“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
The article goes on to say that the "liberal" couple's two sons have been raised in a similar fashion, they pick out clothes from both boys and girls sections of the stores, and seem to have been nurtured in such a fashion wherein its acceptable to wear hair styles and colors generally associated with females.
It's certainly true that gender roles and identifying markers are largely subjective, in the sense that cultures have varying norms and styles associated with males and females respectively. In the Middle East, men wear the Jalabiyyah. It's a long [to the feet], one piece tunic. The traditional depictions of Jesus has him wearing a white Jalabiyyah-type cloth. Yet, in an American context, it may be seen by many unfamiliar with other cultures as a woman's dress!
Yet, as the article itself points out, there is no mistaking the genitalia of a person. As a baby grows, their gender will be apparent, and this is certainly true in the onset of puberty.
Rebellion against nature
While we admit that gender identifying clothes/habits/tastes vary according to cultural norm, the whole premise of "not identifying the gender, allowing the child to choose their gender" is a form of rebellion against nature! In the modern world, where we see ourselves as having control over every aspect of life, we have a deficit in terms of our connection with what's real.
What happened to the days when kids loved to play outside? These days, everyone wants to have their children [or more accurately, the children themselves desire] to play video games, music and games on their phone, chatting and using twitter, rather than engaging on a social level. We depend on electronic media and seemingly isolate ourselves from the natural world.
Of course, we have to admit that, from a religious standpoint, this is one of our objections to homosexuality. Procreation cannot take place between two men or between two women, it can only happen in a relationship between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is inherently against nature. Yet, what we are talking about, the complete elimination [or at least marginalization] of gender from identity, especially of a child, is a whole other ballgame. It's worse than simply having a sexual preference that's unnatural! These parents, what are they setting their children, especially the baby named Storm, up for? How will the children themselves have healthy lives when they are living in a situation wherein they are raised with a thought that keeping secret one's gender is a virtue?
It is our hope that the parents will see that their choice to use their children to preach an agenda of gender elimination from society will have devastating emotional and psychological consequences, and correct the situation before its too late. It is also our hope that in general, humankind will return to having natural, healthy relationships, both with each other and with the planet in general.