Is it okay to be a pregnant 'man' and transgender father?

[silverfox]

News today that the world's second known "pregnant man" is expecting his first baby with his transgender husband next month. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7079941/Worlds-second-pregnant-man-expecting-baby-boy-next-month.html

I'm just trying to decide where I stand on this. Is this a case of straining ethical and legal limits to breaking point in the name of freedom or is it simply a loving couple who ..."want to show the world that trans-families can be healthy, loving and nurturing"

Scott Moore and his partner, Thomas, were both born as girls and have undergone surgery and hormone treatments to transform their sex. Scott, 30, is legally married to Thomas, with whom he lives in California, because he still has a female birth certificate. They met in 2005 at a support group meeting for transgender men.

The pair already have two adopted boys, Gregg, 12, and Logan, 10, who are the children of a former female partner of Thomas's. Scott is now due to give birth next month. The sperm must have been donated but this isn't stated in the article.

So is this a case of two mixed up individuals playing a potentially damaging game of daddies and mommies or is it an acceptable family unit?

I must admit I'm not comfortable with this.

There's no suggestion that Scott and Thomas can't provide a stable loving environment and they're not doing anything illegal. But what will be the long term effects on the two adopted children who have been given up by their mother. And will the third child brought into this 'family' end up well adjusted?

[mockney piers]

Judging by the poor state of parenting so often displayed in our papers I'm inclined to say as long as they're good parents it doesn't matter if it's the offsprig of a Martian and a hyena being looked after by a transgender communist catherine wheel and a space hopper.

[silverfox]

You see, I don't have any problems with a lesbian couple adopting children or having their own children. And strictly speaking this is a lesbian couple despite the legal semantics and politically correct posturing of using words like 'man' to describe females with two x chromosomes because they choose to be surgically and chemically altered to appear more like men.

So, if they are a lesbian couple I shouldn't have any qualms about it. But I do because they are/or are pretending to be 'men'.

(edited for typo)

[david_carnell]

Whilst it is unusual, to say the least, clearly social services thought them fit parents to adopt two children previously. Therefore I certainly don't think them attmepting to have a "biological" child is so far out.

And whilst I'm still trying to work out whether being a transgendered female to male living with another transgendered female to male makes you gay, straight or bi sexual (and getting a headache in the process) I don't see it as any more problematic than any of those groups having children...i.e. not problematic at all.

I would have thought the "long term effects" of being in a stable, loving family environment would be much more beneficial than remaining in the care-system.

[HAL9000]

I don't think they are lesbians. Their sexual orientation is that of homosexual males who happen to be biological females.

[mockney piers]

Clearly it is all a bit odd, and I'm sure the parents will get sick to death of explaining it to people over the years, bu in a funny way I bet you their gender roles will be more concrete in their household than many others.

I mean I'm going to be taking some indefinite time off come march/April to take care of the new arrival and missus mockney will go to work as she's keen to pursue her career agressively and I'm hit an Office Space level of ennui with sitting in an offIce for the time being.

Basically it's a funny old world. My young step brother was brought up by lesbians from the age of 11 and he's just graduated uni and is a fine young man, though admittedly the mums have often said how grateful they were having me around as an avuncular male influence.

[HAL9000]

I suppose the principal concern is that they might influence the sexuality of their children or even sexually abuse them?

Sexual abuse occurs in regular families, so nothing new here.

So, the question becomes, will such parents polarise or compromise the sexually of their children? Well, I guess that must be a possibility. Is that good or bad? I don't know.

[SeanMacGabhann]

How does ones sexuality become compromised?

Influenced - pooossssibly. But compromise suggests a right and wrong and somewhere inbetween that I'm not sure about

[mockney piers]

Step brother a redblooded hetrosexual heartbreaker.

I suppose militant lesbians (whatever they are) miiiiight try and influence. If that's even possible, I don't know, but can't see that's any different to, say, bringing them up to be a certain religion.

[????]

Love is all that's important. There's enough children being born into poverty/disesase/war/earthquake zones on one level or into completley disfunctional 'families' on another to worry about this couple whose child will at the least start its life being wanted and loved

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Love is all that's important...this couple whose child

> will at the least start its life being wanted and

> loved

Agree with ???? here, love and wanting the child have to be the most important requisites for good parenting to take place. As HAL9000 rightly pointed out, abuse occurs in "regular" families, and such abuse (whether it be emotional, physical, psychological or sexual) tends to occur in families where the love for and want of the child are manifestly lacking. I wish the couple all the best, though it won't be easy - too many people with too many prejudices in my most humble opinion.

[HAL9000]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How does ones sexuality become compromised?

>

> Influenced - pooossssibly. But compromise suggests

> a right and wrong and somewhere inbetween that I'm

> not sure about

As in confused or influenced away from what it might have been otherwise, sort of thing (assuming that such a thing is even possible).

[pk]

is it ok?

my answer is 'yes'

is it perfect? no, but nothing is

will they be better or worse than 'conventional' parents, all things considered?

i don't know them, but i imagine that they'll be 'better' than some and 'worse' than others, as most parents are

[Jeremy]

For sure, the kids will grow up with a different perspective of what a family unit is. But is that such a bad thing? As long as they are free to follow their chosen path further down the line.

It does, however, seem almost inevitable that kids at school are going to give them a hard time.

[PeckhamRose]

A mate said she was very uncofortable about two men being 'allowed' to have a child to bring up. Yet she was okay with the idea of two women doing it. It's so offensive to have this belief that - to her mind - men are more likely to - what? - abuse the child? So the other question is do people believe that all men (or all humans with penises or penis substitutes..) are potential rapists?

One of the most well balanced men I have ever known was brought up by his Mum with no male 'role models' in his life at all. (I also have an issue (until I have been made to understand it better) with the argument that the reason black children do badly is they have no black male role models.) Why do we need 'role models'? We are all human and we should concentrate on what makes us alike, and not concentrate on all the many things that make us different from one another. Indeed other humans are our role models and also our warning symbols. But what do I know, I have never wanted kids, largely because my own two heterosexual male father and female mother made me realise from a young age that I wasn't going to fall into that trap!

[HAL9000]

.

[Ladymuck]

HAL9000 Wrote:

---------------------------------------------------

> One third of males have served a prison sentence

> by the age of thirty.

Really? Didn't realise the figures were that high. That, to me, is quite shocking.

> One third of male prisoners are sex offenders.

> One third of male-perpetrated sex offences involve

> underage victims.

The last 2, whilst still shocking, do not surprise me at all.

[The Chair]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One third of males have served a prison sentence

> by the age of thirty.

> One third of male prisoners are sex offenders.

> One third of male-perpetrated sex offences involve

> underage victims.

Do you have a citation for those statistics Hal?

It would seem a little high - especially the first sentence.

[Ladymuck]

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you have a citation for those statistics Hal?

Unless the spaceship's onboard computer has finally blown a capacitor...you bet he has!

[HAL9000]

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you have a citation for those statistics Hal?

The Home Office/Ministry of Justice does not routinely collate or publish such figures. However, a study was published in 2001 based on much older data: Criminal careers of those born between 1953 and 1978 (England and Wales). Extrapolated trends from those data indicate contemporary figures within the area indicated above, which, I stress, are approximate, given the absence of official, up-to-date figures.

My source is an as yet unpublished academic paper (that inter alia cites the above document) presently undergoing peer review.

[Ladymuck]

Told you so.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I shall leave it to others to assess their validity.

[Magpie]

flicked through the document. The actual stat is that one third of males born in 1953 had received at least one criminal conviction. 7.5% have received a custodial sentance.

So it is 7.5% of males born in 1953 have been to jail. Still far higher than for women, but no where near the 33% mark, and the stats only relate to men born in 1953. The proportion declines in later year partially (according to the paper) as the police started giving out cautions for first offences rather than seeking convictions.

According to the paper, most convictions occur between the ages 13 - 20 and are non-violent. The likelihood of being convicted post-20, if you have never previously committed a crime, declines dramatically.

[mockney piers]

Plus only 13% of convictions last year were for sexual offences. I guess they will be longer so the current population will skew towards the more serious crimes, though looking at the stats it's negligible.

Altogether a fine bit of statistical abuse to proffer misinformation. And I'm still not sure to what end.

Why don't you just say 'all men are rapists' and be done with it.

If this was a way of courting praise by saying women, lesbian or no make better parents, then fine, but you might want to look at your methods of doing so; I'm pretty sure an opinion would have sufficed.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/population-in-custody-06-2009.pdf

[HAL9000]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flicked through the document. The actual stat is

> that one third of males born in 1953 had received

> at least one criminal conviction.

Quite right - that's what I had meant to convey but somehow managed to conflate one with the other.