How One Man – Who Used To Be A Woman - Gave Birth To His Own Baby

[naomi24]

//Freddy decided to carry his own baby after wanting to start a family, but he faced a highly unusual challenge – he is a gay transgender man.//

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-49596060/trans-and-pregnant-how-one-man-gave-birth-to-his-own-baby

I’m truly confused here. Where do a gay transgender man’s sexual preferences lie?

[ummmm]

Obviously I don't know many LGBT people but I've witnessed plenty of 'normal' families mightily eff up their children.

Did anyone read about the man who killed his 4 children because his wife wanted a divorce?

[naomi24]

No, Pixie, every parent doesn’t. Good parents don't burden children with their problems.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//but there's no reason, as yet, to believe that it's an increased risk, to raise children in a typical family of same-sex parents as opposed to an average heterosexual family. //

Love the "as yet". Says it all, doesn't it? Wonder if Jim read my step-mother post. This is the stuff of fairy tales. Except that they are not fairy tales. Cinderella and Snow White are many real girls with real and vicious step-mothers.

And there are many such who have real and predatory step-fathers.

Children are far more likely to cared for well by their natural parents than by surrogates. Why is this so difficult to understand?

And why is the casually referred to "risk" so equally casually disregarded?

[naomi24]

Ummmm, two wrongs don't make a right. I know gay couples who are raising children very successfully, but that doesn't mean that everyone's desires should be automatically accepted and applauded just because it's 'the thing to do'.

[pixie374]

Good parents never deliberately do, no. But unless you find two people perfect in every way, every parent will affect their children with their own beliefs, attitudes, morals.... deliberately or not.

[pixie374]

VE, children are statistically much safer with their natural parents. But not always. It is very difficult with humans, who are so different, to give any blanket rules. My stepdad was and is fantastic. My dad, rubbish. Not always the case, but everyone is an individual.

[jim360]

I wouldn't read too much into that, ve. I don't want to make definitive statements about something that is in any case very difficult to measure.

At the risk of being crass, far more children are harmed in superficially "normal" family structures, purely by virtue of their being normal. In that sense, yes, I can see why you might worry about the risk, but so far as I know there's no evidence to suggest that it is any different from the normal risks associated with parenthood.

[naomi24]

That's beside the point, Pixie. Life happens to us all but this person is inflicting her problems upon the child from the off - simply because she wants a baby.

I wish you'd stop responding to me. I've logged out twice - and then spotted your reply .... so logged back in. Gotta go to bed so trying again. Night night.

Err ...I might be back .... :o)

[pixie374]

I've never seen any evidence either. The biggest first detriment to a baby is an "unresponsive mother". Which is quite fashionable now. There is nothing to suggest that a "different" family unit is detrimental at all.

[jim360]

// Life happens to us all but this person is inflicting her problems upon the child from the off - simply because she wants a baby. //

Ah, that's a shame, you were calling them "he" before. I was pleasantly surprised :)

[pixie374]

Sorry, naomi lol... this woman should stop pretending to be a man... that much is obvious.
Anyway, good night x

[pixie374]

Jim, you are a scientist. You are well aware this is not- and never will be- a man.

[naomi24]

My mistake. People who give birth to babies are female. She.

[naomi24]

Night, pixie. I'm not looking again. :o)

[ummmm]

That's the thing, Naomi, he might not see things as a problem. Problem suggests unhappy and that isn't always the case!

[pixie374]

Problem suggests something is wrong. Not necessarily unhappiness. This is literally 'wrong' so I can see the point.

[vetuste_ennemi]

You're not seeing the point, Jim. Or, perhaps, and as usual, I'm failing to make it with sufficient clarity.

On the hand we've got the traditional set-up - the "nuclear" family consisting ofman wife and kids, and on the other an infinity of alternatives.

You have already accepted some of that infinity, not out of consideration of consequences (I suggest), but by means of ratifying your membership of the woke club.

Let's take another social experiment using children as guinea pigs. Would you be in favour of taking children away from their natural parents and rearing them in communes?

[jim360]

// Jim, you are a scientist. //

Quite so. These days, the scientific consensus is that gender identity isn't always the same as sexual identity. I don't dispute that biologically this individual is female, but the way they see themselves within society isn't the same.

But that's the very argument I was assiduously trying to avoid in this thread. We've battled over this topic enough. The only thing I would like to add is that using "you are a scientist" seems an odd way of leading into an argument that I must see how obviously wrong I am if only I had my scientific hat on. I said earlier how grateful I was that we'd been able to disagree on this issue while still respecting each other, but that's something you're throwing out lately that, I think, strains that respect a little.

[pixie374]

VE, you are changing the subject... there is nothing to say that children in a "nuclear" family are better off... it is individual.

[pixie374]

I don't think so, Jim. That certainly isn't my intention. I know you are fond of showing how many others agree with you for support, but I'm only interested in your own views. We all know that sex and gender don't always match.
That doesn't, and can't, ever change somebody's sex. I know you know this. I don't understand, honestly, why you pretend to think it does.
That is not meant to be disrespectful. I genuinely don't understand it.