Oh for goodness sake, does it effect you if a man was born as a woman and then became a man and had her bit and decided to have a child ... NO, no it does not ... you will not even know those people ... do you know the urge she/he has to have a child? no you don't because you've not been in that situation ... Do you know what the child is going to go through? No you don't because you've not done it, but if they do it right then there will be no concerns ... so rather than criticise help and support.
Oh for goodness sake, does it effect you if a man was born as a woman and then became a man and had her bit and decided to have a child ... NO, no it does not ... you will not even know those people ... do you know the urge she/he has to have a child? no you don't because you've not been in that situation ... Do you know what the child is going to go through? No you don't because you've not done it, but if they do it right then there will be no concerns ... so rather than criticise help and support.
Are we legally obliged to help and support? NO! Sorry just carrying on your theme...
Thing is, it's all over the papers, so people are going to talk about it. If they wanted to keep this monumental amazing story (re:woman has baby) quiet, then she should never have published it in her magazine article. They're seeking attention then complain when people are negative. Granted on the program people were going way OTT with death threat etc, but, hey, they chose to put the 'news' out there, they have to expect some public backlash!
No I think it is you who is ill informed, how do you suppose they stop producing testosterone?
Women produce testosterone naturally too. I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure the people who were looking after Thomas Beattie's child's birth were, and I reckon they were pretty aware of what was the best situation for the child. I assume you're a qualified medical practitioner as opposed to grasping at straws?
what other considerations are there?? you are either a male or female (preferably you remain the same gender throughout your life, but it does take all sorts), and either a straight or a gay. simple as.
It's actually nowhere near that simple. There are numerous biological combinations of sex - XX and XY isn't the be all and end all, and you're confusing sex and gender. You can't just assume your lack of knowledge in an area as absolute fact. Really not that simple as.
The reality in this case is that he had the biological ability to bear children, and from what I've seen those children will be loved and cared for. I'm far more concerned about the nasty drunken scrotes in the news today for dragging their poor child around pubs, hungry with sour milk. I don't understand why people face that which they do not understand head on with intolerance. The argument that other people have ignorances and will encourage their children to castigate yours because you are gay/transgendered/single parent/insert anything vaguely "unnormal" is never good enough.
OK, please learn there is an apostrophe in 'it's'. It's kind of really annoying me. Thanks.
Secondly, a 'genetic link.' It really can't be that big or it would have been on the news. There will be no cause and effect, no explanation, just a link. Also, would people want to be 'cured'? Don't you think the money spent on these two projects should be better spent on researching other things, such as genetic links for cancer sufferers? Those which could save lives?
Finally, no I am not embarrassed. What on Earth do I have to be embarrassed of? What a stupid thing to say.
Are you by any chance TG? The way you're taking offence and arguing about everything, I would not be surprised. :rolleyes:
The last vestages of busted argument. I'm not transsexual.
hmm so how would you react if your dad revealed to you that he actually used to be a woman, still has a vagina and a uterus and gave birth to you, rather that your mum? how do you explain that to a child?
I think I'd be surprised at first- because they'd have come out with it after 15 years, and my Dad looks very masculine and imagining him as a woman is ridiculous. But then I'd get used to the idea and get on with my life.
You explain it to a child the same way it's been explained to everyone else who knows about it.
]you are obviously repeating liberal cliches that you have not thought through properly.
As opposed to authoritarian cliches? Using liberal (or indeed conservative) as an insult is pointless. Political Liberalism has bought abou both bad and good policies as Conservatism also has.
i believe that people are either straight or gay. of course by the time people figure out their sexual orientation they would have experimented. people often mistake this for being "bi-sexual". I personally think that there is no such thing, but obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
You being the authority on the matter, of course.
yes, it's preferable to stay the same sex. Nature created you either male or female. it's wrong to meddle with that. i wouldn't treat a trans-gender person any differently to anyone else, but i would still hold on to my opinion that what they have done is wrong.
If we're going to start passing our subjective opinions off as fact then let me say: it's not wrong at all. See? My fact is better than your fact :rolleyes:
Clearly you would treat them differently. If you feel strongly about it enough to have formed a definate opinion then i doubt you'd be able to coneal your feelings on the matter. If your child made friends with Beatie's child would you have a problem with that? Would you let your child go round to his house? Would you socialise with Beatie on occasion?
finally, cultural gender- well, it more or less corresponds to your biological sex...that's why it is there in the first place. society has certain guidelines as to how males and females should act. yes, many of them are outdated. but they have existed for a long time, and so must have had some use or benefit. men and women are not the same, they have different roles and therefore can't behave in the same way, no matter how much feminists claim otherwise.
Oh here we go. Yes, men and women are distinct, but societally neither should be treated as the lesser of the other. Societal gender roles are stifling to both men and women, and that is precisely the reason they have largely been rejected. 'Tradition' is no good reason to advocate continuing on with fundamental inequality either. Traditionally black people were treated lesser than whites, should they be continued? How about the good old traditions of sending children up chimneys, slavery, arranged marriages, turning a blind eye to rape, not allowing women the right to vote? Hmmm? Are they good because they're traditional? Get real. Just because something is traditional does not make it a good thing.
so do you suggest that we create a society where men and women regularly dress and act like each other? how would we go about running a country/business/household if no one can agree what roles should be assigned to each gender? and how will we raise our children according to their gender without imposing on them certain beliefs?
I wouldn't see a problem with that. If men and women want to dress and act like one another then what is really the problem? It doesn't hurt anyone, nor does it impact on intellectual capacity and the ability to be a productive member of society. Don't hide behind the children either, that's intellectual dishonesty at it's height. Children aren't born with societal gender roles, they're ingrained by society. Children wouldn't care less unless they were taught to. This is not a 'problem' perceived by children, this is a problem perceived by you.
what i meant was, is it morally right of "him" to have children?
Sure, why not? He and his partner wanted a child and hopefully will be good loving parents. I see no problem. God knows there are enough children born into the world to 'traditional' couples that are horribly abused or neglected. A child born into a loving family whom can care for it is something to be celebrated, not condemned.
hmm so how would you react if your dad revealed to you that he actually used to be a woman, still has a vagina and a uterus and gave birth to you, rather that your mum? how do you explain that to a child?
Honestly? Considering that i don't have hang-ups about this type of thing, i can say it wouldn't bother me. I may be shocked (if i was told now, rather than as a child, probably less so than those just told they were adopted) but i would not be traumatised. My papa is my papa, i love him not because of his gender but because he is my wonderful papa, the person.
No, not a busted arguement. I simply asked as I was interested whether you were TG or not. You seem to ignore opinions of others and are very small minded in terms of you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. You won't consider any other thoughts and ideas other than your own.
Once again, you have no reply to my questions and have tried to look clever or impressive by googling genetic research. That's not a difficult thing to do, but thinking about something is way beyond your intelligence level. I don't see the point in me actually trying to discuss anything with you. You think you're right, you're very ignorant and quite rude with it, and you don't seem to listen to a thing anybody else says. You'll never broaden your knowledge with such a closed mind
As opposed to authoritarian cliches? Using liberal (or indeed conservative) as an insult is pointless. Political Liberalism has bought abou both bad and good policies as Conservatism also has.
i wasn't using it as an insult, i was merely stating that the other poster was repeating a cliche without fully understanding it. did i say liberalism was a bad thing? no i didn't :rolleyes:
You being the authority on the matter, of course.
i never said that either, i was just giving my opinion. everyone is entitled to one after all.
If we're going to start passing our subjective opinions off as fact then let me say: it's not wrong at all. See? My fact is better than your fact :rolleyes:
yet again, i never passed my opinion off as fact. i just said how i felt. you obviously haven't read my post properly.
Clearly you would treat them differently. If you feel strongly about it enough to have formed a definate opinion then i doubt you'd be able to coneal your feelings on the matter. If your child made friends with Beatie's child would you have a problem with that? Would you let your child go round to his house? Would you socialise with Beatie on occasion?
no, i wouldn't have a problem with my child being friends with Beatie's child. why should i? she's not to blame for anything. and why wouldn't i let my child go to his house? just because i personally don't approve of someone's life choice doesn't mean i'm going to force my opinions on other people.
i wouldn't say that i would socialise with Beatie. i don't have to be friends with someone if i don't want to. but if i lived in the same town as him i would be polite, say hello when i see him etc.
Oh here we go. Yes, men and women are distinct, but societally neither should be treated as the lesser of the other. Societal gender roles are stifling to both men and women, and that is precisely the reason they have largely been rejected. 'Tradition' is no good reason to advocate continuing on with fundamental inequality either. Traditionally black people were treated lesser than whites, should they be continued? How about the good old traditions of sending children up chimneys, slavery, arranged marriages, turning a blind eye to rape, not allowing women the right to vote? Hmmm? Are they good because they're traditional? Get real. Just because something is traditional does not make it a good thing.
1. i never said that either sex should be treated as the lesser of the other. all i said is that they are different.
2. gender roles may be stifling, but that's life. you can't have complete freedom. there will always be rules in society, which you may not even be consciously aware of. Now for example many of the traditional female roles are rejected. Women aren't expected to stay home, scrub all day and have one sexual partner all their lives. Fair enough. Now we are supposed to have achieved equality..but there is still pressure on women to work and raise kids at the same time, to drink, to have sex from a young age, to be size 0.
That's supposed to be "liberating" is it?
3. i also didn't say that all tradition is good. certainly the ones you have listed are bad. but there are some that are good and they shouldn't be rejected for the sake of it.
I wouldn't see a problem with that. If men and women want to dress and act like one another then what is really the problem? It doesn't hurt anyone, nor does it impact on intellectual capacity and the ability to be a productive member of society.
why not try this in your household for a week, and then get back to me?
Don't hide behind the children either, that's intellectual dishonesty at it's height. Children aren't born with societal gender roles, they're ingrained by society. Children wouldn't care less unless they were taught to. This is not a 'problem' perceived by children, this is a problem perceived by you.
just look at the way children are turning out nowadays...the so called "yob culture". all products of "liberal" upbringing, by parents who don't actually understand what liberalism stands for.
The kids will have to explain away mummy's beard to their school friends though.
well she won't as her mother does not have a beard however her father (and he will be her father in her opinion) does have a beard which is nothing that would cause concern or need explaining to other children - many of their dads will also have beards.
After all it is not who gave to birth to you and how that makes them your mother and father.
I can honestly say that i dont know how any of my class mates were born - by cesarian section, adopted, had a surogate mother, ivf treatment or natural birth - its not something you generally ask or are bothered by so i do not see how the other kids would know that it was her dad to gave birth to her or why she would be bothered by it or mention it to anyone - its not important.
I am sure her parents will explain it to her in a way that a child can understand "when your daddy was born god made a mistake and put him in the wrong body and he was a girl and when he got older he became a man as he should have been born but because he had been a girl he could have kids and we wanted a little girl very much so we had you" - or something like that, its how i would explain it if i was in their position.
Alot of people have been saying that this is a non-story and yes in a way it is but it is also important because it has brought up the subject of transgendered people and has made people aware of how prejudice people still are about a subject often because they do not know all the facts. If in schools they discus this story in PSE or social lessons then it can educate people on a subject that would otherwise have been ignored leading to more prejudice about a still taboo subject.
For a transgendered person the chance of being murdered or attacked for being transgendered is 1/16 - to save lives stories like those of thomas need to be told so that people can see that they aren't monsters, they are people.
I urge anyone who is slightly confused on the whole concept or feels a little uncomfortable with the issue to check out this 20/20 documentary on transgendered children http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Utpam0IGYac it is so moving and makes the whole issue easy to understand and gives you an insight into the brain of people who have been born transgendered. Have some tissues - i cried so much when listening to riley.
OK, please learn there is an apostrophe in 'it's'. It's kind of really annoying me. Thanks.
Could you stop butchering the English language? It's really annoying me. Thanks.
Secondly, a 'genetic link.' It really can't be that big or it would have been on the news.
It was on the news.
Finally, no I am not embarrassed. What on Earth do I have to be embarrassed of?
The fact you tried (unsuccessfully) to compare Anorexia to Transgender issues? The two are incomparable.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject before making your next post, you might just spare yourself another public outing of your feeble mind.
Are you by any chance TG? The way you're taking offence and arguing about everything, I would not be surprised. :rolleyes:
Maybe you should drop the thinly veiled bigotry, it lessens you're already weak argument - considerably.
Regarding cross-dressing, I think women have the better hand at the moment, at least in Western society. Women are allowed to wear men's clothes, and there is almost a positive spin on being "boyish", i.e. having no tits and being skinny. However, if a bloke fancies wearing a dress, everyone's down on him like a ton of bricks! It wasn't always like this, in Elizabethan times and well beyond, men work very fancy clothes and also as much makeup as the women did.
So I do sympathise with men who feel trapped in the male role, although I'm still struggling with trying to understand cross-gendering (don't bother trying to explain, I've got all the information, I'm just trying to fit it into my brain!).
There are at least half a dozen ways to define the sex of an individual, but only one way to define his or her gender. Don't let the word 'transsexual' fool you; this condition is not about sex, it's about gender.
I agree, it's not a 'medical miracle' (although, given the difficulties Thomas has faced, it's fairly impressive). It's also not just about media attention; if it were, he'd have had a bigger story with his first pregnancy (twins; ectopic; he almost died). it's just a couple who want children, can't have them in the usual fashion, and can't adopt. The media involvement is secondary; Thomas and Nancy were left in no doubt that the story was going to be aired with or without their co-operation, so they decided that taking out an exclusive negotiated contract would give them some control over what was made public.
In their position, I'd probably have done the same.
I'm a woman; I 'felt so strongly about being born the wrong sex' that I had 'a sex change'. I'd give just about anything to be able to bear a child, but it's not possible.
Thomas is a man for whom it is possible; if he wants children, and chooses to use his anomalous organs to bear them, I can't argue with his desire.
The children have been brought into the world for the same reason as most children are; their parents want children to love, and be loved by. Is love really unforgivable, just because it's unusual?
I think, perhaps, you have fallen into the trap of assuming this particular person did things for all the right reasons simply because there are people who genuinely experience the kind of feelings you have.
I have no doubt there are many in your situation who are genuine. I just don't believe hers is borne purely out of a need to have children, otherwise why not do it quietly, without the fuss, without the beard, without the media attention?
I think, perhaps, you have fallen into the trap of assuming this particular person did things for all the right reasons simply because there are people who genuinely experience the kind of feelings you have.
I have no doubt there are many in your situation who are genuine. I just don't believe hers is borne purely out of a need to have children, otherwise why not do it quietly, without the fuss, without the beard, without the media attention?
I believe I've already mentioned that this is not Thomas's first pregnancy; if he wanted the media attention, he would have sought it out the first time.
He and his wife were approached by a journalist who made it clear that the story was going to be published with or without their co-operation; it makes sense that they should therefore try to maintain some control of the situation.
And the beard is one of the natural effects of testosterone; of course he could shave it off, but perhaps he likes it. Many men do.
I believe I've already mentioned that this is not Thomas's first pregnancy; if he wanted the media attention, he would have sought it out the first time.
He and his wife were approached by a journalist who made it clear that the story was going to be published with or without their co-operation; it makes sense that they should therefore try to maintain some control of the situation.
And the beard is one of the natural effects of testosterone; of course he could shave it off, but perhaps he likes it. Many men do.
First, second third, makes no difference. Frankly, if a journalist approached me with that, I would sue. To go along with it giving the old "I wanted to control it" rubbish is laughable. There are all sorts of ways to stop the press doing a story on you and posing Testino style for the photos isn't it. Unless you like the attention of course.
And you make the point well. She could shave it off. Liking it is irrelevant. Likes the attention more like.
As for the definitions you alluded to in your first point, you may chose to interpret the word in the way that suits your argument, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a man having a baby.
I know its a bit out of the ordinary but i honestly dont think theres anything wrong with it as long as the child is brought up right and looked after properly. He has as much right to have a kid as any woman....in my opinion anyway!! :P
Could you stop butchering the English language? It's really annoying me. Thanks.
I was not. I bet you had to spell check that.
It was on the news.
Not 'big' news, or everyone would know about it. Can you provide a video of it in the news? General newspaper article, other than a medical journal? No, thought not.
The fact you tried (unsuccessfully) to compare Anorexia to Transgender issues? The two are incomparable.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject before making your next post, you might just spare yourself another public outing of your feeble mind.
Now either you're too stupid or missing the point on purpose, but I will explain it s-i-m-p-l-y.
EXPLANATION 1: As people have stated there is a 'genetic link' to being TG. This has also been found for anorexia. Well, what do you know, we have something to COMPARE them with! Who'd have thought it! In terms of these genetic findings, it could be possible to 'fix' these 'illnesses'.
EXPLANATION 2: Being TG is a CHOICE, however AWKWARD, STUPID and RIDICULOUS it may be. Similarly anorexia is a CHOICE however AWKWARD, STUPID and RIDICULOUS that may be. This is not an explanation I agree with, though...you may :rolleyes: Both 'illnesses' are not natural. You shouldn't choose to stop eating, nor should you choose to change sex.
It might be a really good idea for YOU to study these areas, as you clearly are clueless when it comes to understanding sensitive issues.
Maybe you should drop the thinly veiled bigotry, it lessens you're already weak argument - considerably.
Bigot? I have reasons and explanations for what I have wrote and I have not been prejudiced against a 'TG' person. I have two friends who feel they are 'TG' and both, yes, both, belive that this woman was wrong to have a baby. They feel that if she were 100% TG should would not stop mid-treatment. For one of my friends, M-F TG, he cannot wait to get rid of his penis as, in his words, 'it feels alien to me, as thought it's not part of my body'. So, Thomas Beattie clearly does NOT feel like a man, or he would have had a full sex change. The whole story is a farce, is it simply a woman having a baby.
Maybe, YOU should read other posts before you spout crap and make yourself look a fool. Thank You:)
First, second third, makes no difference. Frankly, if a journalist approached me with that, I would sue. To go along with it giving the old "I wanted to control it" rubbish is laughable. There are all sorts of ways to stop the press doing a story on you and posing Testino style for the photos isn't it. Unless you like the attention of course.
I understand that Thomas and his wife were offered a limited amount of control in return for exclusive access; in his position, I'd probably have done the same - if I lived in the US, where the media seem have more freedom to invade privacy then ours.
And if he couldn't avoid the attention, why shouldn't he enjoy it?
As for the definitions you alluded to in your first point, you may chose to interpret the word in the way that suits your argument, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a man having a baby.
He's a man neurologically, and legally. Everything else is just an accident of birth.
Being TG is a CHOICE, however AWKWARD, STUPID and RIDICULOUS it may be. Similarly anorexia is a CHOICE however AWKWARD, STUPID and RIDICULOUS that may be. This is not an explanation I agree with, though...you may :rolleyes: Both 'illnesses' are not natural. You shouldn't choose to stop eating, nor should you choose to change sex.
Being TG may, or may not be a choice; transsexualism is not.
To suggest that a transsexual person 'should not choose to change sex' is as silly as suggesting that a person with appendicitis 'should not choose' to have an appendicectomy.
Being TG may, or may not be a choice; transsexualism is not.
To suggest that a transsexual person 'should not choose to change sex' is as silly as suggesting that a person with appendicitis 'should not choose' to have an appendicectomy.
No, you're wrong.
Appendicitis is a physical condition.
Transexualism is a psychological one.
As is anorexia.
In your example, it would be like saying an anorexia 'should not choose' to eat.
After everything, transexualism is a psychological condition. The only physical effect will be the surgical removal or body parts. My comparision, being anorexia (though I could give more - BIID for example) is a psychological condition with the physical effect being starvation and it's effects.
Comments
Are we legally obliged to help and support? NO! Sorry just carrying on your theme...
Thing is, it's all over the papers, so people are going to talk about it. If they wanted to keep this monumental amazing story (re:woman has baby) quiet, then she should never have published it in her magazine article. They're seeking attention then complain when people are negative. Granted on the program people were going way OTT with death threat etc, but, hey, they chose to put the 'news' out there, they have to expect some public backlash!
Women produce testosterone naturally too. I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure the people who were looking after Thomas Beattie's child's birth were, and I reckon they were pretty aware of what was the best situation for the child. I assume you're a qualified medical practitioner as opposed to grasping at straws?
It's actually nowhere near that simple. There are numerous biological combinations of sex - XX and XY isn't the be all and end all, and you're confusing sex and gender. You can't just assume your lack of knowledge in an area as absolute fact. Really not that simple as.
The reality in this case is that he had the biological ability to bear children, and from what I've seen those children will be loved and cared for. I'm far more concerned about the nasty drunken scrotes in the news today for dragging their poor child around pubs, hungry with sour milk. I don't understand why people face that which they do not understand head on with intolerance. The argument that other people have ignorances and will encourage their children to castigate yours because you are gay/transgendered/single parent/insert anything vaguely "unnormal" is never good enough.
The last vestages of busted argument. I'm not transsexual.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7689007.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1080889/Scientists-discover-transsexual-gene-makes-men-feel-like-women.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926674.500-gene-variant-more-prevalent-in-transsexuals.html
http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-37223.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=241605&in_page_id=34
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1080889/Scientists-discover-transsexual-gene-makes-men-feel-like-women.html
I think I'd be surprised at first- because they'd have come out with it after 15 years, and my Dad looks very masculine and imagining him as a woman is ridiculous. But then I'd get used to the idea and get on with my life.
You explain it to a child the same way it's been explained to everyone else who knows about it.
As opposed to authoritarian cliches? Using liberal (or indeed conservative) as an insult is pointless. Political Liberalism has bought abou both bad and good policies as Conservatism also has.
You being the authority on the matter, of course.
If we're going to start passing our subjective opinions off as fact then let me say: it's not wrong at all. See? My fact is better than your fact :rolleyes:
Clearly you would treat them differently. If you feel strongly about it enough to have formed a definate opinion then i doubt you'd be able to coneal your feelings on the matter. If your child made friends with Beatie's child would you have a problem with that? Would you let your child go round to his house? Would you socialise with Beatie on occasion?
Oh here we go. Yes, men and women are distinct, but societally neither should be treated as the lesser of the other. Societal gender roles are stifling to both men and women, and that is precisely the reason they have largely been rejected. 'Tradition' is no good reason to advocate continuing on with fundamental inequality either. Traditionally black people were treated lesser than whites, should they be continued? How about the good old traditions of sending children up chimneys, slavery, arranged marriages, turning a blind eye to rape, not allowing women the right to vote? Hmmm? Are they good because they're traditional? Get real. Just because something is traditional does not make it a good thing.
I wouldn't see a problem with that. If men and women want to dress and act like one another then what is really the problem? It doesn't hurt anyone, nor does it impact on intellectual capacity and the ability to be a productive member of society. Don't hide behind the children either, that's intellectual dishonesty at it's height. Children aren't born with societal gender roles, they're ingrained by society. Children wouldn't care less unless they were taught to. This is not a 'problem' perceived by children, this is a problem perceived by you.
Sure, why not? He and his partner wanted a child and hopefully will be good loving parents. I see no problem. God knows there are enough children born into the world to 'traditional' couples that are horribly abused or neglected. A child born into a loving family whom can care for it is something to be celebrated, not condemned.
Honestly? Considering that i don't have hang-ups about this type of thing, i can say it wouldn't bother me. I may be shocked (if i was told now, rather than as a child, probably less so than those just told they were adopted) but i would not be traumatised. My papa is my papa, i love him not because of his gender but because he is my wonderful papa, the person.
No, not a busted arguement. I simply asked as I was interested whether you were TG or not. You seem to ignore opinions of others and are very small minded in terms of you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. You won't consider any other thoughts and ideas other than your own.
Once again, you have no reply to my questions and have tried to look clever or impressive by googling genetic research. That's not a difficult thing to do, but thinking about something is way beyond your intelligence level. I don't see the point in me actually trying to discuss anything with you. You think you're right, you're very ignorant and quite rude with it, and you don't seem to listen to a thing anybody else says. You'll never broaden your knowledge with such a closed mind
i wasn't using it as an insult, i was merely stating that the other poster was repeating a cliche without fully understanding it. did i say liberalism was a bad thing? no i didn't :rolleyes:
i never said that either, i was just giving my opinion. everyone is entitled to one after all.
yet again, i never passed my opinion off as fact. i just said how i felt. you obviously haven't read my post properly.
no, i wouldn't have a problem with my child being friends with Beatie's child. why should i? she's not to blame for anything. and why wouldn't i let my child go to his house? just because i personally don't approve of someone's life choice doesn't mean i'm going to force my opinions on other people.
i wouldn't say that i would socialise with Beatie. i don't have to be friends with someone if i don't want to. but if i lived in the same town as him i would be polite, say hello when i see him etc.
1. i never said that either sex should be treated as the lesser of the other. all i said is that they are different.
2. gender roles may be stifling, but that's life. you can't have complete freedom. there will always be rules in society, which you may not even be consciously aware of. Now for example many of the traditional female roles are rejected. Women aren't expected to stay home, scrub all day and have one sexual partner all their lives. Fair enough. Now we are supposed to have achieved equality..but there is still pressure on women to work and raise kids at the same time, to drink, to have sex from a young age, to be size 0.
That's supposed to be "liberating" is it?
3. i also didn't say that all tradition is good. certainly the ones you have listed are bad. but there are some that are good and they shouldn't be rejected for the sake of it.
why not try this in your household for a week, and then get back to me?
just look at the way children are turning out nowadays...the so called "yob culture". all products of "liberal" upbringing, by parents who don't actually understand what liberalism stands for.
well she won't as her mother does not have a beard however her father (and he will be her father in her opinion) does have a beard which is nothing that would cause concern or need explaining to other children - many of their dads will also have beards.
After all it is not who gave to birth to you and how that makes them your mother and father.
I can honestly say that i dont know how any of my class mates were born - by cesarian section, adopted, had a surogate mother, ivf treatment or natural birth - its not something you generally ask or are bothered by so i do not see how the other kids would know that it was her dad to gave birth to her or why she would be bothered by it or mention it to anyone - its not important.
I am sure her parents will explain it to her in a way that a child can understand "when your daddy was born god made a mistake and put him in the wrong body and he was a girl and when he got older he became a man as he should have been born but because he had been a girl he could have kids and we wanted a little girl very much so we had you" - or something like that, its how i would explain it if i was in their position.
Alot of people have been saying that this is a non-story and yes in a way it is but it is also important because it has brought up the subject of transgendered people and has made people aware of how prejudice people still are about a subject often because they do not know all the facts. If in schools they discus this story in PSE or social lessons then it can educate people on a subject that would otherwise have been ignored leading to more prejudice about a still taboo subject.
For a transgendered person the chance of being murdered or attacked for being transgendered is 1/16 - to save lives stories like those of thomas need to be told so that people can see that they aren't monsters, they are people.
I urge anyone who is slightly confused on the whole concept or feels a little uncomfortable with the issue to check out this 20/20 documentary on transgendered children http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Utpam0IGYac it is so moving and makes the whole issue easy to understand and gives you an insight into the brain of people who have been born transgendered. Have some tissues - i cried so much when listening to riley.
Could you stop butchering the English language? It's really annoying me. Thanks.
It was on the news.
The fact you tried (unsuccessfully) to compare Anorexia to Transgender issues? The two are incomparable.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject before making your next post, you might just spare yourself another public outing of your feeble mind.
Maybe you should drop the thinly veiled bigotry, it lessens you're already weak argument - considerably.
So I do sympathise with men who feel trapped in the male role, although I'm still struggling with trying to understand cross-gendering (don't bother trying to explain, I've got all the information, I'm just trying to fit it into my brain!).
I think, perhaps, you have fallen into the trap of assuming this particular person did things for all the right reasons simply because there are people who genuinely experience the kind of feelings you have.
I have no doubt there are many in your situation who are genuine. I just don't believe hers is borne purely out of a need to have children, otherwise why not do it quietly, without the fuss, without the beard, without the media attention?
I believe I've already mentioned that this is not Thomas's first pregnancy; if he wanted the media attention, he would have sought it out the first time.
He and his wife were approached by a journalist who made it clear that the story was going to be published with or without their co-operation; it makes sense that they should therefore try to maintain some control of the situation.
And the beard is one of the natural effects of testosterone; of course he could shave it off, but perhaps he likes it. Many men do.
First, second third, makes no difference. Frankly, if a journalist approached me with that, I would sue. To go along with it giving the old "I wanted to control it" rubbish is laughable. There are all sorts of ways to stop the press doing a story on you and posing Testino style for the photos isn't it. Unless you like the attention of course.
And you make the point well. She could shave it off. Liking it is irrelevant. Likes the attention more like.
As for the definitions you alluded to in your first point, you may chose to interpret the word in the way that suits your argument, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not a man having a baby.
She
I was not. I bet you had to spell check that.
Not 'big' news, or everyone would know about it. Can you provide a video of it in the news? General newspaper article, other than a medical journal? No, thought not.
Now either you're too stupid or missing the point on purpose, but I will explain it s-i-m-p-l-y.
EXPLANATION 1: As people have stated there is a 'genetic link' to being TG. This has also been found for anorexia. Well, what do you know, we have something to COMPARE them with! Who'd have thought it! In terms of these genetic findings, it could be possible to 'fix' these 'illnesses'.
EXPLANATION 2: Being TG is a CHOICE, however AWKWARD, STUPID and RIDICULOUS it may be. Similarly anorexia is a CHOICE however AWKWARD, STUPID and RIDICULOUS that may be. This is not an explanation I agree with, though...you may :rolleyes: Both 'illnesses' are not natural. You shouldn't choose to stop eating, nor should you choose to change sex.
It might be a really good idea for YOU to study these areas, as you clearly are clueless when it comes to understanding sensitive issues.
Bigot? I have reasons and explanations for what I have wrote and I have not been prejudiced against a 'TG' person. I have two friends who feel they are 'TG' and both, yes, both, belive that this woman was wrong to have a baby. They feel that if she were 100% TG should would not stop mid-treatment. For one of my friends, M-F TG, he cannot wait to get rid of his penis as, in his words, 'it feels alien to me, as thought it's not part of my body'. So, Thomas Beattie clearly does NOT feel like a man, or he would have had a full sex change. The whole story is a farce, is it simply a woman having a baby.
Maybe, YOU should read other posts before you spout crap and make yourself look a fool. Thank You:)
I understand that Thomas and his wife were offered a limited amount of control in return for exclusive access; in his position, I'd probably have done the same - if I lived in the US, where the media seem have more freedom to invade privacy then ours.
And if he couldn't avoid the attention, why shouldn't he enjoy it? Any bearded man can shave off his beard; most don't. Presumably because they like the look of a beard; what's wrong with that?
He's a man neurologically, and legally. Everything else is just an accident of birth.
Being TG may, or may not be a choice; transsexualism is not.
To suggest that a transsexual person 'should not choose to change sex' is as silly as suggesting that a person with appendicitis 'should not choose' to have an appendicectomy.
No, you're wrong.
Appendicitis is a physical condition.
Transexualism is a psychological one.
As is anorexia.
In your example, it would be like saying an anorexia 'should not choose' to eat.
After everything, transexualism is a psychological condition. The only physical effect will be the surgical removal or body parts. My comparision, being anorexia (though I could give more - BIID for example) is a psychological condition with the physical effect being starvation and it's effects.
Transsexualism is not a psychological condition; it's a congenital neurological condition.
Big difference.