Is this correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

[Anonymous]

No it’s not age appropriate at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

I agree with this. Basically a kid that age is referring to other kids. You could get into a more detailed nuanced conversation about the available surgeries for older folks who want to have their penis removed or have a penis added to their body, but I'd probably delay a conversation like that way past three. I'd think it was a better idea to start with the basic biological realities that a three-yr-old wants to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

I agree with this. Basically a kid that age is referring to other kids. You could get into a more detailed nuanced conversation about the available surgeries for older folks who want to have their penis removed or have a penis added to their body, but I'd probably delay a conversation like that way past three. I'd think it was a better idea to start with the basic biological realities that a three-yr-old wants to understand.

But how is it damaging to a 3 year old or any age kid to think that there may be some boys without penises or girls without vaginas? Why does anyone need to think they have it all figured out? It’s ok to leave the discussion open to nuances without specifically discussing surgeries or other details yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

I agree with this. Basically a kid that age is referring to other kids. You could get into a more detailed nuanced conversation about the available surgeries for older folks who want to have their penis removed or have a penis added to their body, but I'd probably delay a conversation like that way past three. I'd think it was a better idea to start with the basic biological realities that a three-yr-old wants to understand.

But how is it damaging to a 3 year old or any age kid to think that there may be some boys without penises or girls without vaginas? Why does anyone need to think they have it all figured out? It’s ok to leave the discussion open to nuances without specifically discussing surgeries or other details yet.

You teach them integers before you teach them fractions. You start with the basics. They’re 3. And generally, anyone having a nuanced discussion of gender with a 3 year old has their own agenda. There’s plenty of time for them to learn what adults that are preoccupied with gender think about gender identity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very confusing to a 3 year old. They are just starting to master the differences in body parts. I don’t think the nanny is being age appropriate. The answer is vague and leaves the kid confused. I know my four year old would immediately want to know which ones don’t have which body parts and could just imagine him pointing to everyone he sees and asking me loudly whether that one has a vagina or not.

Imagine the boy had said "Women have babies." and then the nanny said "Well, some women have babies and some women do not." Something tells me you would not have concerns about this being too confusing, and it's the exact same concept. The way preschoolers learn to think beyond black and white is through experience of things that are not black and white.

And the way to handle a child asking in public whether certain people have vaginas is to say "That's a private part. We don't talk about private parts in public."

Or imagine that the chid had said, "People have eyes and noses." And the nanny responded, "Well yes, many people have eyes and noses, but not all. Some don't." It's a fact that people have eyes and noses. It's also a fact that not all people have eyes or noses, but saying this to a child this age is unnecessary and needlessly confusing. The vast majority of people have eyes and noses, and there's no reason to mention otherwise unless they encounter someone who obviously has no eyes or nose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

I agree with this. Basically a kid that age is referring to other kids. You could get into a more detailed nuanced conversation about the available surgeries for older folks who want to have their penis removed or have a penis added to their body, but I'd probably delay a conversation like that way past three. I'd think it was a better idea to start with the basic biological realities that a three-yr-old wants to understand.

Other kids are sometimes inter sexed or even transgender. No one is discussing surgery on sex organs here; just recognizing that anatomy and sense of self and the way they go together can and do vary.

Life could be easier for the kids we’re talking about and your kid could help by not bringing oversimplified concepts to their interactions. I sure as hell hope mine will do the same (and FWIW he had no difficulty understanding it because he also knows trans and gender nonconforming adults).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

I agree with this. Basically a kid that age is referring to other kids. You could get into a more detailed nuanced conversation about the available surgeries for older folks who want to have their penis removed or have a penis added to their body, but I'd probably delay a conversation like that way past three. I'd think it was a better idea to start with the basic biological realities that a three-yr-old wants to understand.

Other kids are sometimes inter sexed or even transgender. No one is discussing surgery on sex organs here; just recognizing that anatomy and sense of self and the way they go together can and do vary.

Life could be easier for the kids we’re talking about and your kid could help by not bringing oversimplified concepts to their interactions. I sure as hell hope mine will do the same (and FWIW he had no difficulty understanding it because he also knows trans and gender nonconforming adults).

So you've got an agenda. Your focus is not on the psychological well-being or age appropriate development of OP's child. But OP's focus is on her child, and on what is age appropriate and good for her child's development right now. She doesn't need to worry about whether her 3 year old is making inclusive gender statements for hypothetical people he has never met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very confusing to a 3 year old. They are just starting to master the differences in body parts. I don’t think the nanny is being age appropriate. The answer is vague and leaves the kid confused. I know my four year old would immediately want to know which ones don’t have which body parts and could just imagine him pointing to everyone he sees and asking me loudly whether that one has a vagina or not.

Imagine the boy had said "Women have babies." and then the nanny said "Well, some women have babies and some women do not." Something tells me you would not have concerns about this being too confusing, and it's the exact same concept. The way preschoolers learn to think beyond black and white is through experience of things that are not black and white.

And the way to handle a child asking in public whether certain people have vaginas is to say "That's a private part. We don't talk about private parts in public."

I think this would be too confusing. You don’t talk to three year olds like that. If they say, “dogs say ‘woof, woof’” you don’t correct them or discuss the different types of barks a dog might make.
Something tells me that you don’t know a lot of three year olds.

Why is it bad for a kid (or anyone) to be confused? I think this is a good lesson that things are not always black and white. I doubt thinking about it will keep the 3 year old awake at night or cause any issues for him. It may just be something that he thinks or asks about again later and that’s ok.

Lots of things are confusing. Kids are still trying to make sense of the world. They are trying to put things into categories that they can understand so that they can gain a little confidence to go out into the world.
And of course it would cause issues for a kid if, instead of making the world simpler for them, every time they had a question you gave a confusing and nebulous answer.

[Anonymous]

I’d get a new nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very confusing to a 3 year old. They are just starting to master the differences in body parts. I don’t think the nanny is being age appropriate. The answer is vague and leaves the kid confused. I know my four year old would immediately want to know which ones don’t have which body parts and could just imagine him pointing to everyone he sees and asking me loudly whether that one has a vagina or not.

Imagine the boy had said "Women have babies." and then the nanny said "Well, some women have babies and some women do not." Something tells me you would not have concerns about this being too confusing, and it's the exact same concept. The way preschoolers learn to think beyond black and white is through experience of things that are not black and white.

And the way to handle a child asking in public whether certain people have vaginas is to say "That's a private part. We don't talk about private parts in public."

I think this would be too confusing. You don’t talk to three year olds like that. If they say, “dogs say ‘woof, woof’” you don’t correct them or discuss the different types of barks a dog might make.
Something tells me that you don’t know a lot of three year olds.

Or maybe you don’t. Some dogs, like Granny’s say arf arf. And what does Aunt Tina’s puppy say? What about Uncle Randy’s husky?

What about Uncle Joe’s dog who was assigned cat at birth? Does Zhe say woof or meow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very confusing to a 3 year old. They are just starting to master the differences in body parts. I don’t think the nanny is being age appropriate. The answer is vague and leaves the kid confused. I know my four year old would immediately want to know which ones don’t have which body parts and could just imagine him pointing to everyone he sees and asking me loudly whether that one has a vagina or not.

Imagine the boy had said "Women have babies." and then the nanny said "Well, some women have babies and some women do not." Something tells me you would not have concerns about this being too confusing, and it's the exact same concept. The way preschoolers learn to think beyond black and white is through experience of things that are not black and white.

And the way to handle a child asking in public whether certain people have vaginas is to say "That's a private part. We don't talk about private parts in public."

I think this would be too confusing. You don’t talk to three year olds like that. If they say, “dogs say ‘woof, woof’” you don’t correct them or discuss the different types of barks a dog might make.
Something tells me that you don’t know a lot of three year olds.

Why is it bad for a kid (or anyone) to be confused? I think this is a good lesson that things are not always black and white. I doubt thinking about it will keep the 3 year old awake at night or cause any issues for him. It may just be something that he thinks or asks about again later and that’s ok.

Lots of things are confusing. Kids are still trying to make sense of the world. They are trying to put things into categories that they can understand so that they can gain a little confidence to go out into the world.
And of course it would cause issues for a kid if, instead of making the world simpler for them, every time they had a question you gave a confusing and nebulous answer.

That’s all fine but it’s also good for kids to know that not everything or everyone fits into a certain category. The only reason not to let them know that there is ambiguity is because of our own insecurities not because that’s what’s best for the kid. I can see how this could be a bit confusing for a kid. But you act like being a little confused is a bad thing; it’s not. It just helps kids/all people learn how to think more deeply about something and understand that the world doesn’t all fit into neat little categories and that’s ok,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very confusing to a 3 year old. They are just starting to master the differences in body parts. I don’t think the nanny is being age appropriate. The answer is vague and leaves the kid confused. I know my four year old would immediately want to know which ones don’t have which body parts and could just imagine him pointing to everyone he sees and asking me loudly whether that one has a vagina or not.

Imagine the boy had said "Women have babies." and then the nanny said "Well, some women have babies and some women do not." Something tells me you would not have concerns about this being too confusing, and it's the exact same concept. The way preschoolers learn to think beyond black and white is through experience of things that are not black and white.

And the way to handle a child asking in public whether certain people have vaginas is to say "That's a private part. We don't talk about private parts in public."

I think this would be too confusing. You don’t talk to three year olds like that. If they say, “dogs say ‘woof, woof’” you don’t correct them or discuss the different types of barks a dog might make.
Something tells me that you don’t know a lot of three year olds.

Why is it bad for a kid (or anyone) to be confused? I think this is a good lesson that things are not always black and white. I doubt thinking about it will keep the 3 year old awake at night or cause any issues for him. It may just be something that he thinks or asks about again later and that’s ok.

Lots of things are confusing. Kids are still trying to make sense of the world. They are trying to put things into categories that they can understand so that they can gain a little confidence to go out into the world.
And of course it would cause issues for a kid if, instead of making the world simpler for them, every time they had a question you gave a confusing and nebulous answer.

That’s all fine but it’s also good for kids to know that not everything or everyone fits into a certain category. The only reason not to let them know that there is ambiguity is because of our own insecurities not because that’s what’s best for the kid. I can see how this could be a bit confusing for a kid. But you act like being a little confused is a bad thing; it’s not. It just helps kids/all people learn how to think more deeply about something and understand that the world doesn’t all fit into neat little categories and that’s ok,

No. it isn't.

I am guessing you aren't a parent, because if you were, you would know this. But you can read a little on child development if you wish.
Little kids make sense of the world by putting things into categories. If you tell them 200 times a day that there aren't categories and life is gray and nebulous, it isn't good.

Yes. You can help an 8 year old think a little more deeply, but not a 3 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Team nanny here. It’s both the age appropriate and correct answer. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

But boys do have penises and girls do have vaginas. Are there men without penises? Sure. But OP's kid said an irrefutably true statement that does not preclude any nuanced understandings of gender. Logic 101.

I agree with this. Basically a kid that age is referring to other kids. You could get into a more detailed nuanced conversation about the available surgeries for older folks who want to have their penis removed or have a penis added to their body, but I'd probably delay a conversation like that way past three. I'd think it was a better idea to start with the basic biological realities that a three-yr-old wants to understand.

But how is it damaging to a 3 year old or any age kid to think that there may be some boys without penises or girls without vaginas? Why does anyone need to think they have it all figured out? It’s ok to leave the discussion open to nuances without specifically discussing surgeries or other details yet.

You teach them integers before you teach them fractions. You start with the basics. They’re 3. And generally, anyone having a nuanced discussion of gender with a 3 year old has their own agenda. There’s plenty of time for them to learn what adults that are preoccupied with gender think about gender identity.

But if you don't teach your three year old fractions at the same time you teach them integers, how are they going to learn to split a cookie in half and share it with a friend? Don't you want to raise kind and thoughtful children?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very confusing to a 3 year old. They are just starting to master the differences in body parts. I don’t think the nanny is being age appropriate. The answer is vague and leaves the kid confused. I know my four year old would immediately want to know which ones don’t have which body parts and could just imagine him pointing to everyone he sees and asking me loudly whether that one has a vagina or not.

Imagine the boy had said "Women have babies." and then the nanny said "Well, some women have babies and some women do not." Something tells me you would not have concerns about this being too confusing, and it's the exact same concept. The way preschoolers learn to think beyond black and white is through experience of things that are not black and white.

And the way to handle a child asking in public whether certain people have vaginas is to say "That's a private part. We don't talk about private parts in public."

I think this would be too confusing. You don’t talk to three year olds like that. If they say, “dogs say ‘woof, woof’” you don’t correct them or discuss the different types of barks a dog might make.
Something tells me that you don’t know a lot of three year olds.

Why is it bad for a kid (or anyone) to be confused? I think this is a good lesson that things are not always black and white. I doubt thinking about it will keep the 3 year old awake at night or cause any issues for him. It may just be something that he thinks or asks about again later and that’s ok.

Lots of things are confusing. Kids are still trying to make sense of the world. They are trying to put things into categories that they can understand so that they can gain a little confidence to go out into the world.
And of course it would cause issues for a kid if, instead of making the world simpler for them, every time they had a question you gave a confusing and nebulous answer.

That’s all fine but it’s also good for kids to know that not everything or everyone fits into a certain category. The only reason not to let them know that there is ambiguity is because of our own insecurities not because that’s what’s best for the kid. I can see how this could be a bit confusing for a kid. But you act like being a little confused is a bad thing; it’s not. It just helps kids/all people learn how to think more deeply about something and understand that the world doesn’t all fit into neat little categories and that’s ok,

No. it isn't.

I am guessing you aren't a parent, because if you were, you would know this. But you can read a little on child development if you wish.
Little kids make sense of the world by putting things into categories. If you tell them 200 times a day that there aren't categories and life is gray and nebulous, it isn't good.

Yes. You can help an 8 year old think a little more deeply, but not a 3 year old.

DP. My four year old wants to put things in categories sure and sometimes I support that and sometimes I challenge it. I can't imagine that any parent doesn't introduce some complexity or ambiguity into their kid's categories of the world. You're supposed to be helping them learn to think, not just validating whatever schema they develop at age 3.

If she says "girls wear skirts" I'll push back on that, and I imagine most people would. The same goes for genital questions. My four year old knows trans people closely and she's much LESS confused by that ambiguity than she is by the fact that I sometimes call her coat a jacket.