silverfox

Okay, thanks for all your contributions. As wannaV politely advised, I'll step back and have another think about what is it that's bugging me about this. There's nothing ground breaking happening here in the field of medicine or science that's straining ethical boundaries. It's not as if they're implanting clones of themselves so they can have a biological family. No doubt that will be one for the future. It's simply a woman who would prefer to be a man deciding she/he wants a child and will bring up that child in an unconventional set up. Also, unless information comes to light that particular groups or parties are financing this arrangement I can't prove any ideological motives behind it. I find myself in a minority of, err, one, with my concern.

Fair point. My conspiracy position does imply they are being duped with words like victim and doesn't give them credit for making their own choices. Of course they haven't been forced into this position. Further my question whether this is a mixed-up couple playing a dangerous game of mommies and daddies implies possible lack of intelligence and suitability. Such issues will have been raised by social workers when they applied for adoption and I've no reason to suspect there was anything wrong with the vetting process. However you'll need to reword your question wannaV because if they wish to be male the question of a biological family wouldn't arise. The position with Scott and Thomas is that the desire to be male isn't irreversible by virtue of the fact that Scott was still a capable of hhaving children.

Correct re first paragragh. Re second paragraph, I'm suspicious what's behind this family unit coming into being.

Yes, Huguenot, the simplest answer and most natural assumption to make is that they wanted kids. However, at the risk of creeping people out it's not actually that simple if you think about it. Scott and Thomas couldn't just saunter into the Californian equivalent of 'kids are us' and say we'd like to adopt a couple of kids. Social workers, psychiatrists, support groups etc would have been involved. Meetings will have been held and paperwork stamped and approved. Yes, they passed all these tests. Similarly when it came to the pregnancy. After years of taking male hormones the medical profession would need to step in to reverse some of these effects so that Scott could carry the child to term. In short a lot of people have been involved in the creation of this family unit and none of this will have come cheap in the land of the haves and have nots of medical and legal insurance. Maybe I'm just naturally cynical.

Are they being used, ie the family, is the family being used by others to promote/push the agendas of others? Not are the human rights being used?

Just spent 30 minutes or so searching the web for figures, any figures, that show any hard and fast benefits to the UK. Most figures seem to be from 2005 and deal only with Britain's contribution (projected at ?6.1B 2010/11 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/6772078/Pre-Budget-report-Cost-of-Britains-EU-membership-to-jump-by-1.2billion.html) and rebate. Huguenot do you not give any citation for your figures and there seems to be a lot of supposition involved (not that I'm accusing you of making up figures or trying to mislead). Figures must exist somewhere, and I'm not saying I'd understand them if they were produced. The country needs a real debate on this, a sort of The Sun 10 reasons to say yes and 10 reasons to say no rather than an Independent Europe has made Britain's food more continental approach.

Huguenot said: "... You are actually discussing taking away human rights from these people (because they're gay transgenders), not about do-gooders giving them..." No I'm not, that's your interpretation. I'm saying are they being used?

Many people on this thread have said they can see nothing wrong with this state of affairs, that we should not judge, that as long as they provide a loving, nurturing environment in which to bring up these children they will be no less successful than other parents, and better than some. All this is true. I have stated that Scott and his partner and the soon to be three children are pawns in a bigger game of ideological inclusion. Why do I say this? Firstly the notion of a 'pregnant man'. This is a medical/physical impossibility. It's playing with words, it's politically correct. It's not calling a spade a spade. It's a euphemism. It is a term used so as not to upset the transgender community. What is the real situation here? It revolves around two women. Two women who don't want to be women and who have tried to become more like men. They have been supported in this aim by parents, the medical profession, social workers, support groups. Ironically, they've also been supported by the legal profession that has reminded Scott he's really a woman, and hence can legally marry his partner, a woman who changed her sex to male by deed poll. So no problem, Now they decide they want to start a family. No problem, you can adopt. As a woman you can also have a child with donated sperm. You are now a family. So what's the nature of the family? Scott and his husband are adoptive transgender fathers to the two adopted children but they're really women. Scott will be the transgender father of the baby but really 'he's' the mother. Scott's partner is the foster transgender father of the baby. The two adopted brothers are no relation to the baby but are linked by this family relationship. Okay, what is wrong with this set up? The answer is I don't know, but something is troubling me. It all seems to be a bit of a mess to me. The fact that I don't know what's troubling me about this means I can't give straight answers to some of the questions that have been raised. I'm not worried about issues of sexual abuse by paedophiles or homosexuality. Others have raised these points. However, it strikes me there has been a collective pandering to whims here by the authorities. Scott and his partner have human rights so why can't they have a family. So again, is this arrangement the result of an enlightened society or are Scott, husband and children victims of do-gooders protecting their human rights and promoting inclusion for anti-discrimination purposes? Is the bully here the social workers encouraging this arrangement for political and ideological reasons?

Thanks for that list from the Independent Huguenot. It's a shame it's a bit out of date. I particularly like the following: 2. Democracy is flourishing in 27 countries - but you can't have a referendum on the EU in Britain 3. Once poor countries like Ireland, Greece and Portugal prospering 6. Co-operation on continent-wide immigration policy 8. Laws which make it easier for British people to buy property in Europe - tell that to those in Spain with bulldozed ruins 46. Europe has set Britain an example how properly to fund a national health service

"I wouldn't mind if you withdrew the accusation of pavlovian response as well" That appears rather sensitive coming from you Sean. Nevertheless, yes I withdraw the assertion. Your responses, Sean and Huguenot were not Pavlovan which implied some form of brain washing. However, both of you do have a tendency to respond to posts with a bit of a scatter-gun approach firing questions and demanding answers to questions which the poster may find irrelevant. Hence introducing homosexuality and banning blacks only serves to detract from the issue in question. We would do well to heed wannaV's warning.

So you admit there are no economic/financial benefits to Britain being part of Europe - it's just a 'nice' bureaucratic idea?

Yep, it must be a mistake. Worrying though that the subeditors didn't spot it. Whatever happened to journalistic standards?

Gentlemen, your pavlovian resposes are so predictable. In two posts within 60 seconds of each other you are attempting to turn this into a case where I'm bullying two people with what you preceive as my homophobic racism. I am getting to the crux of this issue - which is that Scott and his partner and the soon to be three children are pawns in a bigger game of ideological inclusion.

Referendum. Let the British people decide that we want in or out. I offered people the chance to provide me with answers to some questions above that would show I was wrong. I'm quite open minded - I'll change my opinion if strong arguments show I'm being naive. So let me ask the same questions that nobody took up the challenge, perhaps becuase nobody knows or because the benefits are so obvious they didn't deem it worth their while. What are the benefits for Britain? While it is easy to see how Ireland has benefitted from membership with the country transformed over the past 20 years it's not as obvious to me how Britain has benefitted. Can any economists, financiers or business gurus on the forum provide a ball-park figure that says Britain has benefitted to the tune of ?xx trillion by joining, or would be ?xx worse off if it hadn't joined or even that we haven't benefitted yet but will do in the future.

prejudice about "PC experiments What prejudice? It is an experiment. nasty, small minded people who will bully them is a good starter.

Your use of the word jingoism is apt Huguenot, but perhaps not for the reason you intended. You talk of unity bringing economic security. The reason 'The UK cannot sustain itself without resources the rest of the world controls...' is because while we've been pussy-footing around the high table of the EU, China, Brazil and the emerging superpowers have been buying up the resources of Africa to secure their future energy needs in a far thinking bit of old fashioned colonialism - the like of which the 19th century would be proud of. Despite your misunderstanding of my views on India and China, I am a great admirer of these countries and the go-get-it entreprenurial spirit of their people.

Glad to read I've brought some joy into your life Huguenot. Unfortunately you've jumped to the wrong conclusion again. I'm not implying it's dangerous because of paedophiles etc. I'm just questioning whether this PC experiment is in the best interests of the children. What we've got here is two women with beards who want to play mommies and daddies. If it all goes wrong who's to blame, Scott and his partner or the social workers who've permitted this experiment?

Actually I didn't learn a new word today. Can anyone help as there's alot of people on the web confused over this one? spuripeopleous Appears in today's Daily Mail in an article about the government wasting money on climate change propaganda. It's been coined by Matthew Sinclair, the TaxPayers? Alliance research director, who is quoted as saying: ?Despite a fortune having been spent on these projects, the fund has failed even on its own spuripeopleous terms. It is infuriating for taxpayers to see their money squandered on attempts to scare and indoctrinate the public.? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251881/Ministers-lavished-9m-climate-change-stunts--public-opinion-left-cold-global-warming-propaganda.html

david_carnell, womanofdulwich and ???? you all raise good points here. david, your points against grammars seem to me to be more about parental pushiness than children's angst. "...the hot-housing of 10 year old children forced to endure night after night of endless test papers and coached to exhaustion..." is the parents' fault for pushing their children - not the fault of the grammar schools. Childrens' lives are not being decided by the age of 10 or 11 - it's only the parents who think this. womanofdulwich, as you say "...Some children do well in fiercely competitive environments,but not for me..." In my opinion education isn't just about passing a few exams. ????, you seem to be lamenting the passing of a golden age that never existed "...giving some of the poorest kids in our society the means to pull themselves out of poverty through education and their intelligence and improving social mobility..." Given parental encouragement, there's nothing stopping most children doing well at school, whatever school. Peer pressure is important of course. If a child is stupid it doesn't matter how much the parents pay on fees at private/public schools - the child will still be stupid. Teaching to rote is not the answer either. Education is more than teaching children to pass exams. It's about giving them the skills to think for themselves critically. The only reason a child of 10 or so feels a failure educationally is because his or her parents make them feel that way because of their own aspirations.

While I'll say it's not real, it's only a programme, 'Who shot JR?' comes to mind. (Ps it's Bradley wot dun it.)

Huff 'N' Tumble wrote: "...As a target audience we applaud the product on offer, and praise the advertising nous that cause us to reach for our hankies." You may applaud and praise but count me out. It's advertising - it's trying to get you to spend your money. Your thread is 'The decline of British advertising'. It hasn't declined , it is alive and well.

???? said: "... In fact I heard on the radio the other day that support for the return of grammar schools was growing across the board." Part of this support may be because many parents at private/public schools are struggling to pay the fees in the economic downturn. I agree that the comprehensive schools introduction in the 60s and 70s was social engineering that went wrong. However, grammar schools were not ideal for everyone, especially those written off in the lower streams, and there was snob value attached to them. In fact it has been argued that the narrow classical curriculum followed by grammar schools has been partly to blame for Britain's uncompetitiveness and lack of skills in the market place. Perhaps a european model, like Germany, would be better where top class schools that teach engineering, mechanics etc exist alongside those with a more classical bent and both are valued equally.

Interesting Hal about the (very) rare extra x chromosomes in both human males and females (I didn't see the XO reference, is this human, animal or plant?). However the article seems to say the extra x chromosomes are inactive in both males and females. The article does not imply (and you don't suggest) there are any hybrid humans in nature.

I hadn't forgotten about those born as intersex or hermaphrodites - to my knowledge these are still xx or xy individuals. There is simply ambiguity about the sexual characteristics (or maybe not that simply)

Well it strikes me there is an element of choosing one's sexuality here. To me a person's sex is a biological fact, you are born male or female. Psychologically a person may prefer to have been born into the opposite sex. There may be chemical reasons why this is preferred, unusual levels of testosterone, oestrogen etc - I don't know. It all depends what you mean by 'sexuality'. As a lesbian you are still a female. A gay man is still a man. Transgender people choose to alter their physical appearance but they can't alter their sex, whatever euphemisms we attach. In the case of Scott and his partner I can't see that you can describe their actions as anything other than doing everything within their means to change their 'sexuality', but try as they might they can't change their sex. As you say, so long as the home life is stable and loving then essentially there is no issue here..