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?

[vetuste_ennemi]

I think I'm on safe groundf in saying that the pinniped AB claque will be first on the side of fashionable opinion.

Later, sometimes a lot later, and sometimes never, the claque will consider possible consequences of the new morality which they bas enlightened sea-lions are forced to endorse.

[pixie374]

No idea. That didn't actually answer my question. Anyone who thinks a baby is a fashion statement or a financial asset, will very quickly see their mistake!

[pixie374]

You aren't really reading this, are you, VE?

[ummmm]

What exactly is the issue? Is it transgender? Sexual preference? Money? Or 'just' the well being of the children?

There are loads of gay people that have kids naturally! Some of them even got married before they came out!

[pixie374]

Many lesbians have children even afterwards. I know some... men are not shy about giving it away.

[jim360]

Not the first time recently v-e's gone off on one late at night. Dare say it won't be the last either. Wonder what prompts it. Sometimes they come almost out of the blue.

[pixie374]

Alcohol, maybe...

[vetuste_ennemi]

The point I was trying to make, Pixie, (obviously not very well) was that once you've redefined marriage (in many parts of Europe man/woman and monogamous going back to the Odyysseus and Penelope, i.e. three thousand years, the new "married couple" will start exercising their new rights as "parents": I want to adopt, give a child.

The real tragedy of normal childless couples is well-known, isn't it? To genuinely want children and be incapable of having them is very sad.

I personally am very lucky because my own mother died at the end of WW2 or shortly after and I was adopted by friends of hers who couldn't have kids.

But I don't trust the motives of the new niche group "families", and I fear the effects on children entrusted to their care.

[pixie374]

Children need stability, love, compassion, time, etc. I don't think that is limited to heterosexual married couples. Babies do need a -female- mother, yes. But they are my resilient also

[vetuste_ennemi]

(in many parts of Europe man/woman and monogamous going back to the Odysseus and Penelope, i.e. three thousand years)

is the parenthetic bit.

[naomi24]

//Anyone who thinks a baby is a fashion statement or a financial asset, will very quickly see their mistake! //

All too often at the expense of the child. I agree with ve. I too think there exists what has become a politically correct proclivity to approve without due consideration of the potential consequences and certainly without due consideration for the well-being of the child. This is really all about what the parent wants. The ‘right on’ are very wrong – in my opinion.

[pixie374]

You still didn't really answer, ve. You are all for unwanted babies being born... but not for those wanted in an "unconventional" relationship?

[pixie374]

That is certainly true in some contexts, naomi. But children thrive best being loved and wanted.

[jim360]

So far as I can see, far worse harm is done to children who are born of parents who, for whatever reason, don't want them, rather than of parents who very much do want them.

No doubt there's a risk of harm, 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. I agree that when you hear cases about parents aggressively raising their child to be gender-neutral, you wonder how much it's about the parents' wishes rather than the child's... but those cases are rare, and in any case, it can be equally dangerous if not more so to interfere from outside.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Let's take two traditional family units: one is mum and dad, the other is mum and step-father (or dad and step-mother).

Would you, Pixie, or anyone else, care to comment on the which of those traditional familial arrangements produce better outcomes for the child?

Are you aware of a rich literature which examines and answers my question?

Or of statistics relating to child abuse?

[naomi24]

//Babies do need a -female- mother, yes. But they are my resilient also//

That makes me angry. People who bring children into a life that demands resilience - just because THEY want a baby - are selfish to the core.

[pixie374]

I am very aware, ve... and the most important priority for any child, is being looked after and loved properly. There is evidence to show that children under 3 thrive much better with a female parent, who is tuned in.
But naturally, there are differences. I would prefer my children to be adopted (if they had to be) by a happy lesbian couple than an unhappy heterosexual couple. If you are assuming all things being equal... then they are equal....

[pixie374]

Every child needs resilience, naomi. That is why no parent and no child is ever perfect. Just "good enough". And those are literally the right words.

[naomi24]

//Every child needs resilience//

Indeed Pixie, but no one - absolutely no one - has the right to burden any child, from birth, with their problems. Wrong.

[pixie374]

Absolutely, but every parent does. The question is more... which are actually "problems".
Clearly in this case, a woman pretending to be a man is a problem. Heterosexual couples, there's no reason to believe so.