Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

On the general issue of your question about ideology, i don't think that there is a covert agenda - it looks quite clear to me. Current western societies i think, are products of the Enlightenment/Liberal/inherent human rights socio-political movement. The development of the possibility for this type of situation to be, feels like a natural extension of that.

I think that those who don't fit into the heterosexual category feel there is still a long way to go though (which i agree with).

So this couple may arguably feel more that they are fighting the system and society rather than the system being biased toward them as one of your points suggests.


On your point of biological family- yep, you're correct that its not true in this case. Yes, a 'pregnant man' is semantic word play but does it matter to us? It does to them, but all i can say is that it doesn't confuse me or worry me and (this isn't meant as any critique) but I don't understand why it would matter to anyone else. I recognise you seem troubled by it, but I can't identify with that. It just feels instinctively a non-issue to me. Whereas to you it instinctively feels something. All i can suggest is to maybe step back and consider why that is for you?


V.

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Whilst I agree, I have been thinking about this recently in relation to some of the other posts on here about anti social behaviour. We are all products of our upbringing - our experiences at home, school and beyond - plus whatever we have inherited genetically which might affect our behaviour (the nature/nurture thing). So in this case, if people haven't been brought up to love and appreciate trees and other wild things, plus as you say they may be deeply unhappy (or have other undiagnosed issues) it's easy to see how they could have ended up doing this. Also, it's possible they had quite low intelligence and didn't really grasp what they were doing and the effect it would have on so many other people. But that's just surmise and possibly completely wrong. From what I've read about it, they seemed to be two mates egging each other on, like two big kids. I'm not for a minute excusing what they did, and it's right they should be punished, but I really hope they might get some sort of rehabilitation in prison (it would  be appropriate to have them do some kind of community service like planting saplings, wouldn't it, or working in woodland conservation). And the same goes for phone robbers and shoplifters (rehabilitation, not planting saplings), though for SOME  shoplifters there might also be other issues at play, not excluding poverty. Sorry Jasonlondon,  I've gone off at a real tangent here, lucky it's in the lounge! Oh oops I've just noticed it isn't. Sorry admin. Oh, and then there's a whole philosophical discussion to be had about free will and determinism ..... 🤣🤣🤣
    • Thanks! I'll find out in a few weeks when I get the results! It was one of those disconcerting things where a disembodied voice keeps booming  at you to breathe in and hold it, then breathe normally. Apart from that it was OK, all completely painless. I imagine there will be quite a few people going from ED, though I presume it covers the whole Southwark area 
    • Two men behind ‘senseless’ felling of Sycamore Gap tree jailed for more than four years Good to see these two jailed today for four years. There’s something deeply disturbing about people who destroy trees—any tree. Whether it’s a centuries-old landmark or a sapling in a quiet park, trees are living beings that offer beauty, shade, and life. The men who cut down the Sycamore Gap tree are a stark example of how far some people will go to lash out at something peaceful and meaningful. People who harm nature like this aren’t just destructive—they are often deeply unhappy. It takes a troubled mind to look at a tree and see something to ruin instead of something to protect. Read more here  
    • What a brilliant idea. I hope it went OK, Sue. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...