Is it sexist to only want children of one specific gender?

[Cupola]

It's only sexist to prefer one gender for a reason if it's racist to prefer a certain race of people for another reason.

Preference is not discriminatory, exclusivity is.

[Ifreann]

Yes.
Thus ends another episode of short answers for stupid questions.

Tune in next time to find out whether it's homophobic to only socialise with straight people.

---

I dunno, I might wan't a daughter just so I can be a dick to whoever tries going out with her. The whole "Do anything with my Daughter and I will find you, I will kill you.

That'll be a rather old reference by the time you have a daughter who's old enough to be introducing you to someone she's dating, even if you were to knock someone up before I finish this post.

---

That sounds exactly like sexism to me.

Not to mention also a recipe for disaster when you have, say, a tomboy instead of a girly-girl and get all bent out of shape over the fact that she has "boy" interests. Or an effeminate boy, and get bent out of shape over him not being interested in learning to play football.

Nonsense. How is having preferred interests in a kid's gender inherently sexist?

I think I can raise a boy better, because I am also a male, and thus I'd rather raise a boy. I'm more comfortable with that. The idea of raising a girl, whose gender I have no experience with in terms of the challenges of growing up, is not as appealing to me as something I am comfortable with. Surely you're not saying that that makes me sexist?

"I'm discriminating based on sex. Surely you're not saying that makes me a sexist?"

---

What if someone (le me) wants children of both genders?

Not all children are cut out to be bi-gendered.

You should consider giving lessons. After all, if you're good at something, never do it for free.

[Dyakovo]

And your First post was demonstrably wrong.

If you could explain how, I would be much obliged so that I would avoid making the same mistake in the future.

I already did...
Having an exclusive preference based on the gender/sex of the child is blatantly sexist.

[Herskerstad]

While preferences are not exactly criminal or immoral, people who take an abortion based on not meeting the required gender preference reveals a character that would make a nilhist look morally prolific comparatively by a grand margin.

[Cupola]

If you could explain how, I would be much obliged so that I would avoid making the same mistake in the future.

I already did...
Having an exclusive preference based on the gender/sex of the child is blatantly sexist.

And I said that exclusivity is sexist and not caring much even if you got that girl instead of a boy you wanted, aka preference, is not.

[Dumb Ideologies]

You should consider giving lessons. After all, if you're good at something, never do it for free.

But what if I'm good at being poor. What then?!

[Dyakovo]

I already did...
Having an exclusive preference based on the gender/sex of the child is blatantly sexist.

And I said that exclusivity is sexist

So you agree that the answer to the thread's question is "yes".

[Cupola]

And I said that exclusivity is sexist

So you agree that the answer to the thread's question is "yes".

Yes, obviously.

[Dyakovo]

You should consider giving lessons. After all, if you're good at something, never do it for free.

But what if I'm good at being poor. What then?!

Offer the class to hipsters.

[Dyakovo]

So you agree that the answer to the thread's question is "yes".

Yes, obviously.

Then I'm not sure Why we've been arguing...

[Cupola]

Yes, obviously.

Then I'm not sure Why we've been arguing...

Me neither.

[Magna Libero]

Probably not. It can be a matter of life and death, eg boys having an easier time to find a work, like many parents seem to think now and in the past that boys have a better chance of succeeding than girls in China.
Some parents might even prefer girls over boys as they might be easier to sell as sex slaves (just a guess).

It's utterly stupid, but so is life. It's easy for us to talk about morals, when other people might be starving.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yes, obviously.

Then I'm not sure Why we've been arguing...

Because you're on NSG, silly.

[Dyakovo]

Probably not. It can be a matter of life and death, eg boys having an easier time to find a work, like many parents seem to think now and in the past that boys have a better chance of succeeding than girls.
Some parents might even prefer girls over boys as they might be easier to sell as sex slaves (just a guess).

It's utterly stupid, but so is life. It's easy for us to talk about morals, when other people might be starving.

Says it isn't sexist, proceeds to use extremely sexist examples to try to support his claim.

[Greater-London]

Yes, it suggests that there are things that you want to do with a children that only one gender can do. Considering that boys and girls can do pretty much anything the other can its not a problem.

The only thing you should want for your child or potential child is that they are happy and healthy, the rest is not important.

Saying this I would probably rather children of different genders rather than the same my completely anecdotal based analysis is that they get on better.

[Magna Libero]

Probably not. It can be a matter of life and death, eg boys having an easier time to find a work, like many parents seem to think now and in the past that boys have a better chance of succeeding than girls.
Some parents might even prefer girls over boys as they might be easier to sell as sex slaves (just a guess).

It's utterly stupid, but so is life. It's easy for us to talk about morals, when other people might be starving.

Says it isn't sexist, proceeds to use extremely sexist examples to try to support his claim.

Easy for you to say so. I don't think the parents think about being sexist when they choose to have a baby of a specific gender. No, I think they only think about surviving/money/food/shelter/water etc.

[Ifreann]

You should consider giving lessons. After all, if you're good at something, never do it for free.

But what if I'm good at being poor. What then?!

You'll be paid in peanuts.

[Dyakovo]

Says it isn't sexist, proceeds to use extremely sexist examples to try to support his claim.

Easy for you to say so. I don't think the parents think about being sexist when they choose to have a baby of a specific gender. No, I think they only think about surviving/money/food/shelter/water etc.

Whether they think about it or not is immaterial.

[Torisakia]

No. If you want a son, fine. If you want a daughter, fine. And because no one can stop you.

[Arglorand]

No. If you want a son, fine. If you want a daughter, fine. And because no one can stop you.

That's a pretty crappy argument, tbh.

No one can really stop you from being privately racist, either. But it still makes you racist.

[Davinhia]

Does not

I don't want children, but if i do, I'm adopting a little girl

I don't want a boy, does that make me sexist? NO

[Tymeronia]

It's called preference.

[Torisakia]

No. If you want a son, fine. If you want a daughter, fine. And because no one can stop you.

That's a pretty crappy argument, tbh.

No one can really stop you from being privately racist, either. But it still makes you racist.

>Thinks that I'm good at arguments on NSG

I guess you're right.

[Dyakovo]

Does not

I don't want children, but if i do, I'm adopting a little girl

I don't want a boy, does that make me sexist? NO YES

Ftfy
You not recognizing the sexism inherent in a preference based solely on the sex of the child doesn't change reality.

[Torisakia]

This shit right here in the entire reason I'm never having a kid, pet, or anything that lives that needs my care.

Because no matter what, people make it more difficult than it needs to be.