genetic testing. If the two tests were used in every case, that would be a valid argument. This is based off a 12 week ultrasound and the visual inspection of the sex organs, not a genetic test. 

iris427

michellexm said:

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

Which brings me to the point: if you're looking at the phenotype (what you see during an anatomy scan) instead of the genotype (what you see in a genetic test), you're not really looking at the sex.

Besides, I thought the argument was that gender isn't necessarily based on sex.

Yes and this just brings home the point that this is a complex issue with many ways to interpret it, many ways to address through language.  Which is fine.  Until people start piling on other posters for not using the exact same language or having the exact same perspective they have.  That's really the only thing I have an issue with here.  

Also why didn't anyone slam all the posters who mixed up race, nationality and ethnicity in the "Biracial Babies" thread a few days ago?  Why is sex vs. gender in particular such a bump hot button?  

Aab7114

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.


During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

Well now this is turning into a "what came first" debate. If what you are saying is that gender comes after finding out the sex, you could technically say you are finding out both at the anatomy scan, since you are finding out what the sex organs are and then basing initial gender on that. So why couldn't you say you are finding out the gender and the sex at the same time. Gender and sex can both be changed, but a child will still be associated with one or the other gender/sex until they decide which one they choose. So technically people saying they are finding out the gender are not wrong, they are finding out both the sex organs and what gender the child will associate with for a certain time.

Honestly I feel people put too much emphasis on the words and not enough on the actual concerns behind it. If someone wants to use gender and sex interchangeable who cares. But if they are using sex or gender to be discriminatory or judgmental towards another person, then I sure as heck have a problem with it, but the problem is the why not the what.

pfeilele

People HATE other people because of the sex vs. gender thing. Which is why it's a big deal. In this post, not a big deal. But some people really don't know that there's a difference.

biglewzer

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

Which brings me to the point: if you're looking at the phenotype (what you see during an anatomy scan) instead of the genotype (what you see in a genetic test), you're not really looking at the sex.

Besides, I thought the argument was that gender isn't necessarily based on sex.

Yes and this just brings home the point that this is a complex issue with many ways to interpret it, many ways to address through language.  Which is fine.  Until people start piling on other posters for not using the exact same language or having the exact same perspective they have.  That's really the only thing I have an issue with here.  

Also why didn't anyone slam all the posters who mixed up race, nationality and ethnicity in the "Biracial Babies" thread a few days ago?  Why is sex vs. gender in particular such a bump hot button?  

It's funny you mention that. I didn't open that thread, but I was thinking of terms to describe different races that some view as "interchangeable and nbd" but are offensive. It was one of the only analogies I could think of that fit something similar to this. 

I find it incredible that once people learn the difference between gender and sex, they insist on using them incorrectly like it's no big deal. It just reminds me of people using terms to describe different races and ethnicities, learning they're offensive, and then saying "Oh well, I like this better"   It boggles my mind. 

ElissaRB

This is a very hostile board. I'm happy for you, for whatever gender or sex. Very exciting moment I'm sure!

yurmom

idk

Ecomom17

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Wow, that's a really good point, iris.  Unless you're like those parents who raised their child and concealed his/her sex from everyone until older.  

Seriously, though, I'm not in favor of assigning gender roles (my son has a doll), but I think it's almost impossible not to do that to some extent simply because it's so ingrained in our culture.  I think the real problem lies in when people tell someone they can't or shouldn't do something based on their sex.  Unless it's telling a boy he can't give birth or a girl she can't be...um...a penis model?

jensavicci

I total just came to read the drama...

jensavicci

Woulda been funnier if the gif actually worked -_-

Ecomom17

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

@biglewzer, you already know (I think) that I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but this seems to contradict your point.  How do the sex organs matter as far as the gender with which your child identifies if they are two separate things?

I absolutely agree that on an anatomy scan you're identifying sex, which has NOTHING to do with gender.

biglewzer, am I remembering right that you have a DD?  How do you avoid genderizing her?  This is something I hope I'm doing a fair job of with DS and if I have a DD would really like to avoid but have a feeling it would be somewhat harder to do.  I'd love some tips!

To the OP: So happy for you that you have a healthy baby!  As far as the sex prediction, well, there is a 50-50 chance it's right.  If you're really excited about buying "girl" stuff, I wouldn't blame you, but you might want to make sure it's returnable.

To those who question why some of us are so adamant about this issue:  it's a matter of social justice.  To assume that someone with a vagina is and/or SHOULD act like a cultural ideal of a girl can be extremely psychologically damaging if that person is mentally a boy.  If you ever have a friend or a friend's child who is transgendered, it makes it personal.  So to assume that sex and gender are always the same and always align is essentially denying someone's validity.

TurtleMonsters

FWIW: I thought boys and girls were the products of the influence their parents put on them... but after my son, I realize it comes from within. They are who they are, if you just let them be.

OP: Just don't go out and buy a wardrobe or paint a nursery based on such an early report. Have fun with your news.

AMcLaws

Oh holy hell. Why do so many people get their panties in a wad over the dumbest things??

OP, very exciting prediction!! But I would wait to buy anything until after your anatomy scan, just to be safe. Even those are wrong, sometimes. Good luck, and don't let the sex vs gender debacle get you down

Salsera29

I'm in the "what's the BFD" club. Yes, "sex" is the correct word. No, I don't believe people who use "gender" by accident are trying to make a social statement.

In general, I really don't think being oversensitive about language is in any way helpful to the minority groups that people claim to be defending. 

P.S. If I have a boy he is totally taking dance classes until he can tell me he doesn't want to.

biglewzer

Ecomom17 said:

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

@biglewzer, you already know (I think) that I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but this seems to contradict your point.  How do the sex organs matter as far as the gender with which your child identifies if they are two separate things?

I absolutely agree that on an anatomy scan you're identifying sex, which has NOTHING to do with gender.

biglewzer, am I remembering right that you have a DD?  How do you avoid genderizing her?  This is something I hope I'm doing a fair job of with DS and if I have a DD would really like to avoid but have a feeling it would be somewhat harder to do.  I'd love some tips!

____________________________________

Ecomom17 This post/response was based on gender being socially constructed and assigned based on the physical anatomy of the person. Another poster used that definition on the previous page. I agree with that socially constructed definition. Before a person can fully express themselves, you really have nothing to go on outside of the sex organs. 

As for my own daughter, I'm really not into making my children into social experiments. However, for the first two years, we were extremely aware of the products and clothing we purchased for her. The majority of her toys are traditionally boy toys, and we really try to focus on being outdoors as much as possible. With her clothes, I bought boy and girl clothes (primarily girl) and ensured I had a wide range of colors. She never wore dresses, but this was due to our lifestyle more than a choice. All that being said, on her second birthday my mom bought her a Disney princess nightgown and all that gender neutral stuff went out the window. Ha! Her bike is yellow though

For Christmas this year, here's an example of what she's getting. 

Melissa & Doug wooden puzzles

Dinosaurs 

MegaBlocks

Legos (boy ones, only because my husband hates the girl ones)

Ariel Doll

Tonka firetruck 

Pink Cowgirl Boots

Ariel Dress to match her doll

Jake & The Neverland Pirates sword

Ursula doll

Also, by no means am I saying (by giving examples above) that my way is the best way to raise a child. I'm totally faking it till I make it with this parenting gig. 

Ecomom17

biglewzer said:

Ecomom17 said:

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

@biglewzer, you already know (I think) that I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but this seems to contradict your point.  How do the sex organs matter as far as the gender with which your child identifies if they are two separate things?

I absolutely agree that on an anatomy scan you're identifying sex, which has NOTHING to do with gender.

biglewzer, am I remembering right that you have a DD?  How do you avoid genderizing her?  This is something I hope I'm doing a fair job of with DS and if I have a DD would really like to avoid but have a feeling it would be somewhat harder to do.  I'd love some tips!

____________________________________

Ecomom17 This post/response was based on gender being socially constructed and assigned based on the physical anatomy of the person. Another poster used that definition on the previous page. I agree with that socially constructed definition. Before a person can fully express themselves, you really have nothing to go on outside of the sex organs. 

As for my own daughter, I'm really not into making my children into social experiments. However, for the first two years, we were extremely aware of the products and clothing we purchased for her. The majority of her toys are traditionally boy toys, and we really try to focus on being outdoors as much as possible. With her clothes, I bought boy and girl clothes (primarily girl) and ensured I had a wide range of colors. She never wore dresses, but this was due to our lifestyle more than a choice. All that being said, on her second birthday my mom bought her a Disney princess nightgown and all that gender neutral stuff went out the window. Ha! Her bike is yellow though

For Christmas this year, here's an example of what she's getting. 

Melissa & Doug wooden puzzles

Dinosaurs 

MegaBlocks

Legos (boy ones, only because my husband hates the girl ones)

Ariel Doll

Tonka firetruck 

Pink Cowgirl Boots

Ariel Dress to match her doll

Jake & The Neverland Pirates sword

Ursula doll

Also, by no means am I saying (by giving examples above) that my way is the best way to raise a child. I'm totally faking it till I make it with this parenting gig. 

Ah, thanks for clarifying.  Definitely true that there's nothing to go on but sex organs for awhile!  I wasn't thinking you were making your kid into a social experiment, just figuring you had some thoughts on not putting such definitive expectations on a certain gender, especially since you have the advantage of having been well-educated on the topic!  Thanks for all that info, definitely good ideas.  Those damn Disney princesses just ruin it, don't they?

I'm pretty sure we're all faking it till we make it, haha.

ETA: Well, now I feel dumb.  I just reread your sentence that I was debating and realized what you meant. :P  Oh well, I'm still glad I asked since you clarified some other things.  Thanks for being patient!

biglewzer

Ecomom17 said:

biglewzer said:

Ecomom17 said:

biglewzer said:

michellexm said:

iris427 said:

michellexm said:

shanaynerz said:

It's cool they're so confident, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.

And gender is a social construct whereas one's sex is based on what's between one's legs.

I actually think sex is not based on what's between one's legs; it's based on chromosomes that generally determine the things between the legs.  Not everybody comes out looking like one side or the other fully though, and some people have extra chromosomes that can make it even more confusing.

If you want to make sex a word denoting scientific fact, look at the genotype, not the phenotype.

Exactly. Chromosomes and anatomy don't always match, or line up perfectly with an XX/XY dichotomy.  And sometimes internal and external anatomy don't match either.  There are some academics that argue against a sex vs gender dichotomy for this reason, or because it implies that one (sex/biology) is more real or legit than the other (gender/culture).  Another reason I roll my eyes at the "it's sex not gender!!!" posts.  These are complex issues that aren't as black and white as people are making them out to be here.

Plus if you define gender as "socially constructed roles assigned based on sex" then in a sense you ARE finding out the gender of your baby too--at least in the sense of how society will view and treat them.  Most of us here will probably consider our baby's genitals when we pick their name, buy their clothes, paint their nursery, etc.  So we're not just finding out the sex.  We are also gendering our child. 

Thank you for summing up my own thoughts so succinctly.  I am in complete agreement.

During the anatomy scan, you're identifying the sex organs. Plain and simple, not truly identifying the gender of the baby. Yes, gender is based on the sex of the baby, but you need to identify the sex organs before you assign the gender (before the child can verbalize how they identify). One comes before the other. They're not the same thing in regards to seeing genitalia on an ultrasound. 

@biglewzer, you already know (I think) that I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue, but this seems to contradict your point.  How do the sex organs matter as far as the gender with which your child identifies if they are two separate things?

I absolutely agree that on an anatomy scan you're identifying sex, which has NOTHING to do with gender.

biglewzer, am I remembering right that you have a DD?  How do you avoid genderizing her?  This is something I hope I'm doing a fair job of with DS and if I have a DD would really like to avoid but have a feeling it would be somewhat harder to do.  I'd love some tips!

____________________________________

Ecomom17 This post/response was based on gender being socially constructed and assigned based on the physical anatomy of the person. Another poster used that definition on the previous page. I agree with that socially constructed definition. Before a person can fully express themselves, you really have nothing to go on outside of the sex organs. 

As for my own daughter, I'm really not into making my children into social experiments. However, for the first two years, we were extremely aware of the products and clothing we purchased for her. The majority of her toys are traditionally boy toys, and we really try to focus on being outdoors as much as possible. With her clothes, I bought boy and girl clothes (primarily girl) and ensured I had a wide range of colors. She never wore dresses, but this was due to our lifestyle more than a choice. All that being said, on her second birthday my mom bought her a Disney princess nightgown and all that gender neutral stuff went out the window. Ha! Her bike is yellow though

For Christmas this year, here's an example of what she's getting. 

Melissa & Doug wooden puzzles

Dinosaurs 

MegaBlocks

Legos (boy ones, only because my husband hates the girl ones)

Ariel Doll

Tonka firetruck 

Pink Cowgirl Boots

Ariel Dress to match her doll

Jake & The Neverland Pirates sword

Ursula doll

Also, by no means am I saying (by giving examples above) that my way is the best way to raise a child. I'm totally faking it till I make it with this parenting gig. 

Ah, thanks for clarifying.  Definitely true that there's nothing to go on but sex organs for awhile!  I wasn't thinking you were making your kid into a social experiment, just figuring you had some thoughts on not putting such definitive expectations on a certain gender, especially since you have the advantage of having been well-educated on the topic!  Thanks for all that info, definitely good ideas.  Those damn Disney princesses just ruin it, don't they?

I'm pretty sure we're all faking it till we make it, haha.

From an outsiders perspective, I'm sorta in love with the parents that are making their kids into a social experiment. I mean, I feel terrible for the kids (especially since the parents are blogging and stuff) but it's all really incredible to watch unfold (train wreck potential). I have similar feelings towards the children of Teen Mom (mtv series, not real teen moms).