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

[silverfox]

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.

[HAL9000]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> I didn't see the XO reference

It represents those with only one X (the standard notation being X0), which manifests as Turner Syndrome.

> 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.

Not exactly hybrids, as you say, nevertheless, some of those conditions have life-impacting symptoms to one degree or another: e.g., Meta or Triple-X female and Turner, Klinefelter and XYY syndromes - see Sex Chromosome Abnormalities.

[Huguenot]

I haven't laughed quite so much for a while :)

I love the idea of a 'potentially dangerous game of mommies and daddies'.

Wow, dangerous. Struggling to see what would be 'dangerous' about sexuality, unless the implication is that male homosexuals create paedohpiles, rapists and self-immolators. I take due note that lesbians fare much better.

I guess that's the reason why Strawbs hasn't stabbed anyone yet, despite the dangerous, almost explosive, pursuit of growing up gay in a straight household.

I do however, note that Piers has become increasingly violent and homosexual since his mum came out ;-)

[silverfox]

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?

[SeanMacGabhann]

silverfox - you're creeping me out

You give yourself away with your prejudice about "PC experiments" but I don't doubt you are generally worried - so do tell, what are you worried about - what can go "wrong" with this experiment?

Explain each possible wrong outcome and detail how that will be the fault of the experiment or the "women with beards" instead of the nasty, small minded people who will bully them?

[silverfox]

prejudice about "PC experiments

What prejudice? It is an experiment.

nasty, small minded people who will bully them is a good starter.

[SeanMacGabhann]

so why not go after the bully instead of the parents or children?

So no prejudice - you don't see PC as something to be sneered at or derided then? You are a supporter of PC?

As for experiment - was legalising homosexuality an "experiment" from the PC bridgade too? If so, how do you judge it? If not, why was that not an experiment but this is?

[Huguenot]

Ha ha! Brilliant.

Would you also recommend phasing out black people so that nasty small minded people can't bully them?

Hilarious.

[silverfox]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

easy tiger - you won't find anything in my response that accuses you of being a bully or being racist or homophobic

What I'm trying to do is ask you why you aren't going after the bully?

I'm also asking you where you draw the line on "experiments" and I chose the legalisation of homosexuality as a related case

It's not a question you have answered either

I wouldn't mind if you withdrew the accusation of pavlovian rsponse as well

[V511]

Steady guys...you're in danger of hitting Godwin's law... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[silverfox]

"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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Marvellous

Now back to the topic. If you find my questions irrelevant than please say so and show me how

You are the one with the concerns around the experiment but it really isn't clear why

I suggested the child maybe a subject of bullying and you agreed so I asked you why you don't go after the bully instead of the victims

Calling this issue an experiment and PC driven is something that has been thrown at campaigners over the years - including the issues that both I and Huguenot have brought into the discussion

How you fail to see the link between them I can't explain

[Huguenot]

"Pawns in an ideological game" - isn't this what you're making them silverfox?

I accused you of being nothing other than daft - you clearly suggested that the solution to bullying was the eradication of the victim. My allusion to the race debate was only to highlight the ridiculousness of this assertion.

I could equally well have pursued the subject by saying that you recommend ginger people are prevented from marrying because their children would attract disparaging comments.

Let's be honest, you made some unusual observations that gay people can't be good parents, that male gays are worse than femal gays, and that transgenders are the worst parents of all.

You based this on zero evidence, merely naked prejudice. Yours is the ideology, other commentators have merely highlighted your misapprehension.

[silverfox]

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?

[SeanMacGabhann]

nor a Mork and Mindy fan then, no?

There is a lot in that last email which, whilst I don?t agree with it, is at least honest. The not quite being able to put your finger on something but it making you uneasy - not a bad position inherently

But still your language betrays you - for someone who is unsure to then point in the direction of politcal correctness and do-gooders seems a bit strange. For these people to be victims (your words) you have to be more specific about how they are victims

All manner of crud could end up on their doorstep (that tends to happen with pioneers, historically, wouldn't you agree) but will it truly be any worse than anything that goes on in "normal" families across the world. Will it not lead to enlightenment? Or at least somewhere between possible and probable enlightenment?

[Huguenot]

Do you really, honestly, believe that 'human rights' are only an indulgence of 'do-gooders' 'pandering' to 'whims'?

Human rights are granted by nature of being human - you can only either protect them or take them away. You are actually discussing taking away human rights from these people (because they're gay transgenders), not about do-gooders giving them.

In proposing to take them away, you make them less than human - and you're suggesting this because of their sexuality.

I can see that the inability to pigeon-hole this couple is a frustration, but I think it's unwise to project that frustration onto the child. The child will just see two grown-ups who care for them.

The child may be subject to spiteful behaviour from others who would prefer to pigeon-hole people and bully, but kids are pretty hardy, and unlikely to suffer any more than millions of kids do for innumerable trivialities.

It certainly is not sufficient to remove 'human rights' from the adults.

[silverfox]

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?

[Huguenot]

Are their human rights being used?

I should blinking hope so.

That right allows them to have children howsoever they choose.

Any other outcome is taking away that right from them because they're gay transgenders.

The only ideology I'm expressing here is that of human rights. I can't believe you're really arguing that they shouldn't have them?

[silverfox]

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?

[Huguenot]

Ah right, I see.

I think the simplest answer and most natural assumption to make is that they wanted kids.

It's always possible they were persuaded against their wishes, but I think this would be an irrational starting position.

[silverfox]

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.

[V511]

I think the problem we are having with the thrust of your question is that you seem to be arguing that a 'politically correct' ideology has enabled this couple to be the way they are and to have this unconventional family.

It's seems to me that the opposition you are facing here is the counter question of 'so what?'

It seems to me (and tell me if I'm wrong) that you have a issue with these people and their idea of a family unit. If that's correct, that's your opinion, but not one shared I think by many on this thread-hence the opposition. As Hugenot said - it's a matter of their human rights and equality which I fully support. The issue of a PC ideology is secondary to

me.

[silverfox]

Correct re first paragragh.

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

[V511]

ok...i understand what you're saying but it seems like you're not allowing this couple any agency/decision making role in this situation.

Just for the sake of discussion, if we assume they passionately wish to be they sex/gender they want to be and desire a biological family as opposed to adoption, is your position then that society/governments/ social services etc should be saying no to them? I'm asking just to clarify so that the discussion can go forward on a clear basis.