Talk:Gender reveal party

Other Criticism
In addition to criticism of its gender normativity and essentialist tendencies, the custom has also been criticized for its association with dangerous and extreme stunts. We have a list of incidents involving such stunts, but perhaps we should also more broadly describe the backlash against them? 169.233.236.196 (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, but from a cursory glance, it seems to me that most of the criticism is limited to "listing a bunch of incidents and concluding that the parties are dangerous". It's probably still perfectly fine to say "Gender reveal parties have also been criticised for becoming increasingly dangerous" (though this is already mentioned in the introduction), but ideally we'd like a source or two that expounds deeper on this aspect. Edderiofer (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, on another look I found this article from the LA Times, this article from Refinery29, and additionally this recent article criticising them on the grounds of animal abuse. Edderiofer (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The first source mentions alligators with no criticism of it. The second mentions "possible animal abuse" with a link to a hippo story with some weak Twitter criticism and the zoo staff saying that they were happy with the situation. The third is an animal rescue group explicitly criticising the release of dyed pigeons into the wild (domestic young white pigeons don’t have a clue how to survive out in the wild and would’ve been picked off by predators had they not been saved). Only the third of these seems strong enough to quote, in my opinion. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I misphrased; I meant that the first two contained criticism of gender reveal parties on safety grounds, and that the third contained criticism on animal abuse grounds. Edderiofer (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure we need to clarify that the "injury, death, and even large-scale damage" mentioned in the list are bad things. Nobody at all is claiming that a few injuries or deaths are an acceptable price to pay for the fun of a reveal event. Animal abuse is an angle that would have two sides and benefit from the context of who was criticising it, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherent in the basic concept of a gender reveal party that makes them dangerous; the vast majority are just normal low-key gatherings with colored decorations or cake or whatever. People commonly get in accidents because of graduations and proms, but I don't see this in the lead of graduation or prom. People have died and been injured in explosions at birthday parties. There's just a contingent of source-writers that either for activist reasons or to get clicks like to pontificate about gender reveal parties in particular, and seize on accidents as proof of their wickedness. Is there really well-studied statistical evidence that they are more dangerous? And is it not the method of reveal, not the party itself, that is the issue there? I think it strains belief that something like "animal abuse" is in any way a noteworthy, common problem for these that is worth mentioning. The article should not be a list of every sort of thing that can go wrong at this type of party, nor cite obscure and obviously tendentious sources like Refinery29, but stick to the highest-quality and objective sources to keep NPOV. Crossroads -talk- 23:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Crossroads; bloggers and media seem to be engaging in a large amount of pearl clutching and moral panic in this regard, locating social-media outrage and focusing ire on this type of party when it's got little to do with the families celebrating new life and more to do with a few careless individuals trying to impress or outdo their neighbors. Should we overwhelm our article on Christmas lights with tales of electrocutions and people falling off ladders? Elizium23 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The bigger question of whether to mention the accidents at all was hashed out at Talk:Gender_reveal_party/Archive_1 last year. If nearly all press coverage of gender reveal parties (even when they go off safely) mentions these accidents, that's a very strong sign that Wikipedia should also be covering that aspect. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be due to mention this to some extent, but at the very least there's no reason to devote even more emphasis to this. Crossroads -talk- 22:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Sex-gender distinction
"Furthermore, gender reveal parties rely heavily on the male–female gender binary, which assumes the child will not be intersex, which occurs in an estimated 1 in 4,500–5,500 births."

The previous paragraph emphasizes the sex-gender distinction, so the correct terminology here is "the male–female sex binary". Ulaniantho (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Camp Pendleton foal
User:ABAgency has pushed for the inclusion of an example of US Marine Corps trailing and announcing the gender of a foal on a sign in 1957 as being "the very first gender reveal" (based on a YouTuber having this opinion).

But this isn't described as having involved a party, and doesn't seem that different from a standard conventional newspaper announcement that a birth has happened, where the gender is incidental. Belbury (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Criticism, first paragraph
This part is a mess.

Firstly: "Gender is a social construct in this view, not definitively determined by biological characteristics, with an individual gender identity impossible to determine medically."

This doesn't make sense. Let's suppose that we are working under a system of definitions where "gender" is defined to by a synonym of "sex". So what? Gender identity is still impossible to determine biologically. "Gender" being interpreted per the social construct definitions doesn't suddenly nullify this fact, since definitions do not affect the real world. The sex-gender distinction is a matter of semantics, but the observability of gender identity is a very material question.

So the statement is a non-sequitur.

Secondly: "Thus, when the "gender reveal" is made, it is the sex and not the gender that is being revealed, according to this view."

This is wrong. It is the gender being revealed, irregardless of the system of definitions we're using. If we're using sex=gender, then obviously. If we aren't, then the gender reveal party is still a public declaration of the social role that will be cast upon the child. In other terms, gender. So gender reveal parties do in fact reveal gender. What they do not reveal is gender identity. The HuffPost source gets this right, actually. So this statement isn't even supported by the source. The term "gender" should be replaced with "gender identity" here.

The whole controversy regarding whether "gender reveal party" is a misnomer only exists because people in general do not understand the difference between the terms "gender" and "gender identity", unfortunately including many reliable sources. But this does not mean that the article should uncritically replicate this mistake when describing the controversy. The paragraph should be reworded so that it uses the precise terminology.

I should note that I did not read the Journal of Gender Studies source. Mainly because it's paywalled, but also because I just don't want to. Maybe if I'd read it, I would've been enlightened to the fact that "gender" and "gender identity" have been redefined to mean the same thing since the last time I checked. I doubt that this happened, but who knows. Dieknon (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)