Graeme

I just thought this story was cool... Best holiday snap? Student sends family into space

Rped = roleplayed (as in a roleplaying game - RPG). I'm guessing it was a fantasy RPG like Dungeons and Dragons.

A lot of this is cultural, and it can vary within a country. My parents were always Mum and Dad, but my wife's parents insisted that I call them by their first name - something I found very uncomfortable doing for quite a few years. My mum remarried after my dad died, but we were told to call our step-dad "Uncle Len". Of course, the youngest of my siblings was well in his thirties by then, so it would have been weird calling starting to call someone new "Dad" at that age Our boys call us Mum and Dad or Mummy and Daddy (the eldest changed his form of address about a year ago - the youngest boy hasn't changed yet). But we've also made it clear they can address us by our first names if they want to, and from time to time, they will (usually when talking about the parent who isn't there at the time). For a baby/infant, two parents both called the same thing would be confusing, so in that situation, I'd suggest Dad and Pops/Pa. In the situation where one is known as the biological parent, calling the other one Uncle <first name> would also be fine, though that may cause confusion further down the track, especially if they have other uncles as well.

My boys have been playing minecraft while it was still in beta. I'll admit I think it looks really interesting and I wouldn't mind getting my own copy, but I just don't find a lot of time to play computer games, which is why I'm currently sticking to my old games. My youngest boy has also got a large percentage of his classes at school playing minecraft and he's the minecraft "guru" at school. For his birthday, he also got some cool minecraft T-shirts (my favourite is the Periodic Table of Minecraft). Main Site: Minecraft Wiki Site: Minecraft Wiki

I'm currently replaying one of my old games - Baldur's Gate. I've seen it in the stores really cheap recently and that prompted me to dig out my old copy and start playing it again.

I'll just say a few things. 1. Long distance relationships are tough. I was in one for 9 months when I was younger and it was really difficult going from phone contact only (this is pre-Internet days ) to living in each other's pockets. It's not 'normal' and the people involved don't react normally as a consequence. Things are better today - it's easier to maintain contact in the Internet age - but online contact doesn't replace a cuddle.... 2. Trust is needed for a relationship, and that's especially true for long distance relationships. The two of you need to talk openly about this and work out what you can do. 3. Your boyfriend appears to be insecure. Given your comments, I suspect the mushy stuff is not usual for him. If that's true, I'd say he's feeling insecure and was doing that to try to keep the relationship going - to try to make sure he's not going to lose you. So I see two issues - trust and insecurity. Both can be solved with communication, but only if both parties are willing to do so.

Very carefully... I agree - a very enjoyable book. However, the author has stated that he didn't research autism/aspergers before hand and the book itself never says what condition the boy has (the blurb on the back cover of my copy says Aspergers, but the story read to me more as if he had autism). I don't think there's any real doubt that they're related. The brain scans show the similarity between the two conditions. However, Aspergers can be hard to diagnose at times because some of it is subjective with other possible causes. eg. social development issues could be for reasons other than Aspergers. There was an interesting article recently in the New York Times by someone who was misdiagnosed as having Aspergers. I'm also sure that there's a lot of people with Aspergers who haven't been diagnosed or were only diagnosed late in life (I met someone recently whose brother wasn't diagnosed until he was in his forties).

Autism is generally recognised as a different wiring of the brain from the neurotypical (ie. those who don't have autism). As such, it's a ripe area for Science Fiction authors to play with - does that different wiring give abilities/talents that are not obvious to the rest of us? Autism itself is a spectrum, ranging from the severally handicapped through to the extremely bright. While many people consider autism to indicate below average intelligence, that's not actually the case. As I said at the start - the brain of someone with an autism spectrum disorder is wired differently to the rest of us. High Functioning Autism (which may or may not be the same as Aspergers Syndrome - the jury appears to be out on that question) includes some very bright people. While it's purely speculation, people such as Mozart, Einstein and Bill Gates are sometimes thought to have autistic traits. Whether that means that have an autism spectrum disorder, however, is open to debate as none of them (to the best of my knowledge) have ever been tested for the condition. To further the 'brain wired different' concept, there have been studies that have shown physiological differences in the brain between someone with an autism spectrum disorder and someone without. So it's not just a theory - there is some evidence to back it up. So you can see why Science Fiction authors find the concept intriguing. People whose brain is wired different could see things in a different way to the rest of us, and maybe interact with aliens in a different way to the rest of us.

Then the perpetrators would probably be on trial for manslaughter. I think the real question for the Australian case is whether there would have been the same outcome (enquiries and the issue going all the way up the tree to the Minister for Defence) if the cadet who was the victim was gay. The answer to that is obviously unknowable, but while I'd like to say it would be, I suspect that the media spin would've been slightly different, and the community reaction would have been more mixed (with some sectors saying that that was typical homosexual behaviour and that's why they shouldn't be in the military). Overall, however, I think the same result would have happened.

Just as a small aside, Spring in Australia starts on 1st September, not 20th March. Autumn started on 1st March.

Just as an aside, here in Australia we had a very similar incident about a year ago, where ADFA cadets broadcast a consensual sexual act on Skype. In that case it was a woman cadet who was the victim - her male partner was in on the broadcasting. It resulted in a major scandal in the Australian Defence Forces that resurfaced recently because that's when the investigations and reviews finished. So, I'm inclined to start from a position that this was a stupid malicious prank (like with the ADFA cadets), but probably not a case of bias intimidation. However, I haven't seen the evidence presented in court, so I'm in no position to make a judgement call on the matter. I'm just stating where I would start from. That someone died as a result is a tragedy, and that's where I will stop with my opinions.

The whole movie and stage show are both great.

WARNING: Discussions on the merits of a death penalty tend to be rather political. There are threads on that subject in The Soapbox if you want to discuss the issue. Please do not discuss them here in The Lounge as this is a non-political zone.

:music: Congratulations! :music:

I have a copy of David Morrell's "Lessons From a Lifetime of Writing" and it has an entire chapter on the subject of a book being converted into a movie. In his case it was a novel called "First Blood".... better known to the movie world as "Rambo". The key lesson from that is: A. Authors don't make money from the movie. B. Authors can, however, make money from sequels by insisting on the right to be the author for that sequel. As for the butchering, here's a quote from the book after he's agree to pay $500 for an attorney to go over the First Blood film contract: The book then goes on to explain what profit participation means, and how LITTLE it means you'll get. David Morrell was lucky - he actually got something back. Anyway, I thoroughly recommend the book for it's tips on writing, as well as the chapters on getting published and on how, from the author's perspective, First Blood became the movie Rambo.

This wasn't one of the poll options, so I can't vote for it there, but I can say it here that that's what I prefer. A plot is necessary, but so is characterisation. Tom Clancy does have a lot of cardboard characters, but he has enough fully fleshed characters that they, combined with the plot, make a story that's great to read. A plot without good characterisations is just hard to believe, and, for me, sometimes too hard to believe for me to be able to get absorbed in the story. So, my preference is character-driven plots. That is, plots that evolved from the characterisations in the story. That doesn't mean you can't do plot-driven stories where the characterisations take second place... but they're not my preference.

You've certainly raised some interesting questions. They've certainly made me think. We tried to avoid gender stereotyping with our two boys, in that we didn't try to teach them some things were for boys and some things were for girls, but they picked up on that anyway. It's hard to avoid when even the toy stores have a "Boys" aisle and a "Girls" aisle. But overall, we let them do what they want to do, and play with what they wanted to play (within reason - we wouldn't let them play with the power sockets in the house ). They developed their own personalities quite rapidly and while there are many things that they do that would be considered typical for a male toddler, those things were generally not exceptional for a girl toddler, too. Does that mean that they would fall into a 'gender neutral' category? I really don't know. Both of my boys are clearly male, physically and behaviourally. However, neither is anti-feminine, unlike some kids I've met like the neighbourhood kid who would chant the phrase "Boys are strong; like King Kong. Girls are weak; push them in the creek" when he was younger. His dad approved and encouraged that sort of attitude, though in a light-hearted way, while we didn't. Where did they pick up their attitudes and behaviour? How much was environmental (ie. taught) and how much was part of their very nature? I've got absolutely no idea....

No problem You had admitted you needed sleep when you made your post As I've said above, I work in the Australian healthcare industry. As such, I'm also aware of a number of characteristics of the American healthcare industry. One of those is that in America they prefer to use the term Gender for what we in Australia would use Sex. This does make for confusion when communicating, and I have probably inadvertently added to the confusion by using the American term in my initial posts before describing the difference between Sex and Gender in a later post. This is one of the reasons I find definitions to be so important, especially in on line discussions. Yes, I meant their apparent biological sex. As I mentioned above, as the discussion appeared to be using the American terminology, I tried to stick with that. As for the difference with toddlers, you get quite a range of personality differences. I'm sure there are probably some studies that would show, on average, that female toddlers did X more than male toddlers, and male toddlers did Y more than female toddlers, but they would also show a huge overlap between them. Boys toddlers will play with dolls (we got an anatomically correct male doll for our eldest boy when his brother was born, so he could have his baby to look after, too, and, yes, he played with it), and girls will play rough-and-tumble games (the 'tom-boy' stereotype is there because it's not uncommon). So, for all essential purposes, you can't expect male toddlers to be different to female toddlers in behaviour. Individually, they're all different. Collectively, there's a lot of similarities between the two. I can't comment on what others think the term "Gender" means. I gave what my understanding is of the technical definitions used within the Australian healthcare industry. As an aside the description of the appropriate field in the HL7 messages used by most major computer systems in healthcare is "Administrative Sex".... But based on my personal understanding, the answer would have to be a partial "No". Gender is typically treated as a shorthand for "Gender Identity", in that it is what a person feels that they are. Sexual orientation and biological sex CAN be taken out of the equation if we're talking about gender related behaviour, but then what's left? In short, gender identity is probably partially driven by cultural expectations. In that a person feels that they are a particular gender based on what they feel are the cultural expectations of that sex. Having said that, there's also strong indications that there's a biological component. I don't have the reference handy, but there a case of someone who was biologically male, but raised as a female because of surgery as an infant that required the removal of their sexual organs (from memory). That person, however, despite being taught throughout their growing years that they were female, believed they should have been male (with significant psychological harm as a consequence). That is, despite all their upbringing, they felt they should have been their biological sex. I know I'm not helping, but I don't know enough to really understand the basis for Gender Identity. I'm male, have always been male, and while intellectually curious at times, have not real desire to be female. I'm aware of some of the complications in this area (one of the parenting magazines here in Australia had an article on the subject at one point), but I don't know a lot of detail. Based on that one case I mentioned above of the boy raised as a girl, then, yes, I would expect to see some differences between them. However, since the variations in personality are so broad in people, it would be hard to determine which were gender characteristics/behaviour and what which were personality characteristics/behaviour. Just found the reference for that case: David Reimer

You took the first quote out of context. The full context makes it clear I was talking about young kids. That is, for young kids there's no effective difference between the genders (and in this context I'm talking sexes, rather than gender identities). I remember seeing pictures that show that for before puberty, if you cover up the hair and genitals of a young kid, it's often impossible to identify if they are male or female. That's obviously not true later on in life, but for young kids, it is. Equally, many pre-school kids play together irrespective of the sexes of the kids. They don't distinguish between male and female unless they've been taught to do so. On transgender and reassignment surgery - that's an adult issue, and I thought I was clear that as they get older there ARE differences between the genders (again, in this context I mean sexes, not gender identities). To take Persinette's analogy a little further, before puberty kids do NOT have a sexuality - they are neither gay, straight or bi-sexual. It is only as puberty arrives that their sexuality is discovered. Of course, before puberty, kids can be rough or gentle, loud or quiet, sporty or nerdy... but that says nothing about their sexuality. It's one of the reasons I see red when I hear about parents who think toddlers "might be gay". They don't mean homosexual - they mean that the toddler doesn't live up to their expectations as to the level of masculinity the toddler shows.

I work with hospital computer systems, so I have a good understanding of gender vs sex. A lot of people use the two interchangeably, but here in Australia in the health care industry the two are NOT synonymous. Sex is the biological status, and most computer systems have four or five values (seriously) and Gender is the cultural status. For most people they're one and the same, but gender allows scope for transgender to indicate what gender they want to be considered as, rather than the sex that they, at that time, are from a biological point of view. The sex values in the computer systems I work with are: Male Female Unknown (eg. a badly burnt person in an emergency department could be admited with a sex of "Unknown") Indeterminate (a medical conditions affecting some neonatals where the sex is not determined until up to three weeks after birth) The fifth possible value is "Intersex", used while a transgender person is transitioning between male and female, though not all computer systems include that as an option. From a biological point of view, even using chromosomes to define sex isn't straightforward. XX is female, XY is male, but what about XXY? What is gender? What do you want it be? Or, more critically, how important is it to you?

I think we're generally in agreement. There are certainly gender differences. Some of this feeds into stereotypes (boys are usually stronger than girls, but that's not a universal truth), but at a young age the only real difference between the genders involves the mechanics of urinating Otherwise, there's no effective difference between the genders. Any differences will be based on personality, cultural education and family pressures. Now, when they get older, there will be increasing differences, all related to the biological differences between the sexes (and I'm including non-sexual matters such as muscular growth and rates of maturing which are different between the sexes). But things likes toys and colours, as stated above, are not based on biological differences. They're based on cultural expectations. As a quick example, I've been told that back in Victorian times (I think - maybe Edwardian), the main colour for boys was pink and the main colour for girls was blue. Why? Pink was a light red, the colour of courage. Blue was the colour associated with the Virgin Mary. I have no idea how that got swapped around, but it shows that genders and colours are a cultural phenomenon, not anything inbuilt. Oh, and I've told my boys this story, so they're aware of it. They still think pink is a girls colour, but they know that wasn't always the case.

G'day, Kevin! Thanks for the great post. Just one comment on the section highlighted above. One of the children's books we used to read to our boys was on exactly this subject. It was about the differences between boys and girls, and it essentially said that apart from boys being able to become fathers and girls being able to become mothers, there was nothing that either couldn't do. Building bridges, growing flowers, being a baker, parachuting... both boys and girls could do all of them. That's essentially what you've just said, and that's in a not-too-hard to find children's book (one of the Bernstein Bear books). The wording used in the book was even close to what you put in quotes! We don't have that book any more, so I can't get the exact quote from it, but it's pretty close. You don't need to request a separate thread - you're free to create one yourself We've discussed topics like that in The Lounge before, so go ahead if you want

I read a couple of things in the article that concerned me (banning combat trousers but encouraging floral tops, for example), but overall I wasn't bothered. What I didn't see was to what extent the parents told the CHILD not to reveal his gender. As a simple example, toddlers don't have a nudity taboo. Boy toddlers will quite happily urinate in public if they need to. That makes their gender quite obvious. Girl toddlers tend not to do the same because it's just a bit more difficult for them to do so - but I accept that that's also partially cultural. It's more acceptable for a young boy to urinate against a tree in a public area than it is for a girl to do similar. Whether this harmed the child will depend on the extent that the parents went to. If they repressed natural tendencies in the child as part of the process, then I think that's wrong. If they were, instead, opening up by giving the child more options than would be typical, then I can't see that that would cause harm. The concept was fine - it's the details of exactly what they did and didn't do that determines if they've harmed their child. As an aside, my sister and her husband refused to let their son have any toy guns. What did he do when he came to visit our house? He picked up a stick and pretended it was a gun.... Finally, there's one part of the article that I rolled my eyes at: A lot of pre-school boys would think nothing of being given flowers. The gender education that changes that comes later. Comparing a child (her son) to adult males (many men) shows either a lack of comprehension on her behalf or a complete misunderstanding on the part of the journalist who wrote the article.

I think it's when you get to 500 posts you get to edit your title. Mine's self-descriptive If anyone has trouble with either of the two words, I'm happy to explain what they mean

** Digs in my closet, trying to find my moderator hat... ... Nice, but that's my old Anthology Coordinator hat. Note to self - must remember to send it over to Renee... Ah ha! Found it... ** Play nicely people ** takes off his moderator hat ** Labels are important to allow us to talk about subjects, but we must never forget that they do not describe a person, but are merely a loose covering that may or may not complete cover a person. My favourite example is someone I once met who was the stereotypical laid-back Aussie surfer... who happened to have a strong interest in Salvador Dali art. If you imagine a stereotypical Aussie surfer, then that was him - blonde, sexy, lazy smile... the lot. But that wasn't everything he was. Similarly, the labels "gay" and "geek" are loose coverings that don't describe a person. Taking things personally, I give myself the label gay - but I'm happily married to a wonderful woman and I'm the father of two wonderful boys. The label "gay" fits me better than anything else (including the label "bisexual"), but it doesn't completely describe who I am. Am I a geek? Probably not, despite the fact that I'm an IT consultant who hates physical activity (and love playing Pokemon games). There are too many areas where I don't meet the profile (I'm not a techno-phile - technology is a tool for me, not an end in itself, which is the case with a lot of geeks). But even if I were a geek, it would only be part of who I am. Even being gay doesn't define me. The one label that describes me better than anything else is Dad but that's still only part of who I am. Despite all of that, we all use labels. Sometimes we accept the labels (like I accept the label gay despite the fact that it's imperfect in describing my situation), and sometime we don't. But labels don't define us - they are maps that give others a frame of reference to help them understand us. Sometimes that map is more accurate than others, but we must never forget that they never, ever define a person.