They have a biological boy. No-one can't change that. That's going to be one very confused kid when it comes to biology lessons and whether or not it is he who can get pregnant or does the impregnating.
"We never tell Star he’s a boy, we tell him he can be whatever he wants."
"He said, ‘I might not be a daddy – I might be a mammy!"
Dear God.
And for a couple who are so interested in gender neutrality, they sure as hell like to define things in terms of gender and its emphasis on masculinity and femininity.
"Nikki says: “When we took Star shopping for his school uniform we knew he’d need male underwear because it’s more appropriate for his shape. But he chose pink socks and vests and we’re more than happy for him to go like that.”
Why make the distinction if you don't subscribe to the distinction?
She identifies as pansexual and dresses masculine some days, while on others she will wear “high heels, a padded bra and lipstick.”
So days that aren't masculine involve high heels, a padded bra and lippy. Why emphasise masculinity or femininity in the first place?
They are actually reinforcing gender stereotypes. Simply saying that they fall under the definition of masculine and feminine. Well that's news to no-one.
I don't altogether blame them for being confused. When the accoutrements are so rigidly defined by gender, it's hard to disregard it. Unless you actively emphasise it and go the other way.
But that can't be termed gender neutral then.
Very little can.
Which is why appearance is very secondary. Gender neutrality should refer to roles and the expectation of what men and women can do. Not what colour they like.